Candidates Sued By Patent Troll For Using Facebook

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Candidates Sued By Patent Troll For Using Facebook

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 28, 2012 @03:04PM from the status:-not-gonna-happen dept.

WrongSizeGlass writes "Ars is reporting that the 'inventor' of the concept of 'providing individual online presences for each of a plurality of members of a group of members,' claims that four million Facebook business account holders, including at least three major presidential candidates, are guilty of infringing his patent. He's suing Facebook for infringing on his patent as well as the three candidates. A Patent Office examiner rejected the patent claims, but the rejections have been appealed."

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:07 · Score: 1

Maybe now eliminating software patents will gain support?
Or will they try to use patents to silence their political opposition?
1. Re:Hurray! by V-similitude · 2012-02-28 15:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Except it's not really a software patent, is it? It's really just an idiotic patent, and looks like our system actually managed to catch it this time. So the summary really should read: "Idiot who filed idiotic patent can't handle rejection."
2. Re:Hurray! by icebike · 2012-02-28 15:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Suing without a patent in hand has got to be a pretty risky business model.
  Rejected is rejected till its accepted. And its not going to be accepted. Prior art goes way back to CompuServe days, well before his 1995 filing.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:Hurray! by Lehk228 · 2012-02-28 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  more than a risky model, i suspect that he would face sanctions in court
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
4. Re:Hurray! by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-28 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he'll also patent that business model.
5. Re:Hurray! by MightyMartian · 2012-02-28 16:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  SCO sued with a bunch of printouts and a complete inability to point out the offending code.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
6. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  SCO sued with a bunch of printouts and a complete inability to point out the offending code.
  But they sued over copyright, not patents.
  Just sayin'.
7. Re:Hurray! by Fluffeh · 2012-02-28 16:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Actually, this fellow seems interesting. Having read into a few articles, I saw this interesting snippet:
  
  Prior to law school, Weyer was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Lesotho and now works as a volunteer engineer in Antarctic expeditions.
  and this:
  
  In an earlier case Weyer sued Network Solutions and Register.com for violating his patent on the selection of an e-mail address based on a domain name. He has also sued Harley Davidson, Bosch, and MySpace. Those cases have all settled.
  It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  
  --
  Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
8. Re:Hurray! by Skapare · 2012-02-28 16:53 · Score: 2
  
  As long as WE are claiming SOFTWARE as the reason patents should be invalid, then we will NOT be stopping the REAL reason MOST patents should be invalid, which is that they are STUPID ... lacking any genuine INNOVATION.
  
  --
  now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
9. Re:Hurray! by powerspike · 2012-02-28 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Or how about, it'll get rejected again, and the goverment will use this to show that the patent system is infact working and not broken. ensuring the patent system can continue in it's current form.
10. Re:Hurray! by khallow · 2012-02-28 17:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  That's a rather ugly parasite, if true. I see it as doing a lot of harm in order to practice token charity. Isn't the eighth circle of Hell reserved for that crap?
11. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-28 17:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I for one hope this rejection is overturned. This patent is no less valid than countless other business method patents or software patents, such as the one-click patent, and prior art is irrelevant, as again, countless other patents have prior art yet are approved by the USPTO. This patent needs to be approved so this guy can get busy suing the Presidential candidates and lots of other politicians, and maybe then we'll finally have some real reform of the patent system.
12. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-28 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  I dunno; is it bad to steal money from evil people who've gotten that money in unethical ways (like by stealing it from other people)? That list of companies he's sued isn't exactly a list of fine, upstanding companies that make the world a better place, with the possible exception of Bosch. In fact, if he managed to squeeze any money out of MySpace he should get an award.
13. Re:Hurray! by khallow · 2012-02-28 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  is it bad to steal money from evil people who've gotten that money in unethical ways (like by stealing it from other people)?
  I think so actually. But let's take this a step further. How do you know that the money was obtained unethically? What process do you use to make sure that theft only occurs from people who have obtained such money unethically?
  
