Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Lets Amazon Patent the "Social Networking System"
theodp writes "After shelling out a reported $90 million to buy PlanetAll in 1998, Amazon shuttered the site in 2000, explaining that 'it seemed really superfluous to have it running beside Friends and Favorites.' But years later in a 2008 patent filing, Amazon described the acquired PlanetAll technology to the USPTO in very Facebook-like terms. And on Tuesday, the USPTO issued US Patent No. 7,739,139 to Amazon for its invention, the Social Networking System, which Amazon describes thusly: 'A networked computer system provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users. For example, in one embodiment, users can identify other users based on their affiliations with particular schools or other organizations. The system also provides a mechanism for a user to selectively establish contact relationships or connections with other users, and to grant permissions for such other users to view personal information of the user. The system may also include features for enabling users to identify contacts of their respective contacts. In addition, the system may automatically notify users of personal information updates made by their respective contacts.' So, should Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg worry about Amazon opening a can of patent whup-ass?"
Anonymous Coward likes this
He's gonna do all that and a bag of chips!
1) Buy company that "invents" un-patented technology everyone is using.
2) Patent said technology yourself, because the USPTO can't be bothered to actually think about what they are doing.
3) Wait for the other users of "your" technology to make a substantial amount of money.
4) Profit!
Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
My company in the mid 90's had an online resume system for internal postings that allowed people to post resumes anonymously, and hiring managers could share postings and information selectively based on whatever criteria they wanted, effectively filtering job seekers.
This is prior art.
There must be examples of prior art of SNS. Wouldn't ICQ fall under the terms of that description? SMS?
it appears that the declining quality of education in this country is reaching all the way to the patent registrars themselves. What a fine example of stupidity and.. dare I say.. incredible ignorance we have here. Honestly, who the hell hasn't heard of Facebook? Where do they find these people?
Constructive, eh?(c)(p)
Can someone please put an end to this constant stream of approval diarrhea pouring out of the USPTO?
I love this, I hope Amazon tries to sue every Social Networking like site out there! Then we can watch it crash and burn. Most likely, they'll just hold on to it and claim it's value. Possible go after small dogs to gain a few pennies. But I'd love to see them try to hit up Microsoft/Google/MySpace/Facebook and probably several dozen other sites.
Bezos has shown he will apply the patents whenever he thinks it benefits Amazon, having a taste of FB's profits would definitely benefit Amazon in a very big way. There really needs to be something done about the way that patents are being awarded for things that it seems obviously are outside the scope of the patent examiners. If the problem isn't the examiners, then the process definitely needs to be looked at. For all of the skepticism I've heard about some of the referred journals and conferences in computer science and related fields, it seems more difficult to publish there than to get a patent. That's not saying too much having read some pretty badly written published research. At least tech patents could expire on a pretty quick timeline if they are going to allow people to patent everything under the sun from ideas to genetic sequences. I'd love to hear the examiner(s) for this patent speak their case.
The damn patent reads like a high level specification of Facebook, and Facebook already had tens of millions of users in 2008. This is new heights of idiocy at the USPTO.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/cybernet-trademark-matter-uspto.pdf
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I worked for a start-up in the .com boom whose selling point was "self updating address book". It consisted of a web app PIM suite (email, calendar, chat, address book, etc) where each field displayed was available for access to "friends" etc. This was 1999. The original patent filing date looks like 1997 though, so is that prior art, and if not, why is a patent whose filing date was 1997 finally granted now?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
I don't even completely fault Amazon for this, the system is so broken that a company needs its own patent arsenal to defend itself from trolls. This one is really egregious, though.
I heard that Friendster also managed to get a patent on social networking.
The part of the patent posted in the article looks like the end. That's like patenting a Bicycle by saying it's a device with two wheels and some pedels which you can power to transport you places. Obviously that kind of patent would make not sense and there can be an infinite amount of bicycle designs which acheive the same goal but don't copy each other or rip each other off. In this case I highly doubt that Facebook actually took any code or even any major functionality from PlanetAll. I mean that's giving Facebook way too much credit. Basically Facebook was a dead technology until they went and merged a hack of Twitter's timeline in with their social networking system. Until they did that they didn't stand out from the pack at all.
