Slashdot Mirror
Friendster Patents Social Networking
Pontifex maximus writes "Friendster has said that as of this week, it has a patent covering online social networks. It applied for the patent before the company's downward spiral and recent growth." From the article: "'It's way too early to say' whether the company would pursue licenses and litigation from its competitors, Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told RedHerring.com. 'We'll do what we can to protect our intellectual property.' Though the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. 'Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,' said attorney Bill Heinze of Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley."
Then they'll buy out Kevin Bacon when he screams prior art.
Then they'll figure out that Moneybags Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace and go after News Corp. You know, News Corp, that generically named conglomerate of multiple money sucking companies?
There's not a lot of social networking projects that are open source or free to the communities. Every single one seems to be some ad revenue money grubbing scheme anyway. You have PeopleAggregator and maybe NovaShare though the latter doesn't really support degrees of separation searching.
I guess if MySpace & FaceBook went away tomorrow I really wouldn't care. What I do care about is the fact that this patent is just as stupid and obvious as the Amazon patent on "methods and systems of assisting users in purchasing items." Will we ever see these end? Probably not as long as the patent lawyers are milled out of "the world's finest educational institutions." Whatever happened to the peer to patent system the USPTO was going to use? Is this thing a failed idea already?
Boy I'd like to throw down some discussions on this patent.
My work here is dung.
Of course it's on that track... the lawyers are warming up in the bullpen. Expect a spate of lawsuits within the next 6 months, trying to milk money out of anyone and everyone who might even be thought to be violating the patent. As usual, the USPTO has totally overlooked how generic the patent is and once more a software patnet threatens to gum up the works. Two words: patent reform.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Actually, SixDegrees.com would be a great example of prior art. The company folded in 2001, a year before Friendster launched, and two years before Friendster applied for the patent (June 2003)
Before we talk and bitch about this company and how obvious it is, this is just another example to show broken the system is - this company is simply taking advantage of it.
Bureacracies always reach out and try to take more power - once patents simply protected implementations - now the patent office is reaching out to get a stranglehold on stuff like "business methods" and algorithms (math) and essentially ideas - many of them common sense to the problem being solved.
Patents are for society, not the individual. It's supposed to push progress forward by opening non-obvious ideas for everyone for a limited time. Not MONOPOLIZE obvious ideas for the benefit of one person against the rest of society.
To fix patents, we don't need more patent clerks (federal employees), we need to:
1. Go back to old way patents were done - which includes working implementation upon application. Thus ideas become unpatentable. Same with business methods. It will also render 90% all the unreadable legalese to obscure what you are patenting obsolete.
2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise.
3. Raise price to apply for patent to $5,000-50,000 depending on whether it is an individual, small company or large corporation (refundable only on recieving a patent) - while it may seem to screw the "little guy" it actually will kill corporations trying to patent every little thing. Even a little operation will be able to afford to patent 1 WORTHWHILE application, but will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time.
Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it.
5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that.
Your term "friend" is clearly derived from our company name "Friendster." See you in court!! >:) Sincerely, K. Lindstrom
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
From the article: the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it
I like the fact that he used the word "presumption," because the fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" qualifies as a fallacy of presumption.
The patent review process is broken. Searches for prior art and other such safeguards are not being enforced. The processes that would make a presumption of validity have any weight are not being followed.
In fact, a presumption of invalidity would actually be more warranted, given current patent processes.
This is bad.
The patent system has come to resemble the old English charters that granted the "right to trade with other nations" to selected merchants. Now it's "only" the right to enter one's own native economy and produce. My, how things have changed. And when it's not that bad, it's a lottery ticket for the lucky company that can sue the pants off of another.
On the bright side, nothing makes a typical lawyer's brain implode as quickly as having to justify software patents as not being patents on ideas themselves. An algorithm is just an idea. Yet we allow them to patent the algorithm in its abstract form. Imagine that. The whole idea of the patent system being violated because non-technical people just don't get it.
The arguments for these patents, that they benefit the little guy, almost sound like a bad attempt at "social justice" rhetoric from my fellow capitalists. Capitalism is not about the little guy, it's about property rights. It has no concept of fairness except allowing people to keep their own property secure. Screw all of the aforementioned crap. Let's truly maximize property rights with a new legal idea of "the right to make new property."
will corporate America still be able to afford to apply for 10's of thousands of trivial patents?
Yes. It will follow the same process that spamming does. They only need a marginal rate of return to jusitfy the expense.
$50,000/patent * 1000 patents = $50 million
One successful patent litigation = $500 million award
That is a 1000% return on investment.
They can then use the other 999 patents as leverage to bargain with the other large corporations.
I whole-heartedly agree with point #1 though.
Howdy folks! Come on in. I see your post count is higher than this here tiny signpost, so feel free to enter the patent house of horrors at Slashdot...
..." posts! You'll want to avoid these at all costs - most are obvious, and all are interchangeable - none are funny. If you proceed carefully around this corner, try to make out some of the "Prior Art" posts on the left, and there, on the right. These are often quite interesting. Did you bring your blindfolds (NetHackers I'm talking to you)? Good. Make sure you keep them handy when coming across posts that think Copyright, Trademarks and Patents are interchangeable. These can actually burn the eyes.
Oooh. Here comes the deluge of "Oh yeah, I'm going to patent
Remember, making your way around YRO Patent topics can be fun. Just tread cautiously and don't take anything too seriously. Especially off topic RIAA rants (those are just here to entertain) Enjoy the show!
I forwarded this to my work email group. Outlook's spellcheck suggested I change "Friendster' to "Fraudster." How apropos...