  Humans, especially the kind who steal, often have all sorts of rationalizations for why they do things. And a primary one is to rationalize after the fact that the victim didn't deserve the money or property of value.
  
  This guy is potentially even worse. He's doing good. So it doesn't matter if the business came by their wealth unethically or not. It'd be easy for him to rationalize that he'll do better things with it than they could.
  
  Since we're talking about hypothetical situations now rather than a real person, here's my take what's wrong with the Robin Hood fantasy. First, what attempt is made to figure out whether something is unethical or not? There's no way this guy has researched all of his targets.
  
  Similarly, just because something is unethical doesn't mean it's grounds for theft. As I imply, I don't think there ever are legitimate grounds for theft. For example, I advocated allowing the Russian oligarches (of the 90s) to keep their ill-gotten oil properties with the provision that they pay protection money to the Russian government for a period of time. Continuing to flip oil properties on to the next set of cronies doesn't help make anything right.
  
  Third, the moral calculus is very ugly. To Godwin this thread a little, it's worth noting that Nazi Germany rationalized the deaths of millions on the grounds it make Nazi society stronger. A vast amount of harm was justified by a little gain. You're in "break a ton of eggs to make an small omelet" territory with only your personal sense of morality (often confused with your personal sense of gain) as a compass. People who can justify big harms on the grounds of small benefits are some of the most dangerous people out there.
14. Re:Hurray! by bloodhawk · 2012-02-28 18:22 · Score: 2
  
  much of that money he is stealing is everyday tax payers that have to fund the court system, patent office etc etc etc. So damn right it is evil and makes him one of the worst sorts of parasites. Not to mention the companies he sues just pass on the costs to everyone else anyway.
15. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  Except it's not really a software patent, is it?
  No it's not. It's clearly an attempt to patent the axiom of choice.
16. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-28 18:32 · Score: 2
  
  Well in the case of Facebook at least, we don't have to worry about that as it's free for users.
  As for funding the courts and patent office, first I thought the USPTO was self-funded by its fees, and second he's no more a parasite than all the other patent trolls out there, including all kinds of big companies like MS, Amazon, Apple, etc.
17. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:50 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno; is it bad to steal money from evil people who've gotten that money in unethical ways (like by stealing it from other people)?
  Yes, it's bad. The popular phrase is "two wrongs don't make a right".
  Ethics are largely a matter of opinion. What is unethical to you is not necessarily unethical to me. Some people think that allowing women to work and have command over men is unethical, does that give them a justification, either morally or legally, to then violate other laws and moral principles? Most rational people would say no.
18. Re:Hurray! by Theaetetus · 2012-02-28 19:03 · Score: 2
  
  Prior art goes way back to CompuServe days, well before his 1995 filing.
  Unlikely, considering his claims require URLs, and they were only invented in 1994.
19. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 19:53 · Score: 0
  
  Funny that.. Seems all these blokes are Republicans.
20. Re:Hurray! by rioki · 2012-02-28 20:12 · Score: 2
  
  They "existed" well beforehand, the RFC 1738 was written to get things standardized, actually like most internet technology...
21. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  he should go out and get a real job
22. Re:Hurray! by crutchy · 2012-02-28 21:22 · Score: 3
  