Even the USPTO has its own Facebook page. Bizarre!
http://www.facebook.com/uspto.gov
Why does the USPTO need that when their own website is sufficient for posting information...
Or is social networking how the USPTO decides applications now ... get enough "Likes" and you're approved ;)
Ron
agree with most patents like these, as long as it was awarded I personally would not at all mind seeing some cash rich entity open a can of whup-ass on Zuckerberg, at the very least it would be some form of karmic payback for stealing ( as is alleged) the Facebook idea from the students who hired him to help them. Cheating is one way to win at business, but not at life and I will never applaud a cheat, regardless of apparent success.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
internet is social networking in reality (the transfer of information between individuals and groups), so basically Amazon have been given a patent for the internet, wtf crack monkey at USTPO let this one pass.
Isn't 2008 a little late for Amazon to be trying to crash this patent party?
The time limit for patenting after public sale or disclosure is one year. A judge would declare the patent invalid and throw this case out in five minutes. Minimal attorney fees will be involved.
IANAL, but I have seen a similar case thrown out where the patent was filed one year and three days after first sale.
...system provides various services...For example...
Various services? What am I doing sitting at work like a sucker? I should filling out a patent application for...oh, I don't know...teleportation! Everybody wants teleportation, right?
The system provides various services to transport an object from point A to point B. For example, it could do it instantaneously and invisibly.
Since everybody wants teleportation I just sit back and collect those licensing checks. Am I forgetting anything?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
To quote my friend who works for Amazon, "The "share on" facebook and twitter buttons below the summary should be replaced by the amazon smile ;)"
How long is it going to take before they stop allowing software and business practice patents? This is just getting silly.
I think we can just hail Amazon for bringing patent troll to new heights! They bought company, scrapped it... and came to senses 8 yrs later only so they can do a patent troll!
If that does does not make whole software patent mess obvious enough, I am sure some new Amazon will make even better exercise of it soon enough. We'll sit and wait while they troll each other and whole software patent system to ruin.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
I read the claims, and noticed that 2 specifies 'friend requests' are sent via email. I only mention claim 2, because while everything else is unavoidably broad, and vaguely worded, I am fairly certain that Facebook specifically does not do this. Does this help to exonerate them?
More generally, since I care not a whit for facebook, how many claims must one infringe on to be held to task? All of them? 50%? 1? Or is it ultimately, and entirely, up to a judge/jury to decide if you acted in good faith in the event that you get sued (similar to Fair Use)?
Software patents are clearly a huge mistake. The US should never have allowed them. They are costing business in the US a fortune and do nothing to protect the little guy inventor with the next idea that will change the world. They are simply a tax on innovation and must be stopped immediately.
This is a continuing application claiming priority to an application originally filed in 1997.
I wonder if Amazon has a "1-Click Ordering" system in place for patent licensing fees.
A networked computer system provides various services for assisting users in locating, and establishing contact relationships with, other users.
How long has 411 been using a networked computer system?
Couple things:
- The date to beat is Nov. 2, 1997, not the 2008 filing date. That is, art after Nov. 2, 1997 is not prior art.
From the patent: This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/022,089, filed Dec. 22, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,464 which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/780,486, filed Feb. 17, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,194,419 which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/348,355, filed Jul. 7, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,916), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/962,997, filed Nov. 2, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,269,369).
- The abstract of the patent, quoted above, is not the critical part. The claims are what determine infringement. Here, the claims are pretty broad and do seem to cover facebook.
-- Patent Attorney
having a geocities/or web page with links to your fiends pages which then contain links to other friends pages be the same thing? What about a webring?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Second, even if Planetall used a unique and patentable invention in 1998, it cannot be patented with an application filed in 2008. Here's a descriptive quote from the MIT Technology Licensing Office:
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
how many absurd examples and exploits will it take to make some of you realize that this thing, CAN NOT work ? 'logic' being patented in the climax ? if a=> b, and b=>c then a=>c being patented ? what ?
Read radical news here
I'm very pro-patents. I think they are necessary to spur new innovations in technology and, more importantly, share innovations with everyone as quickly as possible. Without patents, almost all manufacturing would be a trade secret, instead of the knowledge being spread world-wide as soon as a new invention arises. This, I think, is vital to our society.
However, the more I think about the nature of software the more I think software patents are unnecessary, even for the true innovations out there, and therefore actually harmful to progress. With traditional patents, what you get is a machine design, which by necessity must give you the "secret" to the innovation. That secret can be small, so long as it's new and non-obvious it's still worth copying. But with the current state of software patents, even if you read the patent you must still either re-create the patented idea from scratch, using the patent as nothing more than a direction (with no "secret" revealed at all), or you must reverse engineer the product to discover the secret for yourself. That doesn't spread the knowledge of the innovation at all, and does nothing to add incentive to the creators of a new innovation. In fact, thanks to patent trolls, it actually inhibits innovation in a lot of cases.
In my opinion, software patents need to either start coming with pseudo-code or be dismissed out of hand. All this bullshit of just listing a bunch of claims without any actual code behind it that can be applied by a software engineer is worthless. If the patent doesn't need any code for a competent engineer to re-create the product, then it's obviously not novel and should have been dismissed in the first place. Given the speed with which the software industry moves and strength of the open source movement, I think there is also strong evidence to suggest they are entirely unnecessary to promote innovation (which is what they exist to do).
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I for one applaud amazon's efforts at destroying the patent system by demonstrating the extent of its absurdity.
What exactly does this mean for the social networking giants like facebook? Are they going to have to pay royalty fees to amazon now every time someone writes on ur wall? This is a really bizarre patent issuance.
When a process runs amok and takes down the host OS, we don't blame the process. We blame the OS. The OS's job is to protect the host (and other processes) from errant processes.
While it's certainly unethical behavior, I don't think we should rush to blame Amazon for this and any of its future actions. It's like putting candy in front of a baby and getting upset when the baby reaches for it.
The patent system should be dismantled. It is obsolete.
Failing that, software patents should be unquestionably and finally ruled invalid.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
In my opinion, software patents need to either start coming with pseudo-code or be dismissed out of hand.
Read the "description" and you might find something like pseudocode. Certainly the diagrams in a software patent represent flowcharts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classmates.com
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm 33, have seen the rise of the dial-up BBS, Internet boom of the 90s, and still work in the IT industry. I don't have a MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter account. The only social networking that comes even close is Slashdot and the occasional postings on in other forums. Even so, I'm still relatively anonymous with the exception of what I tell you, and my online handle.
Is it me, or am I the only one that could get a rats ass about these social networking sites. Some how, I feel like *I'm* the odd ball here with all the hype surrounding these sites.
Life is not for the lazy.
Well lets see... there was sixdegrees.com in 1997. AOL... Usenet... prodigy... FidoNET...
Wake me up when they have destroyed each other.
I am anarch of all I survey.
Amazon bought another site and it's software. They didn't invent a fucking thing. IMO that should immediately make it impossible for them to have claimed to have invented anything. They may own it, but they didn't make it.
Just another example of our wonderfully and horribly broken patent system.
You realize that the patent is broad enough to claim /. as an infringer.
My BBS predates this patent, and had all the stated features. ( as did many others )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First there was the Who program that let you see who was logged on. Then Les Earnest wrote the Finger program which displayed their .plan file. This enabled them to share personal information like which high school they went to. Then you could send them E-mail or ttymsgs and talk about it. The Name/Finger protocol makes it work over the network. Social networking in a nutshell.
Assholes.
I piss off bigots.
And Facebook should really try to partner with Amazon or establish other agreements / arrangements to align the two company's interests.
The consequences for FB could be dire if Amazon decides to back a new social networking venture, and use their patent as leverage against the competition.... or...
Maybe since the social networking sites Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google buzz, Google Wave, Myspace, Orkut, Yahoo profiles, Frienster, eHarmony, delicious, ...., seem to be so popular these days, maybe there is money to be made, if not in pursuing lucrative *cough* extortio^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H licensing arrangements with these social networking websites, ..
Then by renting out the patent, or outsourcing 'Intellectual property rights monetization' to another company, preferably one located in the district of East Texas.
I can only wish and pray so much: but let us all hope that this is the last straw that broke the copyright' back. If you’re interested in knowing more I would suggest Shamans, Software and Spleens, Law and the Construction of the Information Society by James Boyle. Granted it's more of an educational book/ref book for college students. But it does shed light on much that is controversial in this topic.
One more beautiful example of why the patent system should be disbanded. Amazon is positively evil about this sort of thing.
RELATED APPLICATIONS This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/022,089, filed Dec. 22, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,386,464 which is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/780,486, filed Feb. 17, 2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,194,419 which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/348,355, filed Jul. 7, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,916), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/962,997, filed Nov. 2, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,269,369).
That last one is the prior art date - November 2, 1997. This predates Facebook, Friendster, and all that jazz by half a decade.
It was not "published", so is not prior art.
Let's spend more energy on this, instead of leading productive lives.
Cheating? He made it work.
To make social engineering work for you, you need incredible amounts of luck, devotion and investment.
Or just a bogus patent to swing your whip at businesses.
I find your "karmic payback" smack of hipocricy and laziness. When have YOU ever made ANY social networking site work? I highly doubt you are in the .1% category that made it work..
Software patents haven't missd anything. They don't think or act, just abused by huge corporations and troll lawyer firms.
I think what you're looking for is "copyright", and yes, the code should be revealed. Now it is still secret, and protected. The content providers of software get it both ways now.. Especially with the DMCA, even encrypted transmissions and storage are protected from altering or "unauthorized" access, even if you bought and "own" the device yourself.
"I think there is also strong evidence to suggest they are entirely unnecessary to promote innovation (which is what they exist to do)."
Mwhahahahahahahaaaahahaaaa gurgle... You had to make me spill my coffee up my nose, didnt you?
As if anything to do with patents nowadays is about sharing actual knowledge, and not squash competition and gain monopolistic favours. Hehe. Nice to see someone think straight, but the "business" out there, is more alike mafia, than actual enterprises. More like criminals and extorters, than service providers. Nice laugh though, wish it were true. Patents these days are not worth investigating, especially from the triple damages risked if you wilfully violate a patent..
Finally someone on Slashdot gets the patent game.
Which is, BTW, the real problem: you can file a patent application and keep rewriting it for a decade or more until somebody comes up with the same idea. Then you tweak the language to match perfectly and collect big-ass cash money. Software patents may be stupid, but the rules that allow this are Sarah-Palin-retarded.
I mean, where do they find examiners so BRAIN-DEAD as to approve these patents? It's almost incomprehensible that 21st century humans could be so ignorant and incompetent.
Slashdot is fond of finding patents that describe an invention in very broad terms and then say someone else did that. Whoever does that doesn't understand patents. Before complaining go to the section labeled Claims. A claim will contain a number of elements. If previous literature does every single one of those elements then the patent should not have been granted. Otherwise the patent holder can go after someone who does every single one of those things. If someone doesn't do even a single thing listed, then the patent is useless against them. There are many patents that should not be granted but only a small percent of what Slashdot complains about have anything to do with the real patent issue and needlessly inflame people.
Here's the claim for this patent:
What is claimed is:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving and storing personal data of a first user of a computer-based service, said computer-based service accessible to users over a network, said personal data specified by the first user; providing a user interface for users to establish contact relationships with other users of the service such that each user can have one or more contacts, said user interface enabling a user to identify other users of the service, and to selectively initiate the generation of requests to establish contact relationships with the identified users; receiving a request from a second user of the service to establish a contact relationship with the first user, said request submitted to the service over a network via said user interface; sending a notification of the request to the first user over a network; providing an option, in connection with said request, for the first user to grant permission for the second user to view at least some of the personal data of the first user; and in response to the first user granting said permission, providing the second user access to at least some of the personal data of the first user via a contact information user interface of the service, such that the second user is provided access to data that would not otherwise be accessible to the second user via the service; wherein the method, including receiving and storing the personal data, providing the user interface, receiving the request, sending the notification, providing said option, and providing the second user access, is performed by a server computer system.
