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

One-way-public relationships?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call prior art when I had a crush on this girl who blew me off.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[ae1294]

I call prior art when I had a crush on this girl who blew me off.

no no you are thinking about the 'stalker patent'.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[Monkeedude1212]

I dunno, a girl you like giving you a blow sounds pretty mutual.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[ae1294]

p.s. I think that one was held by SCO. I wonder who bought it at their fire sale?

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[tverbeek]

Not if she doesn't call you like she promised.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if she doesn't call you like she promised.

Ah hahahahahahahaha... women actually doing what they said they would do. That's a good one. Whew. Thanks, I needed a gutlaugh.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because men never do that, do they?

Only because women don't respect a guy who keeps his word. They think that's boring. So yeah this also goes back to the way women are. Nice try though.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[JSG]

No no - in English, being blown off is a sign of endearment and rather pleasurable (for a man).

Its something that probably doesn't often happen with members of the opposite sex for /.s 8)

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[ae1294]

No no - in English, being blown off is a sign of endearment and rather pleasurable (for a man).

Its something that probably doesn't often happen with members of the opposite sex for /.s 8)

If it's a sign of endearment then why do I have to pay 40 bucks to the girl down by the overpass?

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[Nyder]

I call prior art when I had a crush on this girl who blew me off.

But did she swallow?

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[davester666]

That was NOT a girl.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[Vitriol Angst]

Well, I'm going to Patent the "Fan Restraining Order" -- so Microsoft will have to go before a judge and pay a fine due to Contempt of Court every time their Fan technology "pokes" my "FRO" technology.

They will have to give their Fan patent to some patent free organization, just to remove the billion and one FRO fines I could generate in a day!
It also negates any "Stalker Patents" as you know, they have to be about 500 feet away from any FRO location, and of course, the neighborhood Day Car -- damn creeps.

Re:One-way-public relationships?

[ae1294]

That was NOT a girl.

Hey! Post-Op COUNTS damnit!

U2 has a fan?

[Timewasted]

I figured they could afford air conditioners.

Re:U2 has a fan?

[Mitchell314]

Nah, I've heard rumors that there's somebody who likes them.

In a Related Story

[cosm]

Slashdot Lays Waste To Fans of Patents

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:They must think their chances are good

[morgan_greywolf]

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

That's exactly why a first-to-file system would be worse than what we have now. I could file a patent on, say, "system of transportation involving round things mounted on a spindle" and totally pwn the entire auto industry, having invented exactly nothing.

Just what we need, a patent system that makes more money for lawyers.

patently

[tverbeek]

The one phrase that best describes this is "patently obviously".

"Like"

[MrEricSir]

Steve Ballmer and 2 other people like this.

Re:"Like"

[Dolphinzilla]

I wish I'd hung onto those mod points !

Re:"Like"

[Monkeedude1212]

Oh come on people, we saw this joke coming a mile away.

Bury it.

Re:"Like"

[93 Escort Wagon]

Speaking seriously (although I liked the joke) - I wonder, if Facebook and Microsoft are partners, why Facebook made the change from "Fan" to "Like" last year?

Re:"Like"

[genghisjahn]

You mean this?

"The two companies said on Wednesday that Microsoft would pay $240 million for a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/technology/25facebook.html

Re:"Like"

[masterwit]

Personally I just want the "Hate" button. So I can show my hatred for all the stupidity on the web without having to comment. Would save us all a little bit of stress/work eh?

If This Gets Rejected...

[Scarletdown]

If this patent gets rejected, will Microsoft and the Patent Office find themselves on each other's Freaks list?

Not a fan

[Andy Smith]

I really, really, really, from the bottom of my heart, with a stomach-churning sickness and bile rising in my throat, hate this trend of trivial and obvious technology patents. They all boil down to the same thing: "We saw someone else doing this, and we think it's a good idea, so we want to be the only people that are allowed to do it from now on."

Re:Not a fan

[Zumbs]

We saw someone else doing this, and we think it's a good idea, so we want to be the only people that are allowed to do it from now on.

