Facebook Locks Down Social Gift Giving Patent

bizwriter writes "Facebook has been on a roll of late, nailing a number of patent grants that will help it retain dominance in social networking by creating barriers for competitors. Yesterday came patent number 7,970,657, 'Giving gifts and displaying assets in a social network environment'. Although it doesn't directly prevent other social networks from enabling gift giving among users, a clever legal and technical maneuver makes it far more difficult."

Comments

At first glance

[james_van]

I though "meh, doesnt effect me". however, we really have to do something about software patents. this is getting out of hand.

Re:At first glance

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree with you. There is a limit to protecting ideas... I guess you would need to prove there has been significant investment in time/money to produce the idea or that it really is groudbreaking to be able to protect it.

Re:At first glance

[houstonbofh]

I was going to patent "Using patents to fuck people over in a social network environment" but I knew I would get slammed with prior art...

Re:At first glance

[somersault]

Facebook should be shut down for prior art. I'm pretty sure sites like deviantArt and Bebo did it first.

Re:At first glance

[sosume]

This. It should not be possible to get a patent for an idea that just surfaced. Patents should only be granted for months upon months of hard work, research, validation and such. And expire after a short time, say 5 years.
A patent for giving a gift, making a gesture or arranging a number of icons is just silly and killing the software industry. The patent office should void all such patents and since algorithms cannot be patented, no software patents should be allowed. At all.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point of patenting things anymore if the "design", "process" or "technology" is so trivial as this? I may as well go ahead with my patent for "any method of expulsion of bodily fluids" - as dumb as the USPTO is, they'll probably grant it. Prior art be damned.

Re:WTF?

[Tasha26]

I thought UPSTO was trying to clean its image by not granting anymore stupid patents this year?

Re:WTF?

[Kagetsuki]

Well, it would seem you have been misinformed.

Re:WTF?

[ByOhTek]

and what about prior museums (with the quantity of sites already doing this, prior art just doesn't have the right context)?

Re:WTF?

[kimvette]

Unfortunately they can't without paying royalties; that business method has already been patented.

Re:WTF?

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually, the general thrust of the most recent message coming from the congress critters (not yet "passed" legislation) was to speed up the process and move to first to file. Stupid patents received honorable mention but was really only placed on there as an unrelated decoration for the purpose of providing a talking point during the up and coming election cycle.

Re:WTF?

[metacell]

I thought UPSTO was trying to clean its image by not granting anymore stupid patents this year?

Unfortunately, someone already had a patent on "A method for screening and selectively approving patent applications through a process of obviousness estimation".

Re:WTF?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The USPTO is not "dumb"; they just have quotas to fill.

Re:WTF?

[thirtyfour]

Really? You think there are sites already doing this?

Claim 1 is:1. A method for representing ownership of an asset in a social network environment, the method comprising: receiving a request from a first user of the social network environment to purchase the asset for a second user; recording information about a purchase of the asset from a vendor; associating, by a server for the social networking environment, the purchased asset with a profile of the second user; sending for display to a viewing user an association between the purchased asset and the second user on a feed display page; sending for display to the viewing user, in connection with the association between the purchased asset and the second user, information indicating that a third user, with whom the viewing user has established a connection in the social network, owns the asset, and information including a name of the first user who gave the asset to the second user, on the feed display page.

So please, by all means tell me what sites are already doing this. Since you think there are lots of sites already doing this, it should be quite easy for you to list a few. I can't wait...

europe

[chris.alex.thomas]

In europe I doubt many people will care much, I'll write my software without fear of software patents and just scrub off the USA from my list of places to visit, then when the legal letter arrives with "you must stop using our " I'll throw it in the bin and carry on with my life. If you live in a truely free country, you don't tend to care what other legal systems say, what matters, is what your country says... I love europe sometimes, although I hope that they don't change the whole "patents are not valid in europe" thingy.....and lets hope I don't bump into any "rendition crews" :)

WHOA.

[unity100]

So now, my act of giving gifts to other people in different settings, can be owned by someone OTHER than me ... or, i have to oblige by a certain private party's demands, when i want to do that in a different setting.

explain me how this shit has not gone over the roof.

Re:WHOA.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and remember, if you sing Happy Birthday while giving the gift... you better pay out to the copyright owners!

Re:WHOA.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's interesting, but this is the important part:

Professor Robert Brauneis cited problems with the song's authorship and the notice and renewal of the copyright, and concluded "It is almost certainly no longer under copyright."[2] Many question the validity of the current copyright, as the melody of the song was most likely borrowed from other popular songs of the time, and the lyrics were improvised by a group of five- and six-year-old children who never received any compensation.

Basically, the copyright is still valid b/c no one has challenged it in court.

Re:WHOA.

[Monchanger]

So now, my act of giving gifts to other people in different settings, can be owned by someone OTHER than me ...

No. You as the gift giver would not be in violation of this idiotic patent. The supposed infringing party would be the group who built the "social network" on which you did.

Re:WHOA.

[unity100]

so, if i built a social network to give gifts to my social circle, and they gave gifts to their social circles, then we would be in violation ?

that basically says, the right to allow people to give gifts to each other in a social network, is owned by facebook. that means, OUR rights and freedom, is owned by facebook, in this aspect of life.

its my act. its my life. its my freedom. i dont allow anyone to own it.

Re:WHOA.

[Monchanger]

First, don't confuse giving gifts with building a social network which includes gift-giving. The former isn't covered by the patent, only the latter.

Second, acts are not protected because they are yours, not in the USA at least. You do not have the right to go on a killing spree. You do not have the right to rob a bank. Likewise, you do not have the right to capitalize on someone else's patented invention or copyrighted work, no matter how hard you thump on your chest with a copy of the constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 explicitly states that congress has (a certain amount of) power to legislate on behalf of inventors and authors.

Of course none of that definitively means Facebook should be able to restrict you from competing in the space. That's why there's a patent office which should have determined that Facebook should not have gotten a patent, a court system which should invalidate the patent grant due to lack of being novel and a massive amount of prior art, and a legislative branch which should toss out all software patents.

Re:WHOA.

[unity100]

so what am i to understand here is that, my liberty to create a social network which includes gift-giving, is OWNED by some other party. is it.

Re:WHOA.

[Monchanger]

Not exactly. Liberty is actually irrelevant here. "Right to capitalize" is the key phrase in my earlier post.

You have the liberty to create one. But if you try to profit from it in any way, you can be sued by the patent owner.

Re:WHOA.

[unity100]

then it means, my liberty to profit from what i think is owned by someone else.

Re:WHOA.

[Monchanger]

What's with this liberty trip? You're not a slave. Nobody "owns" your liberty and can tell you what to do or not do here. You're free to create a social network if you want. You're even free to call it "Facebook". You have the "liberty to profit" and make a million dollars off of your copy of Facebook. Go right ahead if you feel the need to exercise your liberty. You can do whatever you want- the government can't arrest you and send you to jail for infringing on a patent. The government can't even bring a criminal case against you. But that's as far as liberty goes- protection from government action.

Liberty cannot protect you from a civil copyright, trademark or patent infringement lawsuit. Unless invalidated, patent holders have ownership over their invention because Congress has constitutional authority to grant such exclusive rights for a limited period. This means the patent holder will take that million dollars away from you in court because you violated their property rights.

Re:WHOA.

[unity100]

What's with this liberty trip? You're not a slave. Nobody "owns" your liberty and can tell you what to do or not do here.

as long as i am not able to do something i contrive with my thoughts, because someone supposedly OWNS it, i am not free.

yesterday, we were free to sing happy birthday to our kids at their birthdays. today, we can be sued for that. as you can see, once you get your ass out of your pants like that, there will be no end to those wanting to screw you over by constantly 'redefining' what can be owned.

livejournal?

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure they had the option to give stupid icon gifts in profile page or some such thing. plus probably the buckets and buckets of other prior art i dont even know about.

beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

Yeah, and that will happen after you launch a successful Facebook competitor and become a gazillionaire, right? These patents matter because the few companies that could possibly compete with facebook are global.

As for "truly free", Europe has serious restrictions on freedom of expression, much more onerous copyright restrictions (no fair use, for example), and strong limits on competition; in comparison, software patents are a small issue. And software patents are being pushed onto the member countries through the EU.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[max]

"Serious restrictions on freedom of expression"? It would be nice to know WHAT part of Europe you are referring to. IMHO, the country I live in stille are more free when it comes to expression than the US. The copyright restrictions pushed on us now are backed by interests over in the great media publishing giant in the west, and the limits on competition as you call it is to *protect* competition from being destroyed by a monopoly-like situation.

I seriously doubt that software patents are pushed onto the european member countries by the EU unless there were a precedent in the US backed by very strong and determined economic interests.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[ThinkWeak]

What is the definition of a Social Network? Couldn't every MMORPG out there be considered a social network?

Re:beam in thine own eye

[c0p0n]

"no fair use" sorry dude but that ain't true. "Europe" is not a single country you know.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[Anonymous Coward]

Try standing on a busy street corner and shouting "Heil Hitler" - not as part of parody or art or some such, but as an expression of your (hypothetical) political belief. See where that gets you.

(Yes, I know the result may vary from country to country.)

Re:beam in thine own eye

[jpapon]

"Serious restrictions on freedom of expression"? It would be nice to know WHAT part of Europe you are referring to

Well, for example, the fact that in the U.K. you can place anonymous gagging orders on newspapers so that they can't publish facts about you.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[jpapon]

I tried to find a definition of it in the patent, but of the 159 instances of "social network" they used, only one comes anywhere close to defining what a social network is.

Conventionally, a user of a networking website connects with other users by providing information about the user to a social network website for access by the other users. For example, a user may post contact information, background information, current job position, hobbies, and so forth. Information about personal events may also be posted by a user, for example on personal webpages, web logs (BLOGS), etc. Such posts may include information about gifts received, gifts given, purchases made, etc. Other users may contact the user and/or review information about the user based on common interests or for any other reason.

As for MMORPGs, I would say they contain social networks (such as a guild, or a friends list), but are not strictly speaking social networks themselves. Of course this is all a bunch of nonsense anyways.

I said several years ago that software patents would soon reach a level of absurdity that would make it impossible to justify their continued existence. Unfortunately, software patents crashed through that level a while ago, and have never looked back.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[MareLooke]

No fair use? Citation needed because I seriously believe you pulled that one out of your ass. Afaik copyright law is also still in the hands of individual countries anyway, over here at least schools are free to use published articles in their entirety as they see fit, for example.

And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how? Also limits on competition? There's limits to prevent LACK of competition (ask all of your fellow Americans that get the "choice" of having only 1 cable provider how well that works for them)

No idea why you were modded informative, as a Troll you did a damn good job though

Re:beam in thine own eye

[KDR_11k]

That result may not necessarily be based on laws though (as in "you get beaten up by anybody passing by"). Try shouting "death to niggers" in a neighborhood with many blacks in the US and see how far appealing to the first amendment gets you.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[nicolastheadept]

Hmmm, would you like people snooping on your private life, and then making money publishing it. Or in at least one of the gagging orders, it is alleged blackmail took place.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[KDR_11k]

This definition would include the community features in Steam. Of course Steam also supports gift giving.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[Canazza]

They don't work either. I think we should rename the "Streisand Effect" to the "RYAN GIGGS HAD AN AFFAIR Effect"

Re:beam in thine own eye

[camperdave]

Bah! The patent system jumped the shark when they patented swinging sideways.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[HBI]

And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?

There is danger in giving any government the power to regulate expression. Governments change, and some will use this power for ill. Giving it to a government to prevent something you consider offensive is a poor reason to take that risk.

Also limits on competition?

Competition is the very essence of innovation, where innovation is defined as improving the human condition. Regulating competition limits standard of living on a macro scale. There's a certain Luddite tinge to limiting competition*. "Life is good enough now, we don't need it to get better"

The "more, better" society has its down side, but without it, nearly all of the progress since the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened. We'd have lifespans in the 30s overall and no antibiotics.

* I see the same Luddite theology amongst the environmental movement as generally defined. I use the word theology purposefully.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[Entrope]

So, how many European countries have fair dealing or some similar set of exemptions? One? That Wikipedia page doesn't even list Ireland as a place where a fair dealing defense is available.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[MareLooke]

And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?

There is danger in giving any government the power to regulate expression. Governments change, and some will use this power for ill. Giving it to a government to prevent something you consider offensive is a poor reason to take that risk.

You would be wrong, what is disallowed, for example negationism in my country (Belgium), is clearly defined by law. Whether you are guilty of spreading hate, negationism or racism is decided by court, and unlike in the US you are not guilty until proven guilty (and you won't go bancrupt defending yourself either, also unlike in the US) and as the court case aroud Mark Wilders in the Netherlands proves you have to push really hard before you'll get convicted for spreading hate or racism.

Also limits on competition?

Competition is the very essence of innovation, where innovation is defined as improving the human condition. Regulating competition limits standard of living on a macro scale. There's a certain Luddite tinge to limiting competition*. "Life is good enough now, we don't need it to get better"

The "more, better" society has its down side, but without it, nearly all of the progress since the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened. We'd have lifespans in the 30s overall and no antibiotics.

* I see the same Luddite theology amongst the environmental movement as generally defined. I use the word theology purposefully.

As I stated, there are no limits on competition, there are only limits to make sure there is no lack of competition. Repeating what you said in your first post without actually providing any evidence to back up your claims doesn't suddenly make it true.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[SkunkPussy]

Actually purported blackmail is the latest trend in these gagging orders. Worryingly, there have been a few cases where the claimant claims that he has been threatened with blackmail, then due to this the injunction pretty much has carte blanche. and they get this super injunction, yet the person who supposedly blackmailed them has no opportunity to defend the allegation.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[sbrown123]

Hmmm, would you like people snooping on your private life, and then making money publishing it.

Sure. But I don't think people will pay for it.

Or in at least one of the gagging orders, it is alleged blackmail took place.

If someone releases material publicly doesn't that mean they lost their ransom? And, last I checked, the U.K. already has laws for blackmail.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[sbrown123]

"Europe" is not a single country you know.

With the EU you now have one country with various states. Each state has its own government that is slowly giving its sovereignty over to the collective government. The transition isn't complete yet though. I would give it another decade before people start really noticing what has happened to them.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[ktappe]

"Serious restrictions on freedom of expression"? It would be nice to know WHAT part of Europe you are referring to

Well, for example, the fact that in the U.K. you can place anonymous gagging orders on newspapers so that they can't publish facts about you.

Or also in the U.K. how you cannot play music to your horses because that is considered a "public performance."

Re:beam in thine own eye

[metacell]

To be fair, as ridiculous as copyright has become, there were people working in the stable who would also be listening to the music, even if it was involuntarily.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

No fair use? Citation needed because I seriously believe you pulled that one out of your ass

Type "fair use" into Wikipedia (the English version).

over here at least schools are free to use published articles in their entirety as they see fit, for example

Perhaps, perhaps not. In many countries, schools pay for that, you just don't know it.

And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?

Translation: Europeans believe the version of history taught by the government because other versions are considered "alterations". It works so well you don't even notice it.

There's limits to prevent LACK of competition (ask all of your fellow Americans that get the "choice" of having only 1 cable provider how well that works for them)

Yeah, because as we all know, every European is guaranteed a choice of three ISPs by law, right?

No idea why you were modded informative, as a Troll you did a damn good job though

Obviously you have "no idea"; you have "no idea" of a lot of things.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

Are you living under a rock? Do you know anything about politics in Europe? Just recently John Galliano was hauled into criminal court for "racist comments"; he is facing a fine and prison time. In a drunken stupor, he had called a woman a "Jewish bitch" and said "I love Hitler". Mind you, this is a gay Jewish fashion designer having a private argument in a bar, not some political agitator speaking to the masses.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

"Serious restrictions on freedom of expression"? It would be nice to know WHAT part of Europe you are referring to.

Most of them.

IMHO, the country I live in stille are more free when it comes to expression than the US.

Really? What enlightened place would that be? Can't be Germany, France, UK, Russia, Italy, or Spain.

The copyright restrictions pushed on us now are backed by interests over in the great media publishing giant in the west,

You don't know squat. The current copyright regime was mostly imposed by Europe on the rest of the world, back when Europe still had some international muscle and backbone. European book and news publishers are extremely powerful and they are pushing for their own restrictions. Yeah, US software publishers and the US movie industry are trying to get their cut, but who can blame them?

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

Europe does not guarantee fair use rights to its citizens. Go look up the details on Wikipedia under... wait for it... "fair use".

Re:beam in thine own eye

[c0p0n]

Again, that's incorrect. To put just one example, Spain grants their citizens a so called "derecho de cita" which for all purposes is equivalent to the fair use construct in the US.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

No, "derecho de cita" is not the same as "fair use"; it's a much more limited exception. The only jurisdictions within Europe that have anything like "fair use" are the common law jurisdictions.

Europe as a whole does not have fair use rights. In particular, the biggest and most significant countries (Germany, France) do not, and instead have been at the forefront of creating draconian copyright measures. Germany even forces universities and schools to pay steep fees for the right to copy content for teaching.

Pointing the finger at the US may make Europeans feel smug and superior, but it's not going to solve the problem, because the problem with copyright is largely a problem created in Europe and by Europeans. But hey, feeling superior to the US while going to hell in a handbasket is standard m.o. for Europe.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[c0p0n]

Incorrect. "Derecho de cita" grants much the same rights as fair use, no matter what you just read on the Wikipedia - the article in English is just plain wrong and misleading. It gives people the right to re-jiggle any copyrighted work for as long as it's within a series of fair use parameters. The Spanish example is not common law, but explicitly allowed by "el código civil" and actually drips from several articles of their Constitution.

On the "feeling superior to the US", I'm merely pointing out the misconception by the post I was replying to that the EU equalises all their members legal framework to the same uniform mess, when it's just not the case. Europe is not just the UK, Germany and France.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[MareLooke]

No fair use? Citation needed because I seriously believe you pulled that one out of your ass

Type "fair use" into Wikipedia (the English version).

And? We might not have it under that name, but we definately have those rights. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

over here at least schools are free to use published articles in their entirety as they see fit, for example

Perhaps, perhaps not. In many countries, schools pay for that, you just don't know it.

Maybe, but "many countries" still isn't "Europe". Europe is not the US and does not work in the same way, something you seem to either forget or not understand.

And yeah spreading hate and trying to retroactively alter history (eg. negationism) isn't allowed in most of Europe, which is bad how?

Translation: Europeans believe the version of history taught by the government because other versions are considered "alterations". It works so well you don't even notice it.

Yeah, cause my government lies about things that don't benefit them at all. Shall we start another discussion about the necessity of the war in Iraq and why that war was started? I thought not. Small hint: a lot of us still have or had relatives that were actually there during WW2.

There's limits to prevent LACK of competition (ask all of your fellow Americans that get the "choice" of having only 1 cable provider how well that works for them)

Yeah, because as we all know, every European is guaranteed a choice of three ISPs by law, right?

No, but we're guaranteed more than one ISP by law, I have the choice of at least 10.

No idea why you were modded informative, as a Troll you did a damn good job though

Obviously you have "no idea"; you have "no idea" of a lot of things.

It's funny you should say that as you are obviously the one without any idea what you're going on about. Is it so hard to defend your country based on its merits that you have to resort to baseless bashing of another nation of which you don't even understand the basic workings?

Europe is not a country, unlike the US and while we might be evolving in that direction we're not there yet by a very long shot. Different countries, different rules and different interpretations of rules that have been pushed down from the EU.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[robsku]

Quoting max:
 

It would be nice to know WHAT part of Europe you are referring to.

Is he from Germany? And all these claims absolutely true, both of those things are banned totally and no matter of how it's done. Anyway, you talk about Europe (EU? All countries in europa?...) either "in general" or you talk about the countries separately, aye?

I live in Finland and no such restrictions are in place - still, imagining a situation that I'd have to, with no other way, select to move either in USA or in Germany... Well, I wouldn't have to even think, obviously Germany.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[robsku]

First, $Europe NOT "EU".

You are wrong, we are very different (I'm talking about EU, I suppose you were too) from your system, maybe you should dig harder into EU System. From our country, Finland, to EU contries other to other countries outside accept that EU countries are EU *countries* and the claim of EU being country, like yours would not be taken seriously by many.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

Small hint: a lot of us still have or had relatives that were actually there during WW2.

Small hint, so do I, and they aren't even Americans. You should ask your relatives some time where "your country" would be if it weren't for the US.

Is it so hard to defend your country based on its merits that you have to resort to baseless bashing of another nation of which you don't even understand the basic workings?

I don't really give a damn about what you think about my country. But I want copyright fixed, and that requires that people get active at one of the major sources of the problem, in Europe. Until European voters start to realize that their nations are a major cause of this and other international problems, nothing is going to change.

Shall we start another discussion about the necessity of the war in Iraq and why that war was started? I thought not.

That's precious coming from a Belgian: your nation ran a corrupt and bloody colonial empire well into the 20th century. One of the consequences of that, Rwanda, turned into a genocide, and neither Belgium nor the UN managed to handle it. Even the churches you installed in that country couldn't be bothered to do as much as condemn the genocide.

Yes, the US kicked out Saddam Hussein--a mass murderer and brutal dictator--and is now paying tons of money trying to rebuild the country. I was against that war as being expensive and unwise (and I found Bush's transparent lies offensive), but there's nothing to apologize for.

Re:beam in thine own eye

[t2t10]

Incorrect. "Derecho de cita" grants much the same rights as fair use, no matter what you just read on the Wikipedia

The article is correct: "derecho de cita" is a specific exemption for research and teaching; fair use is a much broader exemption. If you think it grants "much of the same rights", you don't understand fair use.

On the "feeling superior to the US", I'm merely pointing out the misconception by the post I was replying to that the EU equalises all their members legal framework to the same uniform mess

I implied that Europe does not guarantee fair use rights. That means "not all European nations have fair use rights", which is true. Your assumption that I see Europe as a diffuse mess is merely your prejudice.

Europe is not just the UK, Germany and France.

The point is that international copyright law is becoming more restrictive due in large part to a push from European governments and corporations, and the bigger they are, the more power they have.

In addition, if a nation like Spain has limits on copyrights, the most likely outcome is that interest groups in that country will use international treaties (EU, global) to force their nation to change the law without ever needing to associate with that unpopular policy change.

Facebook is a fad

[Colin Smith]

Subscribers are leaving in droves. A year or two and it will totally implode.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[imric]

And then they will use these patents to block competition.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[bmo]

>Subscribers are leaving in droves.

Assuming what you say is true, that means they're going to something else.

Where are they going to?

I've been waiting for Diaspora myself, but that seems to be moribund.

--
BMO

Re:Facebook is a fad

[houstonbofh]

Or... They will get bought out by a patent troll.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[vlm]

Or... They will get bought out by a patent troll.

Or their new competitor, whatever it will be, will have to buy them out or else get patent trolled.

That is the gameplan. Can't sell out once everyone leaves, but even if there are no subscribers, you still get to keep the "valuable" patents.

Its a sign that FB internally realizes they have peaked and are on the decline.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[zlogic]

Where are they going to?

Probably to get a life.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[bmo]

>snarky remark about online social media

And yet, here you are on slashdot.

--
BMO

Re:Facebook is a fad

[whisper_jeff]

Subscribers are leaving in droves.

Citation please. And anecdotal evidence is not proof, before you reply.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[Monchanger]

Shhh! Don't give SCO any ideas!

Re:Facebook is a fad

[Nethemas the Great]

That's not funny. Highly probable but definitely not funny.

Re:Facebook is a fad

[Nethemas the Great]

I believe the poster is thinking of this.

Zuckerpunch!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That's an absurdly bad patent, and I'm pretty sure that even I have seen assorted prior art. On the plus side, it might help to stem the tide of people tacking 'social' onto every bloody warmed-over .bomb concept in an attempt to sell it to VCs...

Re:Zuckerpunch!

[Anonymous Coward]

2005 I had a "tip jar" I created that people could slip into their blog that let people tip them with virtual gifts/virtual currency - and display them in their blog, which sort of invalidates the abstract. I'll have to dig through the wayback to find it.

Re:Zuckerpunch!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I don't really think of blame as being a limited resource...

Re:Zuckerpunch!

[pinkushun]

Bad *and* Absurd! Facebook's antics is becoming really annoying!

I wonder if we can perform a psychological study, prove that Facebooking is addictive to the point of detriment and wellbeing, and class it as dangerous as scheduled medication.

We can make a pretty penny hosting rehab centers. I'll start the Facebook group for our rehab project...

Re:Zuckerpunch!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see it mentioned here.. "BlogBling"

http://web.archive.org/web/20050405082100/http://www.bigattichouse.com/thoughtbrew.php

I have the source and whatnot, and I know a few blogs still link to it.

Re:Zuckerpunch!

[thirtyfour]

Okay, name some prior art examples of this patent's claim 1. We'll wait...

We'll all be screwed

[mswhippingboy]

I'm thinking we'll all be SOL if someone decides to apply for a patent on "breathing". Apparently the "non-obvious subject matter" test (USPTO 35 U.S.C. 103 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm) does not apply anymore, or maybe the "greasing of the skids" is just more blatant now.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[Dachannien]

Okay, then. Your homework, if you think you can do it better than the USPTO, is to write a proper rejection of any one claim in that patent under 35 USC 102 or 103.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[russotto]

Okay, then. Your homework, if you think you can do it better than the USPTO, is to write a proper rejection of any one claim in that patent under 35 USC 102 or 103.

Oh, I know the answer to this one. You basically can't reject on prior art, because any tiny difference between the prior art and the patent means the prior art doesn't apply (though such differences are waved away during infringement prosecutions). So then you go to obviousness. Well, it's easy to show all the components A,B, C, and D existed, but that's not sufficient to prove it was obvious to combine them. OK, so here are several prior systems which combined A and B, B and C, A B and C, C and D, and A and D... sorry, not enough, you have to show combination of A B C and D. OK, here's a system which did A B C and D; nope, sorry, not in the context of a "social network". Now here's one which did A B C and D in what is arguably a social network... was it patented? No, of course not, it was obvious even then. Published? No, of course not, it was just made and used... sorry, it's not enough to have a product out there which embodies everything in the patent.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[Rennt]

So we are just going to have to accept that patents have become an impediment to the innovation and commerce they were designed to protect?

Or maybe reform is in order... Or maybe we recognize the system has long since stopped serving it's purpose, so we just throw the whole system out altogether.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[Nethemas the Great]

Too much money running around in patents to move forward with reform. Not enough money to develop a time machine and b*tch slap the *sswipes that put this crap in the Constitution. You sir are looking at what we call an intractable situation. We're stuck with them until there no longer exists an authority to enforce them.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[grahamm]

But in many cases it is obvious that if you want to do 'X' then you have to do A & B & C & D. In the past doing X may have been undesirable or impractical for reason 'Y' (which has nothing to with A through D). When this restriction/impediment is removed, just because nobody has done X before does not make the way of doing so any less obvious.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[Dachannien]

Actually, a public use (in the US) is applicable as prior art under 102(b) if it was more than one year prior, and under 102(a) if it was less than a year prior. The problem for examiners is that it can be difficult to find evidence that a public use actually contains the needed elements to formulate a rejection. Even with the availability of open source software, the amount of time that would need to be spent sifting through a large codebase far exceeds the time available to work on a case, and if it turns out that the open source solution does things differently, then all that time ends up essentially wasted.

Re:We'll all be screwed

[PoopCat]

Right.. so we get faced with the situation where the patent examiner's role is essentially "rubber-stamp and let the courts sort it out". Which benefits few[*], if any, since the resources spent fighting shoulda-been-rejected patents could better be spent elsewhere, e.g., i dunno, maybe actually _innovating_.

* - the PTO of course makes money regardless of whether a patent is granted or not, so there's no benefit for the PTO in NOT simply granting every application that came down with the last rainfall, and quite likely a clear advantage (faster processing of patents == more patent application fees) in such granting.

Giving gifts and displaying assets in a social net

[ciderbrew]

We used to give gifts of food and clothes to the poor children in far away lands at harvest time. All the gifts would be on show a the front of the Hall. Sorry children, our church cannot give you anything this year. Kindness is patented.

Re:What about Steam?

[Joce640k]

I'm pretty sure you've been able to do it on Facebook as well via any number of farming games, etc.

Vague abstracts

[Dunbal]

So if "The Social Network" is playing on TV on Christmas, suddenly millions of people will be guilty of patent infringement... because of giving gifts in a social network environment.

gifting online then and now

[alphatel]

Playing social games, 1989

• gift troll bread

• You gifted a bread to a large troll.

• The troll smiles and lets you pass the bridge

New ending! 2011

• Mark Zuckerberg booms: Though shall not gift!

• The troll, angry at your attempted patent theft, slays you

Re:gifting online then and now

[dzfoo]

You misspelled "give" and "gave." Back in 1989, "gift" was still properly recognized as a noun.

        -dZ.

There is certainly prior art

[Attila Dimedici]

There is certainly prior art. I know that this sort of thing was done in Second Life from its inception. I am sure that similar gift giving was done in other online social networks since the very first online social network was developed.

Re:There is certainly prior art

[makomk]

Livejournal's been doing something similar since before Facebook even existed. Probably not quite similar enough to actually invalidate any of the patent claims, but it's certainly relevant prior art that ought to narrow how they can be interpreted considerably.

Just gifts? Easily circumvented

[chemicaldave]

with some meaningless currency.

In exchange for giving a gift, users get a "gift token" that they can use to buy virtual goods.
As absurd as this patent is, it's also easily worked around.

Re:Just gifts? Easily circumvented

[Lysander7]

The patent also addresses currency, if I'm not mistaken. It will be possible for workarounds for the patent, yes, but I don't think currency would easily be the means of doing so.

Re:Obsolete Patent

[Noughmad]

I just filed for 'Giving gifts and displaying assets in a social network environment by means of a computer.'

Suck on that, Facebook.

You forgot to add "in the cloud". Your patent is useless.

Re:Obsolete Patent

[ciderbrew]

They use real clouds and not computers? I've misunderstood that marketing crap buzz word.

Catholics

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I'm sorry but Catholicism already has a long standing patent on giving to charity and flaunting it in a social environment.

wow

[Aeros]

This is just f'n stupid. I would be embarrassed to have my name at the top of this as 'inventor'. This isn't really an invention. Do some real work.

Re:wow

[mswhippingboy]

A quick review of some other "groundbreaking" technology as patents granted to Zuckerberg et al:

U.S. Appl. No. 11/493,291, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Methods for Dynamically Generating a Privacy Summary, filed Jul. 25, 2006. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,037, Mark Zuckerberg, System sand Methods for Providing Dynamically Selected Media Content to a User of an Electronic Device in a Social Network Environment, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/503,242, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Dynamically Providing a News Feed About a User of a Social Network, filed Aug. 11, 2006. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/499,093, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Dynamically Generating Segmented Community Flyers, filed Aug. 2, 2006. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 11/580,210, Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for Tagging Digital Media, filed Oct. 11, 2006. cited by other .
U.S. Appl. No. 12/156,091, Mark Zuckerberg, Systems and Methods for Auction Based Polling, filed May 28, 2008. cited by other .

Look out Apple, MS, IBM & Oracle; there's a new sheriff in town. I'm anxiously awaiting "Mark Zuckerberg, System and Method for World Domination and General Mastery of the Universe (in a Social Network)".

Oh crap!

[erroneus]

I just gave something to a co-worker this morning. Nobody tell Facebook that I did that or I might get sued for patent infringement.

Re:Oh crap!

[vlm]

I just gave something to a co-worker this morning. Nobody tell Facebook that I did that or I might get sued for patent infringement.

Speaking of that, is this a back door for suing people who give others the common cold or a STD? Not just civil proceedings, but criminal patent violation?

Re:Fris ps0t

[webmistressrachel]

I can't believe that no-ones pointed out the prior art. I mean come on; Tagged anyone???

How about bebo? Plenty more where that came from ....

Re:Steam?

[Pinky's Brain]

And Amazon before that, who did it with third party vendors as well ... so basically what this patent adds ... is "on a social network".

Smell the non obvious* innovation.

* as defined by lawyers and as agreed upon by a majority of idiots in Texas juries

Re:Giving gifts and displaying assets in a social

[gstoddart]

We used to give gifts of food and clothes to the poor children in far away lands at harvest time. All the gifts would be on show a the front of the Hall. Sorry children, our church cannot give you anything this year. Kindness is patented.

No no no .... like all software patents, this is a "method for doing something we've all been doing for a very long time, but with a computer."

So your real-world situation isn't covered by this patent, merely doing the exact same thing involving a computer. Not having read the patent, I can only imagine that every claim is unique and something nobody else thought of before.

I think I shall patent "a method for pissing and moaning about the inequities of the world but with a computer" ... then every schmuck who gripes about the state of the world owes me money. That would be awesome.

Maybe what we need is...

[Ken Hall]

.. one guy at the patent office to look at each patent for about five seconds, and stamp ones like this with "This is stupid, go away... NO PATENT FOR YOU!!"

Re:Maybe what we need is...

[makubesu]

They would, but I patented rejecting patent applications.

Heh

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

...a clever legal and technical maneuver makes it far
more difficult....

Well, when you put it like that, it makes it sound like they'll have to... innovate.

Example of prior art?

[u8i9o0]

From March 30 2004:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/04/03/30/1435248/Spread-The-Love-And-Pay-Us

Re:Example of prior art?

[pinkushun]

Clicking the link in that article yields:

Warning: mysqli_connect() [function.mysqli-connect]: (42000/1044): Access denied for user 'funhi_web1'@'localhost' to database 'funhi_db1' in /home/funhi/public_html/include/constants.php on line 27

Warning: mysqli_error() expects exactly 1 parameter, 0 given in /home/funhi/public_html/include/constants.php on line 27
Problem connecting:

:P

Due process

[Theaetetus]

.. one guy at the patent office to look at each patent for about five seconds, and stamp ones like this with "This is stupid, go away... NO PATENT FOR YOU!!"

Getting a patent is a legal process, which means it's subject to constitutional guarantees of due process. A patent examiner can't simply say, "ehhhh, no." They have to provide evidence that the invention has been done before or hasn't been done, but is obvious in view of stuff that has been done before. It's like a court - they can't simply say "eh, you're guilty" without showing sufficient evidence.

Re:Due process

[Rennt]

Simple fix: Put the onus on the applicant (both pre and post grant), not on the examiner.

Re:Due process

[Theaetetus]

Simple fix: Put the onus on the applicant (both pre and post grant), not on the examiner.

In what way does that change anything? Currently, the examiner issues a rejection, and the onus is on the applicant to prove patentability of the invention. Your idea is... what, exactly? The applicant does that, and the examiner still can say "eh, no" with no evidence?

Re:Due process

[LateArthurDent]

Getting a patent is a legal process, which means it's subject to constitutional guarantees of due process. A patent examiner can't simply say, "ehhhh, no." They have to provide evidence that the invention has been done before or hasn't been done, but is obvious in view of stuff that has been done before. It's like a court - they can't simply say "eh, you're guilty" without showing sufficient evidence.

Due process is important, but you're placing the burden of proof on the wrong person. The patent examiner should be able to reject anything at any time if he thinks the invention is obvious. When challenging his decision, the applicant should demonstrate why his invention isn't obvious. Similarly, it should be easy for the patent examiner to say, "I rejected because I believe invention 'x' is prior art.' The applicant challenging should have to prove why invention 'x' doesn't count as prior art. After doing so, the patent examiner should still be able to reject it if he finds another example of prior art for which the objection raised by the applicant doesn't apply.

Re:Due process

[Theaetetus]

Getting a patent is a legal process, which means it's subject to constitutional guarantees of due process. A patent examiner can't simply say, "ehhhh, no." They have to provide evidence that the invention has been done before or hasn't been done, but is obvious in view of stuff that has been done before. It's like a court - they can't simply say "eh, you're guilty" without showing sufficient evidence.

Due process is important, but you're placing the burden of proof on the wrong person. The patent examiner should be able to reject anything at any time if he thinks the invention is obvious. When challenging his decision, the applicant should demonstrate why his invention isn't obvious. Similarly, it should be easy for the patent examiner to say, "I rejected because I believe invention 'x' is prior art.' The applicant challenging should have to prove why invention 'x' doesn't count as prior art. After doing so, the patent examiner should still be able to reject it if he finds another example of prior art for which the objection raised by the applicant doesn't apply.

That's exactly how it works now... The Examiner has to provide examples of prior art, which the applicant can then rebut. The Examiner can't simply say "ehhh, obvious, and I don't need to cite any evidence" which is what grandparent suggested, and would violate due process.

Re:Due process

[LateArthurDent]

That's exactly how it works now... The Examiner has to provide examples of prior art, which the applicant can then rebut. The Examiner can't simply say "ehhh, obvious, and I don't need to cite any evidence" which is what grandparent suggested, and would violate due process.

What I tried to say in my previous post is that the the patent examiner would need to supply an example of prior art if they are rejecting the application based on prior art, but non-obviouslness is also a test they must apply. In that case, the examiner should very much should be able to simply say, "ehh, obvious, and I don't need to cite any evidence." It doesn't violate due process as long as the applicants can challenge this at which point the burden should be on the applicants to demonstrate why it is not obvious in court.

I mean, I understand that in many cases looking at what has been done before is necessary to explain why something is obvious. However, in a lot of these patent cases, a stamp and five seconds is all you need. Let's see, you have customer information, including credit card numbers, because they've shopped at your store before. I will use this information to allow them to shop with a single-click! Yes, that's obvious. You don't need to know anything at all about computer science or servers to know that it's a trivial concept. If it turns out the patent examiner made an error because the process is simpler than it appears, then the applicant could challenge and say, "no, I really think this isn't obvious at all" at which point experts get brought in and testify in court that they have tried to solve this problem for years, but couldn't figure out a good solution, and explain why the problem is hard.

Re:Due process

[Theaetetus]

That's exactly how it works now... The Examiner has to provide examples of prior art, which the applicant can then rebut. The Examiner can't simply say "ehhh, obvious, and I don't need to cite any evidence" which is what grandparent suggested, and would violate due process.

What I tried to say in my previous post is that the the patent examiner would need to supply an example of prior art if they are rejecting the application based on prior art, but non-obviouslness is also a test they must apply

No need to cite that to me: I'm a patent attorney.
Respectfully, I think you may be confused about the term "prior art" - I believe, based on your post, that you're thinking that "prior art" means art that shows that the invention is not new or novel. E.g. it was done before.

That's not quite right... Prior art means just art - any publication or other disclosure in the relevant industry - that was "prior". For example, IETF RFC 793 (the TCP spec) is prior art for any application that discusses TCP. That's all it means.

The term you're thinking of is "anticipation", which describes 35 USC 102: the invention is not new, but has been done before, in exactly that form: i.e., it is anticipated. Proving that an application is anticipated under 35 USC 102 requires showing that a single piece of prior art expressly or inherently discloses each and every element of the claimed invention.

Obviousness is slightly different. Obviousness, 35 USC 103, says that while an invention is new (no one has ever made a peanut butter and chocolate sandwich on wheat before), it is a trivial combination of the prior art (peanut butter sandwiches on wheat exist; peanut butter and chocolate candies exist; it's trivial to put peanut butter and chocolate together in a sandwich on wheat). Proving that an application is obvious under 35 USC 103 requires showing that one or more pieces of prior art, in combination, teach or suggest each and every element of the claimed invention, even if they alone don't inherently or expressly disclose them under 35 USC 102.

Due process is still required in the latter... The Examiner has to show that combination of prior art references and say "while reference A doesn't teach _________, reference B teaches _______, and you could combine them to get your invention." They can't just say "ehhhh, obvious."

In that case, the examiner should very much should be able to simply say, "ehh, obvious, and I don't need to cite any evidence." It doesn't violate due process as long as the applicants can challenge this at which point the burden should be on the applicants to demonstrate why it is not obvious in court.

Why do they have to go all the way to court? That's like saying we can find someone guilty without evidence, and it doesn't violate due process because the burden is on them to prove why they're innocent on appeal.

I mean, I understand that in many cases looking at what has been done before is necessary to explain why something is obvious.

It's the only way to avoid hindsight, short of a time machine.

However, in a lot of these patent cases, a stamp and five seconds is all you need. Let's see, you have customer information, including credit card numbers, because they've shopped at your store before. I will use this information to allow them to shop with a single-click! Yes, that's obvious.

In a lot of criminal cases, a stamp and five seconds is all you need to judge someone guilty. We still make the prosecution go through all the steps, to protect innocent people. That's the point of due process.

If it's so easy to show that something's obvious, then do the work. Does customer information exist? Yes. Credit card numbers? Totally. Is clicking known? Absolutely. Therefore, the com

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Obsolete Patent

[Noughmad]

It's a close guarded secret, but they really use butterflies. The Cloud is just a buzzword.

Ultima Online Already Did It

[SQLz]

Sorry Facebook.

Prior Art from Cyworld

[Chibi]

I seem to recall my wife mentioning to me several years ago that Cyworld, a Korean web portal/social engineering site, offered some level of gift-giving (don't know specifics). Facebook is just using its imaginary money to put up sandbags against potential competitors.

Advance the technical arts

[kawabago]

How does this patent provide an advance in the technical arts? That is always a missing item in these patents and it should be the most important, but it seems never to be considered.

LJ had it before

[Mark Atwood]

Didn't LiveJournal have this years ago?

What irony -- artificial scarcity to stop gifts

[Paul Fernhout]

Also applies to commecialism: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security [and economic] thinking. Those "security" [and "commercial productive"] agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

We can do better than allowing patents about gift giving.

Still, there is historic precendentfor this, sadly:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
"A potlatch is a gift-giving festival and primary economic system practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. ... At potlatch gatherings, a family or hereditary leader hosts guests in their family's house and holds a feast for their guests. The main purpose of the potlatch is the re-distribution and reciprocity of wealth. ... Potlatching was made illegal in Canada in 1884 in an amendment to the Indian Act and the United States in the late 19th century, largely at the urging of missionaries and government agents who considered it "a worse than useless custom" that was seen as wasteful, unproductive, and contrary to "civilized" values."

See also, by a Native American:
    http://www.marcinequenzer.com/creation.htm
"The Field of Plenty is always full of abundance. The gratitude we show as Children of Earth allows the ideas within the Field of Plenty to manifest on the Good Red Road so we may enjoy these fruits in a physical manner. When the cornucopia was brought to the Pilgrims, the Iroquois People sought to assist these Boat People in destroying their fear of scarcity. The Native understanding is that there is always enough for everyone when abundance is shared and when gratitude is given back to the Original Source. The trick was to explain the concept of the Field of Plenty with few mutually understood words or signs. The misunderstanding that sprang from this lack of common language robbed those who came to Turtle Island of a beautiful teaching. Our "land of the free, home of the brave" has fallen into taking much more than is given back in gratitude by its citizens. Turtle Island has provided for the needs of millions who came from lands that were ruled by the greedy. In our present state of abundance, many of our inhabitants have forgotten that Thanksgiving is a daily way of living, not a holiday that comes once a year."

Here is a PDF file with a presentation I put together on "Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft".
http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf

Here is a 12 minute YouTube video of that presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

We can do better than this...

Your friend AC just got "Fris ps0t" in KarmaWars!

[billstewart]

+LIKE! Wouldn't you like a nice shiny "First Post" in your Slashdot Karma Garden? First one's free!

Prior Art...

[robsku]

No I don't know about sanity (some about lack of it I do know) of US patent law, but in "laws are sane" world where (US or outside) the prior art can be found should not matter - Finland has had dozens already way before FaceBook and I suspect most western countries have as well, and plenty of eastern too have had them before also - and I'd be willing to bet that such have been around in USA also for long time...

Urging others to tell about their EU land fair use

[robsku]

I have no idea what is it written as in Finnish law, let alone the translation to english...

Starwreck was made in Finland. Many know that in making the film they had to consult US lawyers about "Fair Use", but they also had to take same precautions in Finland too.