Microsoft Lays Claim To Patent On 'Fans'

theodp writes "A USPTO filing made public Thursday reveals that Microsoft is seeking a patent for something it calls 'One-Way Public Relationships' in social networks and other online properties, lawyer-speak for what's more commonly known as being a 'fan' of something online. It's unclear whether it's a goof on Apple, but Microsoft curiously used the example of a U2 fan named Steve to explain its 'invention' to the USPTO. Purported patent reformer Microsoft, which has called for the US to change from a first-to-invent patent system to a first-to-file system, filed the patent application in July 2009. Microsoft is a partner with and investor in Facebook, which first established its fan pages back in November 2007."

Comments

They must think their chances are good

[Anonymous Coward]

They appear to be filing patents of prior art with the intention of getting patent law changed to a first-to-file system in the future.

If they succeed in getting the law changed, they then get to sue the inventors of the technology for violating their patents.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Sarten-X]

pre-existing... resources

By the time a particular design is patented, it's undergone a lot of refinement from a simple idea. That investment of time and labor is significant, usually taking several years and/or tens of thousands of dollars. It certainly constitutes a "contribution to productivity". The patent holders seek repayment for their work (like wages), rather than "rent", and indeed some don't even seek monetary returns at all (as with Google's MapReduce patent). To take your real estate analogy to its logical conclusion, you're assuming that all buildings and landscaping are magically preexisting, and there's no investment in the property. In reality, real estate is sold based on its preexisting natural condition and also whatever improvements have been made. A $100,000-dollar improvement to a home may only raise the value by $75,000. Is it wrong or abusive that those who want to stay in such a building short-term might pay to do so? Is it wrong that by appealing to many people who all want use of the building, a landlord may recoup their investment?

Intellectual property has a significant intellectual component. Nullifying the chance for such an investment to be returned is abusive.