Quick! Patent that idea before someone else beat you to it!

Stalker Patent

[clang_jangle]

"The Stalker Patent" is exactly what I thought when I read

"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

Boo

[RManning]

That's it, I'm going to go unfan Microsoft in Facebook.

Whew

[rossdee]

I was getting worried they were patenting a rotating device used to blow air to cool things. Essential for modern computers...
(BTW most air conditioners use fans too.

Re:Whew

[X0563511]

No shit.

Some obvious prior art

[dkleinsc]

Right here.

You'll need a licence to do that

[Crudely_Indecent]

In other news:

Microsoft files patent for 'One-Way Public Malice' in social networks and other online properties, lawyer-speak for what's more commonly known as 'hating' something online.

I claim Prior Art from Deep Purple

[WillAffleckUW]

As I recall, I was a member of their online Fan Club, and the software for that was copyright.

We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses.

http://www.friesian.com/rent.htm

Because rents are the easiest and most secure kind of income, it is natural for people to want income from rents rather than principally from profits or wages, and to want rents that involve the least risk and labor as enterprises. This motive is called "rent-seeking," and there is nothing wrong with it. Indeed, those who collect rents in an economy serve the valuable function of seeking to maintain and preserve capital assets [1]. It becomes wrong when rent-seeking means trying to collect rents off of capital that is not the rightful possession of the rent-seeker. This can be legally accomplished through the means that secure the rights of property in the first place: politics and the law. Through political influence people can be given ownership of things that are not their property, or should not be anyone's property. The theory of rent-seeking began with the economist Gordon Tullock.

"Theft" of intellectual property is in some situations, the proper, sane and moral response to systematised and institutional abuse of the limited monopoly granted to ideas and expressions for the original intent of fostering creativity and innovation. Once "intellectual property" becomes for intents and purposes indistinguishable from real estate, it represents a form of abusive coercion which misplaces rent-seeking behaviour as the objective of granting patent and copyright - not the incidental incentive for works of interest in common.

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.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[ushering05401]

First, I don't believe you are actually addressing the point made above. 'Rent' is a commentary on the intersection of interest with the origin/dynamic of capital acquisition/maintenance. A more software relevant example would be in the question of what qualifies as rent now that software is making the final transition to Public Good status.

As far as I can tell, m00t has an idea that rent is paid by originality - see the 4chan cancer problem. Linus feels that rent is paid by people that choose to find their own interest in his company. Taco apparently thinks rent is paid by not abusing his board too heavily. All of these forms of rent have other facets that result in income - the evolution of content through distributed action, large scale data sets demonstrating patterns of attraction, the reputation/rank/tradition that establishes advertising desirability.

On the IP side of things a more accurate translation to real estate terms would be that your $100,000 home improvement only costs that much because of collusion between the builder, the material suppliers, and the governing authorities. IMHO the IP players are price fixing in an attempt to keep their industry from collapsing into Public Good status. I can prove this by the fact that the cost to infringe upon a lot of IP is sitting down in front of your computer and programming something in an obvious way, then finding out via a lawyer that you have violated IP rights. With a cost of infringement that low the IP is demonstrating its invalid nature.

Until I really got involved in Linux I was more tolerant of tech IP. When your base OS is only a suggestion of packages that work well together, and it is your job to customize the computer, you end up realizing just how many patents you are violating with nothing more that custom configuration of existing libraries and basic knowledge common to the field.

Long story short, Rent becomes a metaphysical concept where we are going. There isn't much to do about it, people want to eat and more are learning to grow their own every day. Did that even address the point? Not sure. Hope so.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

By the time a particular design is patented, it's undergone a lot of refinement from a simple idea.

You seem to be rooted firmly in the 1970's.

Animation delivered in the context of HTML/HTTP
One-Click
Dating via photos
"One Way Public Relationship"

Also, duration. Patents were 12 years, when I were young. No one owns an idea. It is the distorting cult of narcissism, which has eaten a hole through the middle of this civilisation, to believe such.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Bob9113]

Very well formed and supported post. Thank you!

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Sarten-X]

What does the 1970's have to do with wanting returns on my investments?

Animation delivered in the context of HTML/HTTP

I honestly don't know what this is referring to. Perhaps it's the LZW patent, representing 6 years of theoretical work into compression algorithms, and only coincidentally used for GIF images. If it's something else, please let me know.

One-Click

Upon re-examination by the USPTO, Amazon's patent covering placing an online order by a single action was determined to have about a quarter of its claims novel. Upon resubmission, the revised patent, including methods for client identification and authentication, were accepted. The patent also includes specific designs and workflows for storing credentials securely on a server for use later, without violating security policies.

Dating via photos

It's not just dating via photos. It's psychological research into what features people tend to find physically attractive, combined with the latest research into facial recognition algorithms. Rather than saying "Find me a girl who describes herself as pretty", you can pick a few girls you like, and the software will find others with similar features, including other preferences as well. Sure, it's shallow and biased, but it's much closer to how humans themselves behave. An important milestone in digital image processing has been reached, as the result of many many hours of research. Should that not be rewarded?

One Way Public Relationship

The important part of this patent is not the "relationship" aspect. It's actually the "one-way" part. Particularly interesting is claim 15:

15. A method as described in claim 14, wherein the one or more one-way public relationships enable the user to express interest in the objects without establishing mutual friend relationships with owners of the objects.

Facebook and Twitter have taken the approach of showing mutual relationships (or at least they did when I last paid attention to them). A college kid with more alcohol than intelligence sets their profile picture to be an obscene gesture. They like a well-known children's book. When some other user goes to the book's page, they are shown the list of fans, complete with obscene gestures.

Even without showing that mutual relationship on the company's page, the information is still stored internally, and may be easily accessible to third-party applications. That's a bit of a privacy problem, isn't it?

Microsoft's technique sidesteps the privacy and reputation issue completely, by only building a list of one-way relationships, and never a reversal (as in claim 18). Is it obvious to a software engineer? Sure, in retrospect. Every time a Facebook user annoys a Facebook employee, what stands in the way of a conveniently embarrassing leak?

There is no requirement that patented solutions be particularly difficult. Even the simple realization that relationships should be stored one-way brings a slew of problems. Popularity can no longer be directly measured (without making the database uglier). Sending notices to a particular entity's fans becomes much harder, since there's no central list of users. There's effort involved, and such effort should be rewarded.

Patents were 12 years, when I were young

And what country was that in, out of curiosity?

Patents were 12 years, when I were young. No one owns an idea. It is the distorting cult of narcissism, which has eaten a hole through the middle of this civilisation, to believe such.

To believe what? That patents lasted 12 years? I don't see the point you're trying to make.

It's irrelevant to the current issue, but I think software patents should have shorter life spans. Of course, that has its own problems.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Sarten-X]

Once "intellectual property" becomes for intents and purposes indistinguishable from real estate, it represents a form of abusive coercion...

...which is another opinion.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Vitriol Angst]

So what you're saying is;
The Microsoft "Fan" technology,
and Amazon.com's patent on "single-click purchases", was this HUGE investment in time and labor, and if they couldn't patent these things, we would not be creating an incentive for such geniuses to spend the 5 minutes on the toilet coming up with them?

I think perhaps, we should ACTUALLY have patents that require at least three trips to the toilet in Labor before we allow a patent -- otherwise we lower the bar, so to speak.

>> Facts destroy so many good opinions, and you know, some of those facts get destroyed because they are based on theories -- so then we get new facts to destroy new opinions. In Fact, all our scientific Facts started out as opinions -- it's kind of like how the adult fish all eat the baby fish if you leave them in the same tank.

Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers

[Sarten-X]

What I'm saying is that these things involve effort, and unless you were personally involved with the projects, you are in no position to dismiss them as trivial.