But it's hard to read a claim, it's much more fun to flame without actually knowing anything you are flaming about. It's much more fun to complain about the education of patent reviewers than to actually find out what a patent is and be the slightest bit educated yourself.
I hereby patent the antisocial network. Now get off my lawn.
You are technically not allowed to add new matter to a continuing application. That means only things which were described at the time of filing of the priority application can be claimed. Of course a broad reading of the specification may allow for embodiments to be patented which were't necessaerily contimplated at the priority filing date but do pass the written description test.
Veramocor
... but I wouldn't mind if classmates.com got sued out of business...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Why are people allowed to patent obvious stuff? People were doing social networking in 1997 via the internet. Geocities? AOL Instant Messenger? ICQ? BBS? Tripod? Classmates.com? Any of these ring a bell?
What's that, 1E+09 boos?
You even fail at being a racist.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Everything referenced in the thread so far is from the description and abstract. What matters most is the actual claims. These can be quite narrow, especially given the cited prior art, however given the rapid time from filing to issue I would guess that the application went through without much push back from the examiners.
Claim 1 is pasted below. The other independent claim is Claim 13. All the other claims are dependent on these (narrower).
It will be interesting to see if this is challenged... but I suspect Amazon will first have to sue someone, since a patent is just that - a right to sue.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving and storing personal data of a first user of a computer-based service, said computer-based service accessible to users over a network, said personal data specified by the first user; providing a user interface for users to establish contact relationships with other users of the service such that each user can have one or more contacts, said user interface enabling a user to identify other users of the service, and to selectively initiate the generation of requests to establish contact relationships with the identified users; receiving a request from a second user of the service to establish a contact relationship with the first user, said request submitted to the service over a network via said user interface; sending a notification of the request to the first user over a network; providing an option, in connection with said request, for the first user to grant permission for the second user to view at least some of the personal data of the first user; and in response to the first user granting said permission, providing the second user access to at least some of the personal data of the first user via a contact information user interface of the service, such that the second user is provided access to data that would not otherwise be accessible to the second user via the service; wherein the method, including receiving and storing the personal data, providing the user interface, receiving the request, sending the notification, providing said option, and providing the second user access, is performed by a server computer system.
As a developer I am frightened every time I expose some code to the world. Who's patent have I infringed? If I make it so that a user's status is visible to others I can be assured that somebody has patented this. I would not be shocked if people have patents on things like logins and logouts, or a patent on centering things on a screen.
Now that the patent office basically has given away a patent that seems to cover facebook to perfection what technically stops Amazon from shutting Facebook down? People might say, "Hey facebook is big and will pile on the lawyers." but when Microsoft was even recently staring down the barrel of an injunction on further Office sales what the heck chance does someone small have?
Some patent trolls are looking to take a bite from the big pies but does everyone remember Blackboard Learning Systems? They used patents to kill competitors who "stole" their technology. In that case their patent was taken out and shot but not until they had killed a Canadian company with something like a 2.7 million dollar judgment. It was only after a huge internet quest was started for prior art that a single foul patent was curtailed. 1 down, 1 zillion to go.
Let's hope that the Supreme Court pulls the rug out from under all these patent trolls. I suspect that most viable companies with many software patents will breath a sigh of relief knowing that some team of lawyers in Texas won't be able to tax them ever again. Patents are supposed to be Non-Obvious to someone working in the field. Usually the great successes are not so much technological but a combination of balance and marketing. In a way patents often only provide protection to the failed ideas. I usually hear of patent lawsuits originating from patents that were created by companies that ended up face down in the dirt. Some law firm or competitor buy the patent for a song and starts ruining everyone else's day. I doubt that there is any part of Twitter that 100,000 slashdotters couldn't build 10 different ways and in many cases better than the twitter people. But what I suspect that most of us would have said, pre twitter, is that a 140 character blogging site is stupid. Might still say it but I wouldn't mind having a piece of that. But I wouldn't want to see them sued because someone has a patent on limiting a text field to a set number of characters, say 140.
email + dns (for affiliations resolution) - or am I just talking crazy?
another failure of the illegitimate obama regime /s
I'm seeing way too many of you who have no idea how the patent system works and what is considered prior art. 35 U.S.C. 102(b). If the invention claimed has been in public use more than one year prior to the patent being filed, a statutory bar exists. No patent rights can be obtained for it. "Prior Art" is anything that existed before the date of invention. It doesn't really matter in this case since a statutory bar exists. However, if this application is a continuation of a previously filed application, then the statutory bar may not exist. The way the intro is worded suggests it's a brand new app so this shouldn't be the case
Patent is granted.
Amazon gets a court order to halt facebook.
The public sees our flawed patent system.
Patent system gets reformed.
I don't see any problem with the software patents. They are the natural extension of capitalism - that allows people to profit from the multiple use of their inventions - virtual/electronic or otherwise.
If someone invents something (and has the good sense to patent it), they are entitled to profit from its use. Why should this not apply to software?
If you want to break the back of software patents, you're going to have to substantively alter the capitalist model.
I believe that abolishing IP is a great start. I'm not Chinese, and I'm not a software pirate. I just feel that people should not profit eternally from their inventions. They should profit from their efforts. Viva la open source model.
I am going to patent both planet-forming and planets in general. It will be about as easy as patenting "Social Networking System" and then I am going to boot all these asinine patent trolls of this planet. I will stipulate that Jupiter is "prior art", but that all the other planets are not, as I could not submit my patent within the proper time frame.
Surely Friends Reunited or Live Journal pre-date this by a long long time.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
So they've patented "Go out and meet people... but with computers?"
...would be when people gathered around a telegraph. Amazon is quite a bit late.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Or Diversi Dial, or Synergy Teleconferencing System, or Galacticomm...
A method by which protection is granted to novel approaches and products allowing an entity to enforce and profit for a given amount of time from the effort put into the approach and/or product and any enduring benefits of said approach or product.
Then I'll sue the USPTO
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
Tomorrow I'm going to apply for a patent on air. The USPTO will grant my patent. I will then force all of you to agree to a license to use air. Those who refuse will be summarily suffocated by my IP enforcement team. We cannot and will not be charged with murder as we are simply enforcing our patent. Thanks for the profits and otherwise illegal mayhem USPTO!
Is the US patent system patented? Or even patentable?
And now the Zuckerpuncher becomes the Zuckerpunchee!
Wellman (For A Social Network Analysis of Computer Networks), Jan. 1996, ACM, pp. 1-11. cited by examiner . .TM.Organizer," 3Com, pp. iii-v, and 1-12 (Apr. 1998). cited by other .
Kautz et al (ReferralWeb: Combining Social Networks and Collaborating Filtering), Mar. 1997, Communication of the ACM, vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 1-4. cited by examiner .
"1997 Edition GS Lotus Organizer/Exploring Organizer/Windows 95 edition," pp. iii-vii and 8-1-8-6. cited by other .
"Applications Handbook For the Palm III
"Symantec ACT! User's Guide and Reference, Version 2.0 For Windows," pp. ix-xvi and 3-11-3-26. cited by other .
"Information about Lotus Notes from the Lotus Web Site (www.Lotus.com), " pp. 1-13 (Apr. 1998). cited by other .
"Domino 4.6 Features Overview," Jul. 1997, 2 pages, www.lotus.com/domino. cited by other .
"Yahoo! White Pages," Copyright 1994-1998, Yahoo!, http://www.yahoo.com/. cited by other .
"WhoWhere?," Copyright 1995-1998, Who/Where? Inc., http://www.whowhere.com/. cited by other .
R. Tamura, et al., "Lotus Notes 4," pp. 39, 64-65, and 176 (1996). cited by other .
Cardwell, "Cyberscene Planet Keeps You in Touch," Dec. 1996, Boston Herald Boston. cited by other .
Day, "New Software Tracks Corporate Travel Plans," Jan. 1991, Denver Post (Denver, CO,US), V99 N153 sC p2, Dialog File 63 Accession No. 0187621. cited by other .
Wetzel, "Municipally-owned venues feel brunt of city budget cuts," Aug. 1991, Amusement Business, v103, n31, p3(3), Dialog File 148, Accession No. 05427255. cited by other .
"Should manufacturers try to establish rapport with their agents' other principals," Mar. 1995, Agency Sales Magazine v25n3, pp. 13-15, Dialog File 15, Accession No. 00988855. cited by other .
Smith, "Companies Meet Each Other at the Airport," Jul. 1995, The Los Angeles Times, ISSN: 04583035. cited by other .
Gerety, "Whose Job Is It Anyway?; Meetings As a Subset of Travel: Yes or No?," Apr. 1992, Business Travel News, ISSN: 8750-3670. cited by other .
Brisson, et al., "Lifeco Puts Pre-Trip Control in Travel Managers' Hands," Mar. 1991, Business Travel News, ISSN: 8750-3670. cited by other .
"PlanetAll plans to Make a World of Difference in Busy Lives," Nov. 1996, PR Newswire, pp. 1113NEW025. cited by other .
"Fall Internet World '96 Exhibitor Previews," Dec. 3, 1996, Business Wire, p. 12030220, Dialog File 16, Accession No. 04716024. cited by other .
Answer and Second Amended Counterclaims of Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. in Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc. (C.A. No. 06-491-MPT). cited by other.
hi!
Is there leeway for the judge to decide that while you may infringe, the claims you infringe upon are ridiculously broad?
If by "ridiculously broad" you mean "predicted by the prior art at the time the patent was filed" or "obvious to a person skilled in the art who was familiar with the prior art at the time the patent was filed", then yes. We just have to prove that this stuff was obvious in the dial-up era, when the first patent in this chain of continuations was filed.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving and storing personal data of a first user of a computer-based service, said computer-based service accessible to users over a network, said personal data specified by the first user; providing a user interface for users to establish contact relationships with other users of the service such that each user can have one or more contacts, said user interface enabling a user to identify other users of the service, and to selectively initiate the generation of requests to establish contact relationships with the identified users; receiving a request from a second user of the service to establish a contact relationship with the first user, said request submitted to the service over a network via said user interface; sending a notification of the request to the first user over a network; providing an option, in connection with said request, for the first user to grant permission for the second user to view at least some of the personal data of the first user; and in response to the first user granting said permission, providing the second user access to at least some of the personal data of the first user via a contact information user interface of the service, such that the second user is provided access to data that would not otherwise be accessible to the second user via the service; wherein the method, including receiving and storing the personal data, providing the user interface, receiving the request, sending the notification, providing said option, and providing the second user access, is performed by a server computer system.
13. A computer system that provides a service to users over a network, said computer system comprising a processor and a memory, an being programmed, via executable program instructions, to perform a method that comprises: receiving and storing personal data of a first user of the service, said personal data specified by the first user; providing a user interface for users to establish contact relationships with other users of the service such that each user can have one or more contacts, said user interface enabling a user to identify other users of the service, and to selectively initiate generation of requests to establish contact relationships with the identified users; receiving a request from a second user of the service to establish a contact relationship with the first user, said request submitted to the service over a network via said user interface; sending a notification of the request to the first user over a network; providing an option, in connection with said contact relationship, for the first user to grant permission for the second user to view at least some of the personal data of the first user; and in response to the first user granting said permission, providing the second user access to at least some of the personal data of the first user via a contact information user interface of the service, such that the second user is provided access to data that would not otherwise be accessible to the second user via the service.
hi!
Did anyone else see how that definition of a social network can easily be abstracted to the internet and its remote hosts?
Would you hug a bear?
Dear Patent Attorney,
Please explain to us what is the reason behind allowing a company to modify a patent years after it was filed and have the modifications effectively backdated.
Or am I missing something?
a.