Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Lays Claim To Patent On 'Fans'

Posted by Soulskill on from the patent-trolls-are-a-fan-of-this dept.

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."

9 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. One-way-public relationships? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:One-way-public relationships? by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      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'.

  2. "Like" by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Funny

    Steve Ballmer and 2 other people like this.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. If This Gets Rejected... by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  4. Not a fan by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  5. Some obvious prior art by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right here.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:We Live in the World of Unfettered Rent Seekers by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. Patent idea for microsoft by xednieht · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "'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

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools