Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Ordered To Turn Over Source Code

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the revealing-trade-secret-super-poke-tech dept.

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.'"

33 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. this patenting thing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:this patenting thing ... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just to be safe, it's probably best to limit this story to just a single tag. Under no circumstances should anybody tag this story with multiple categories such as "patenttroll" and "getfucked" at the same time.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:this patenting thing ... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not how it works. The description is just a description of what a patent is for. There can be a hundred different methods to associate a piece of data with multiple categories, and each one can be patented separately.

      Now it may be that every single one of these is obvious and therefore non-patentable but you can't make that determination from the title.

    3. Re:this patenting thing ... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doing the opposite of what was said? I have a patent on that .. !

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    4. Re:this patenting thing ... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:this patenting thing ... by Per+Wigren · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but now it's on a computer!

      Err... nevermind.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    6. Re:this patenting thing ... by zoomshorts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in the day, BBS's had all of this plus eBay's auction functions et al.
      Prior art should invalidate most of this stuff. People who have adapted OLD
      ideas to the "new" age , are just assholes. 90 percent of all this was done
      on Bulletin boards before the internet became popular.

      It is time for all of us old timers to bring this silly stuff to an end!
      We saw or developed it before ANY of these newbies ever thought of it. Sned
      your prior art to the patent office!!! Most of it was copyrighted before
      many of these douchebags were born !!!

    7. Re:this patenting thing ... by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."

      Prior Art!

    8. Re:this patenting thing ... by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry, but I have the patent on putting my pinky at the corner of my mouth and demanding huge ransoms while laughing in a maniacal way.

      Oh, and it's usually 1 million, billion, fufillion, shabidydillion ... yen !!!

    9. Re:this patenting thing ... by ari_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you actually read the patent, which is something that the submitter appears to have skipped, it goes quite a bit further than just many-to-many database relationships. For something written in 2000, it is definitely novel. Whether it is appropriate for patent protection is debatable, of course, but it's not just a description of a relational database.

    10. Re:this patenting thing ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think women have prior art on that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:this patenting thing ... by ari_j · · Score: 5, Informative

      Addendum: I don't know when it was written, but the provisional application was dated 2002 and the patent application was dated 2003, with an issue date in 2006 - still before Facebook implemented the features that the patent claims.

      That said, the Facebook source code issue needs the following to be said:
      1. Discovery in the courts gets you access to anything unless it is protected by trade secrets laws or the like. I haven't read the order or anything, but it'd be outright insane if the judge didn't order that the source code not be used for anything but looking for patent violations. I have seen similar things done, with stiff penalties to the lawyers and to the parties for violating such an order.
      2. You don't need to look at the source code of Facebook to see whether it implements the invention described by this patent. You only need to create a user account. The patent doesn't seem to describe any algorithms, but rather a high-level information organization scheme.

    12. Re:this patenting thing ... by noundi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      You're right and that's exactly what everybody should encourage. Patent trolls are the best friends of those who dislike the patent system. I'll explain why. Nobody will care to reform a system which is quasi functional, but everybody, even lobbyists will push for reform on a system which is completely broken. If any Joe can sue the crap out of a major lobbying corporation for some silly patent you can be damn sure that the corporations will do anything to nullify this. And when the law is with Joe, the only thing left to do is to push for legislation change. So you see in a capitalistic world the absolute best way to make a change about anything is to show that the current structure is unprofitable for all major corporations. See it as "lobbying the lobbyists."

      --
      I am the lawn!
  2. Pretty absurd by skelterjohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Facebook should hire some of Diebold's lawyers. They're really good at keeping source private.

  3. what? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:what? by RawJoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" is simply how TFA summarized the patent. It's not that simple, patents rarely are. If you look at the patent in question, it has several claims that go into detail about the processes involved in their system. It's likely one of these processes that is the focal point.

      Now, are these claims patentable? I don't know. there is a lot of long-windedness in patent claims, and it depends on how borad or narrow they are interpreted. Obviously the examiner found them to be narrow enough to be patentable. I doubt it's as simple as a one-to-many relation in a database, because even though examiners miss things, they really wouldn't have missed that. Maybe the judge will overturn it though, if he reads the patent more broadly.

      --
      ?
  4. Well... by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Informative
    While TFS claims:

    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".

    TFA goes on to state:

    Facebook has requested that they must know, whether Leader offers products that practice claims of the patent-in-suit, however judge agreed with leader that it could be overboard to ask a patentee to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit.
    Moreover, Facebook has not cited authority that could support requiring a patentee to prove, through detailed claim charts. Facebook is entitled to know every Leader product or service that Leader contends practices any of the asserted claims.
    The court has ordered, within ten days of the following order, that Leader shall supplement its response to Facebook and disclose all products and services.
    Leader shall provide Facebook with a list of source code modules with respect to which it seeks production of technical documents no later than September 22, 2009.
    Facebook shall provide Leader with all such relevant technical documents no later than September 29, 2009 and Leader shall promptly complete its review of Facebooks Source code and technical documents to Facebook no later than October 15, 2009.

    So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Well... by webheaded · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, I get really tired of seeing articles like this, reading the actual article, and being a bit pissed off that they "got me" with their stupid summary. You'd think I would have learned better by now but the sad part is that most of these sensational things are entirely believable. It's really kind of depressing.

      On another note, who the hell writes these summaries? Do they just have really awful reading comprehension or does all the sensational shit just float to the top? I suppose it's a combination of those 2 things isn't it?

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
  5. Raise Your Hand If You've Violated This Patent by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've got both hands in the air.

  6. Re:How about patent reform? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we're on a reform kick in this country maybe we could undertake patent reform.

    Think of all the corporate money that is being thrown at killing healthcare reform in all it's different guises...

    and then multiply it by 200.

    That, my friend, is the reason it isn't happening. Find ways to reduce the corporate influence and money in these fights first and then there is a chance.

  7. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by tttonyyy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I tried to patent some code that checks submissions for stupid patents, but the patent office stack overflowed...

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  8. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know how this got modded insightful. Defendants in business litigation typically have to hand over the source code and other sensitive information (like sales data). The court simply issues a "protective order" limiting who can view the source code. Usually the protective order designates source code as "attorneys eyes only" meaning that only the requester's (Leader Technology) outside attorneys can view the source. Plaintiffs and defendants squabble over these issues as a way to drive up the cost of litigation and not because there is any risk that source code might be leaked and duplicated.

  9. Re:And you, slashdot by hoskeri · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here

    --
    Even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat
  10. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    It really doesn't matter if they do develop a social network site or not. There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.

  11. Most OSes fall under the claims of this patent. by bezenek · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  12. Did ANYONE even read the patent? by LS · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  13. Re:How about patent reform? by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Total health care spending is 17.6% of GDP. Nowhere near 200 times as much money could be involved in patents. :-)

  14. Laughable by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  15. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only reason facebook was initially popular was because it was for college students only. Once they allowed anyone to have a facebook page, it became the crap fest it is now.

    Interestingly enough, if the government created a database like facebook to track citizens, people would be outraged, but make it voluntary and it becomes the next new thing.

  16. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.

    I think what really drives Facebook is that it reached the critical mass to get a strong network effect.

    As you pointed out with the source code, there are numerous sites that could have served the role Facebook presently serves. I suspect this is a system that was destined to converge on one particular website, but was chaotic with respect to which site would get the crown.

  17. Get rid of software patents by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Patent infringement x 2! by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know how this got modded insightful.

    Slashdot is peer-moderated, which implies that the moderator may not be an expert (or even well-informed!) about the topic of a comment they choose to mod "informative" or "insightful". Duh.

  19. Re:American "Justice" by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely! The laws serve no other purpose than to allow multinational corporations to bully... uhh... other... multinational corporations?

    No, it allows more established corporations (and patent trolls) with large patent portfolios to prevent competition from young upstarts. Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction. They just cross-license their portfolios.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer