Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Ordered To Turn Over Source Code
consonant writes "A Delaware District Court judge has ordered Facebook to turn over ALL its source code to Leader Technologies, who allege patent infringements by Facebook. The patent in question appears to be for 'associating a piece of data with multiple categories.'
Additionally, while the judge in question deems it fine to let Leader Technologies look at Facebook's source (for a patent, no less!) in its entirety for a single feature, it would be 'overboard to ask a patent holder to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit.'"
Looks like all those "campaign contributions" had their intended effect.
Maybe one day someone will bribe our elected officials to do the right thing.
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
Facebook should hire some of Diebold's lawyers. They're really good at keeping source private.
Anyone wanna take bets on how long until Leader Technologies comes out with their own social networking site that looks very similar to Facebook, and gets sued for having some technology that infringes on a Facebook patent?
But seriously, shouldn't the court be trying to determine infringement, rather than letting the plaintiff view every piece of code Facebook has written? That's almost like saying "Microsoft infringed on 'using a scroll bar'; let Red Hat view all of the source for Windows so Red Hat can make sure it's not infringing." - if Windows were the only product Microsoft had. It's a crazy statement to make. In industrial terms, it sounds even worse: "Caterpillar might be infringing on a patent for 'method of transporting hydraulic fluid'; give Mitsubishi all of their blueprints for every one of their products so they can make sure it's not infringing".
If you didn't catch it, did you notice the 'obviousness' factor in those examples? Associating data into multiple categories seems pretty obvious, as databases have been doing just that for a long time.
So they basically claim they have a patent on the one-to-many Foreign Key?
"associating a piece of data with multiple categories"?
Are you kidding me?! So when I create a database table that allows me associate a record with multiple categories I'm infringing on this patent? Surely this isn't the whole story... could someone smarter than me fill me in please?
I am going to go patent taking a wiz in the morning. Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything.
TFA goes on to state:
So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.
Caveat Utilitor
Are those multiple tags I see against the summary?
Source, now!
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Of "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" sounds suspiciously like tags.
They'll come for slashcode next!
I've got both hands in the air.
While we're on a reform kick in this country maybe we could undertake patent reform.
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
After reading through the '761 patent, any operating system which initiates a user working-space at login, e.g., a shell, will fall under the main claim of this patent.
I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.
This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
Seeing these patent-trolling tards walking around downtown Wilmington.
Due to the extreme harm of allowing a potential competitor access to its family jewels, Facebook might try for an interlocutory appeal or asking that a court appoint an independent special master to examine the source code and determine if there is any code that is potentially infringing, and only allowing Facebook access to that code.
Interlocutory appeals aren't easy, but a special master might be easier to get, especially if Facebook offered to foot the bill.
Even if that fails, Facebook can ask that those who see the code be under NDA and be prohibited from doing anything related to software development for the plaintiff for a period of time without court supervision.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If this is part of Discovery, then the requirement to turn over the code should be to the plaintiff's attorneys, not to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff doesn't actually get to see it themselves.
At least, that's how it worked in SCO vs IBM.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Tagging posts here in ./ is clearly associating a piece of data (the post) to multiple categories (the tags). CmdrTaco, prepare yourself to disclose all ./ source code and to pay a hefty check to Leader Technologies.
I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent. The patent mentions nothing of the sort. The patent seems to be about maintaining metadata across multiple application contexts and updating the context appropriately. It seems pretty wishy-washy, and I think it is too broad for a patent. But it's nothing like the mirage that has got everyone here foaming at the mouth. It's NOT a patent for associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's more like a patent for a web application API framework, if I understand the gobbledy gook at all...
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Did ANYONE even read the patent? I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent.
It's a software patent, and therfor, to all of us not living in the United States, laughable.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That's an insane patent to have been granted. The fact that the patent holder is asserting that Facebook is infringing it without having seen their source code is extremely telling - the patent holder appears well aware that the patent (which should never have been granted) is so broad as to cover functionality rather than implementation and therefore anyone who appears to be doing what the patent covers is almost certainly infringing it.