I've worked on a few patents myself. One in particular took all of 15 minutes to get the basic idea, and six years to get details worked out to the point of being "almost" patentable. Last I heard, the cost was almost $100,000. When the patent's done, it will read as something completely simplistic and obvious, along the lines of "take X, map to Y, compute Z, map back to X".

So if there's a particular limit on effort involved, where do you draw the line? 300 man-hours? 100? 5?

How is some arbitrary limit on "labor" supposed to prevent lowering the bar? Instead, it just raises the cost of stupid patents, because now there's a minimum about of wages that need to be paid to researchers, even for simple patents that will be predecessors to others.

>> Facts do not start out as opinions. Facts are unchanging truths of the reality we live in. Whether they are known to humans or not does not change their truth. A fact, observed through the biased eyes of an opinion may or may not be recorded truthfully. It's kind of like how yellow fish look chartreuse when the water's green. Replacing the water helps, as long as the new water's more clear.

To restate my signature in the same analogy: Cleaning fish tanks reveals so many brighter colors.

Patent algorithm

[Andy Smith]

public static void patentIdea(Idea i) {
  // if (!i.ours) return;
  i.ours=true;
  if (i.hasMoneyMakingPotential)
    i.patent();
  else
    i.patentAnyway();
}

(What's really sad is that I pasted the code in to Eclipse to check for syntax errors.)

One-Way False Information Relationships

[handy_vandal]

My patent for "One-Way False Information Relationships" amounts to "I'm lying to all of you."

Just ask my ex-wives and -girlfriends -- they'll tell you all about my "One-Way False Information Relationships".

Mod Parent Up

[PhrstBrn]

This is the first thing that came to my mind...

Re:Mod Parent Up

[sconeu]

[AOL] Me too [/AOL]

How much do I owe Ballmer? According to my Fans tab, I have 38 fans (as of this post).

Patent idea for microsoft

[xednieht]

"'One-Way Public Relationships' in social networks and other online properties, lawyer-speak for what's more commonly known as being a 'fan' "

Microsoft should patent assholes too, layman-speak for what's more commonly known as being a lawyer.

Enough is enough already: abolish the USPTO

Re:Patent idea for microsoft

[Dachannien]

Enough is enough already: abolish the USPTO

This is still just an application. It hasn't even been examined yet. If you're going to spew hate over this, point it at Microsoft, and give the USPTO a chance to do its work.

Re:Patent idea for microsoft

[MadMaverick9]

USPTO a chance to do its work

You call reading stuff like this, "work" ??

people who make cars, work.

people who make houses, work.

people who read stuff like this patent ... foobar.

Re:Patent idea for microsoft

[Dachannien]

You call reading stuff like this, "work" ??

Proudly.

Re:More prior art than you can shake a stick at

[blair1q]

People have been subscribing to mailing lists a lot longer than that.

(N.B.: This patent isn't really about the relationship. It's about the method for causing the relationship to occur such that the information can subsequently flow, and a particular method at that, and a particularly confusing one at that.)

First Call on this Patent

[foolish_to_be_here]

Your all witnesses. I wish to lay claim to patenting the act of patenting the obvious. While at it I wish to patent the act of posting to Slashdot. Pay up my pretties.

Speaking of rent...

[lavamind]

Rent Is Too Damn High!

Nice

[thestudio_bob]

All the Andriod, Apple, Linux, etc. fanbois are going to have to start paying MS.
Pure genius Mr. Ballmer, pure genuis!

p.s. If you can't beat em, patent their fanbois.

Patenting Fans?

[Jahava]

Patenting fans? Not cool, Microsoft... not cool.

first-to-file system?

[nurb432]

So in effect, cementing the power for the people with the money.

fuckmicrosoft.com

[xjlm]

Unfortunately, the domain is dead. You can still see its former glory on archive.org though.

Re:fuckmicrosoft.com

[Jerry]

The archive for that web site is here

That's it.

[interval1066]

My patent cortex just hemorrhaged. I'm dead. Bury me in a Microsoft-shaped box.

sure, they can have it

[n_djinn]

Yeah, I would have to agree Microsoft does have a "One-way Public Relationship" with it's customers (how could I let that one go?).