  no, actually the eighth circle of hell is reserved for facebook
23. Re:Hurray! by indeterminator · 2012-02-28 21:26 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  WE SOFTWARE NOT REAL MOST STUPID INNOVATION
  A-ha! I found your secret code. I think you're trying to say we are some sort of software simulation...
24. Re:Hurray! by bloodhawk · 2012-02-28 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  Ahhh so because there are other evil companies out there it doesn't matter that we add one more evil doer to the list. great philosophy/
25. Re:Hurray! by mlush · 2012-02-28 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sir, your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
26. Re:Hurray! by Ihmhi · 2012-02-28 23:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Isn't the eighth circle of Hell reserved for that crap?
  No, that would be for the dev teams of Windows ME and Vista.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
27. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'm going to sue you for infringing on my patent that describes the process of subscribing to a fellow commentators offsite content based on the recent discovery of said interest due to a forum post that is based on patent trolls.
28. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Stealing is stealing.
29. Re:Hurray! by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-29 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  1995 filing? Maybe I'm missing something, but the US Patent Office site says he filed January 15, 2007: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7644122
  If this is true, then he's suing Facebook (launched in February 2004), for doing something for 3 years before he filed his (not yet accepted) patent. This patent troll isn't just stupid, he's idiotic!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
30. Re:Hurray! by OakDragon · 2012-02-29 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  ...You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  Oh, here we go with the fat cat bashing.
  
  Well, what do you expect? These yokels are pure Baltic Avenue. Heh-heh. [looks at watch] Uh-oh! I'm late for the Short Line Railroad!
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
31. Re:Hurray! by operagost · 2012-02-29 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  
  I wouldn't, because it's still immoral. Everyday people use Bosch tools and parts, and ride Harleys... you're indirectly giving them the finger, too. When I think of immoral "fat cat" companies, Bosch and Harley-Davidson don't usually come to mind. Harley runs a non-profit foundation and the Bosch brand is actually owned by a private non-profit company.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
32. Re:Hurray! by hemo_jr · 2012-02-29 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  Seems you are saying the ends justify the means. That is not a philosophy I would espouse.
33. Re:Hurray! by MrMickS · 2012-02-29 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well in the case of Facebook at least, we don't have to worry about that as it's free for users.
  As for funding the courts and patent office, first I thought the USPTO was self-funded by its fees, and second he's no more a parasite than all the other patent trolls out there, including all kinds of big companies like MS, Amazon, Apple, etc.
  If there is a broken system that is being used by patent trolls to extort money off dubious inventions doesn't it make sense for large companies to file their own patents to protect themselves?
  If people then profit from using those patents without obtaining some sort of agreement from the company then wouldn't it show a lack of due diligence in corporate governance if they didn't seek legal redress?
  It appears that you are using the pejorative term 'evil' to describe these companies based on the populist, ill-informed, notion that corporations that resort to legal means are, by definition, evil. The patent system is at fault here not the companies that are duty bound to protect their interests within the system as it currently exists.
  
  --
  You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
34. Re:Hurray! by jackbird · 2012-02-29 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it was both in the beginning, but the patent claims dropped out fairly early on.
  Of course they didn't even have printouts in hand when they started - that was what the yearlong battle over giving them access to IBM's entire CVS repository for AIX was about.
35. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno; is it bad to steal money from evil people
  A) Their not all "evil people" - every corporation or group on the internet would be infringing upon this (if it were real to start with).
  B) Good and evil are relative terms, being a member of a system gauged as such (and thereby having your own OPINION of your standing and that of others) makes you incapable of making an unbiased assessment of the categorization of any entity within that system.
  C) A corporation exists to aid groups of people in working together, such that they can share a tax-based infrastructure and have clearly defined ownership (currently I'm working on setting up a local DIYbio group - even in a purely non-profit [in that any profits to arise will likely be ill-defined from the start and overall not the goal of the organization] there is equipment to manage from multiple sources, expenses [office space, reagents, etc] and taxes to be paid - a corporation is the logical approach to handling these issues) - it is only as evil as it's members. If you want to stop "evil corporations" simply remove corporate indemnification and hold people responsible for their actions, but the corporations aren't evil even when the people driving the internal group-think are.
36. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-29 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the idea is that if an evildoer just screws over other evildoers, it's really not that big a deal. It's like when violent criminals kill each other rather than attack innocent people; people just don't care that much when one thug kills another one over some drug deal gone bad or whatever. But when they invade someone's home, rape the wife and daughter and burn the family to death, then people get upset.
37. Re:Hurray! by NicknameAvailable · 2012-02-29 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
  Even neglecting the fact the guy is trying to troll without a patent to sue EVERY CORPORATION ON THE INTERNET - that's actually more despicable than Facebook in my opinion (and not much makes it that low). The guy is a thief, he attempts to steal from the rich and give, not just to the poor, but to the poor in countries with technology so backwards they have little to no hope to make a contribution to the rest of Humanity within the foreseeable future. The only difference this sick bastard is making is to his ego and the pockets of corporations lead by nerds with an affinity for technological innovation (based upon his past "successes".
38. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-02-29 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please. You don't need to get patents like the one-click patent to protect your business. In fact you don't need any patents at all for obvious "inventions", you just need to document them so you can easily prove you have prior art in case some patent troll tries to sue you for something you came up with on your own.
39. Re:Hurray! by khallow · 2012-02-29 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  If you're implying the Holocaust, then that in turn implies that everyone in Germany knew about it, which is ridiculous.
  Doesn't matter. Someone came up with the "final solution" and thought it was a great idea to kill millions of people for a slight advantage. The average German citizen doesn't have to know anything for that to happen and it, of course, did happen.
  