It's as is the patent office granted someone a patent on cracking nuts as opposed to a specific nutcracker design, and the lucky patent holder would then be in a position to go after anyone selling shelled nuts on the grounds that they must have shelled them, ergo they must have violated their patent. Of course nuts, unlike software claims decribed in obfusctated legalese, are easy to understand. I'm 100% positive one could describe assigning a value to a variable in such a complex way, accounting for all possible implenentations, semantics, etc, etc, that some moron at the patent office would think it sounded like a highly technical and specific discovery and no-doubt patent worthy. I think I'll go apply for a patent of comments right now ("in the 42nd embodiment, a source code file, stored in EBDIC format on a USB storage device, embeds self-descriptive components, that will be automatically stripped by the FORmula TRANslation language lexical analyzer, ...").
Given how complex software is, and how difficult it is for lay people to understand it, and given that the patent office in granting things like this make it obvious that they do not have software experts examining these patents, it seems that the whole notion of software patents needs to be reexamined. They are really doing more harm than good, and the intent of patents to encourage innovation is being subverted rather than helped by software patents. The patent office doesn't seem to understand the process of software design/development at all.
Where I can ignore the insane US patent system.
Seriously, someone needs to explain the process of object-oriented
domain modelling, analysis, and design to the USPTO, and explain
how virtually every outcome of such a process is "obvious to a qualified
practitioner in the field." These patents on every "complicated-seeming"
computer system that uses basic symbolic modelling of a domain and
implements a few obvious methods on the objects, are ridiculous
beyond belief, and one can take no position on these patents
except to studiously ignore them.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Congratulations. You've described a rule 34 inspection almost perfectly! Sadly, I'm not even being humorous.
Oh, there is one minor difference though: a rule 34 inspection is normally used for something like a large machine that can't reasonably be delivered to the other side.
The rest of it is pretty accurate though. For one example, I was involved in a case where the other side was ordered to produce a copy of a floppy disk -- so they sent a Xerox copy. This was recently enough that even the judge realized that was a problem, and told them that they needed to send a copy of the contents -- so they loaded executables into a text editor (Notepad, to be exact), and printed them out -- in a font that didn't have characters for many of the codes, so about half of it was the Windows Empty Square Box. The best part was the (literally) couple of thousand blank pages where a padding character (or something on that order) happened to correspond to a form-feed...
Tactics like that can be dangerous though -- the judge clearly recognized what was going on, and didn't like it a bit. For the rest of the case, he didn't cut them a break on anything. At the beginning of the case, I'd told our clients that IMO, the facts only favored them by about 60:40 or so, but by the end, there was virtually no way we could lose (and we didn't). In his decision, the judge even commented on the "assiduous and ongoing dishonesty" of our opposition (I think I'm quoting that correctly -- it was close to that anyway).
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
First, the problem that they're attempting to address with this patent: when you create a document or receive an email, it's up to you to categorize that document or email by whatever context (category/job fuction/etc) is appropriate...like sales or engineering. Usually this is done by creating categorized folders to stick the files or emails or whatever into.
Their solution: When you're working on something on your computer (using their technology), you're doing so within a certain context. For example you might be working on Sales, Marketing, or Software Developement, etc. So if your current working context is Marketing, everything you create while in that context is automatically associated with Marketing. If you send someone an email, it's automatically tagged as related to Marketing, so there is no need for you or the recipient to stuff it into a Marketing folder for filing. When you switch contexts from Marketing to Sales, all the content you create is then tagged as Sales, so once again, there is no need for the user to organize their stuff.
It sounds like their idea also provides for things to be associated with multiple contexts, and workspaces can be created that cover multiple contexts, so things get tagged accordingly. Also, it allows for manual tagging.
I can't really think of how this applies to Facebook...and Leader Technologies doesn't appear to have an active product that does any of this. What do you guys think about my interpretation?
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.