Not A Fan of this

[ackthpt]

And I think I need to patent that before all you cheese weasels cheat me out of my due lucre.

Slashdot's take

[gringer]

From what I gather from the /. user page, friends are people who you think you like, and fans are people who think they like you. For example, I currently post on /. using a two-fan system.

Re:Slashdot's take

[Johann Lau]

Here, have one more! =D

It's as if...

[Rob Y.]

It's as if they were trying to file the most ridiculous patent they could think of just to prove the system's broken, and it got accepted. Because the system's so broken it doesn't even get the joke.

Re:It's as if...

[ushering05401]

The system gets the joke. They also have to live with the consequences of change. At this point any IP changes will make a global impact, and must be considered both as Domestic and Foreign Policy.

I hate it too. Find thanks in the fact that we are not waking up to this steaming pile on our plate each morning. Someone is, though.

Re:It's as if...

[noodler]

"...and must be considered both as Domestic and >Foreign Policy."

Yeah, good luck with that...

Like that "friends" BS ever made any sense?

[Johann Lau]

take notes lam0rs, patent pending haha!

Our tax dollars at work...

[johosaphats]

I think US citizens should have the right to sue assholes that steal our tax dollars by doing stupid crap like this. Of course, I'm claiming the patent on that one.

Re:Our tax dollars at work...

[Dachannien]

Actually, the USPTO is entirely funded by the fees it collects from those seeking and holding patents, so your tax dollars don't get involved.

In fact, potential and current patentees have more justification to complain, because Congress routinely takes a portion of those fees and diverts them to other miscellaneous purposes unrelated to examining patent and trademark applications.

You can tell Microsoft must be desperate...

[avatar139]

...If the only way they can get fans is by filing a patent claim!

Don't Worry...

[IonOtter]

Once Microsoft and Facebook find out that the furries are also known as "furry fans", they'll drop the claim.

And run away, screaming.

Re:America

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
--David Korten

Hopelessly stupid....

[TechNit]

Our patent system is hopelessly fucked up. I am going to patent "submitting hopelessly stupid patents" then sue all these lazy/greedy trolls!

Re:First to file ? Then microsoft should be first

[Dachannien]

You misunderstand "first-to-file", then. The term is only applicable to using other patent applications to reject claims based on the filing dates of those applications, under 35 USC 102(e), and for interference purposes under 35 USC 102(g). Regular published prior art would still work the same way it does now.

New and Novel

[sincewhen]

I can see how having people like you could seem new and novel to Microsoft.

Directed Graph... With Humans!

[Bob9113]

'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.

This is also lawyer-speak for what is more technically known as a directed graph.

I thought the patent system was broken for allowing any half-wit to staple "... on the Internet!" onto an existing idea and be granted a patent. Now they're giving patents for "A directed graph... with humans!" The user interface, storage, and processing of directed graphs are a significant part of computer science history, and trace their heritage to before the Unix epoch. There is no technical invention here, nor by Facebook in 2007. You should as easily be allowed to patent "1 + 1 = 2... with humans!" and go sue anyone who is married for infringement.

Re:First to file ? Then microsoft should be first

[unity100]

yes, so i invent something in my basement, my local hometown knows about it, but some schmock in some other state files it, and he has the thing is it .

how so very logical and rational.

Re:First to file ? Then microsoft should be first

[avatar139]

You misunderstand "first-to-file", then.

No, actually you misunderstood my post, as it was intended to be funny...Much as it pains me to admit it, however, it clearly didn't succede in that regard as I've now had to explain it to you. :(

Don't worry though, next time I'll make sure to use the humor tag when posting to prevent confusion!

LiveJournal had it first

[boutell]

LiveJournal has always permitted one-way "friend" relationships, helpfully distinguishing the "mutual friends" for you. This patent is just silly.

A "first to file" system wouldn't be completely disastrous provided that evidence of prior art was still enough to scuttle the patent.