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.'"

14 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 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!

    4. 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."
    5. 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.

  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. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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