  But hey, these days Nazi is just like playdough for evil stuff
  And sometimes those comparisons are even appropriate as in this case. Hence, why I made the comparison.
  
  But a good example of said "rationalization" would be the US. Starting with the mass destruction of the German cities, two atomic bombs over Japan, and the appaling track record that followed through, from South America to Vietnam to the Middle East. There was always a goood reason to kill all those people right?
  The difference is that if what were claimed to be at stake actually were at stake, then most people would have carried through those acts. For example, a lot of people (including me BTW) still find the destruction of German cities and the atomic bombs on Japan to be justified. If the existence of the US were really at stake and its population really did face enslavement by the loathsome ideology of Communism, then that would justify most of those other acts of which you accuse the US. Attempting to choose the "lesser evil" is not just a thing that happens in ethics games of thought. It happens in the real world as well.
  
  I think however that there a big difference between that sort of rationalization and the kind I'm talking about. Where the harm done is so out of line with the expected benefit, that normal people would not fall for it at all.
  
  Here, we have someone who hurts local businesses, possibly putting people out of work, and using up public funds for court costs (which could have gone to projects benefiting the public). If they're doing it so that they can occasionally go to the developing world, help a few people, and feel good about themselves, then that would be a very sick moral attitude that most people would not buy in to. Helping a few people doesn't rationalize harming a lot of people.
40. Re:Hurray! by SmurfButcher+Bob · 2012-02-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  > Except it's not really a software patent, is it? It's really just an idiotic patent, and looks like
  Uh, first you say it's not really a software patent, and then you say it's really just a software patent.
  As far as rejection goes... he simply needs to resubmit, this time adding the phrase, "on a mobile device".
  
  --
  
  help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
41. Re:Hurray! by RobCull · 2012-03-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Myspace has money?
42. Re:Hurray! by Grishnakh · 2012-03-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, it's just like Radio Shack. They have money and continue to operate, and no one has the slightest clue how they do it.
Is this one in East Texas? by msobkow · 2012-02-28 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now that East Texas has finally started rejecting patent troll claims, maybe Texas justice will take hold and they'll clean the gene pool a little by just SHOOTING idiots like this on their way out of court.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
1. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by PatPending · 2012-02-28 15:31 · Score: 2
  
  No; it's Central District California. Complaint
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
2. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  Crazifornia? Double the guard at the sanity temple and triple the cyanide dosage in the genepool cleaner.
3. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-02-28 17:08 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And yet, for some reason, all of you assholes still want to move here. Don't. There's no jobs, especially not high-tech ones. There's no scenery. The beaches don't even have waves like they do at the Atlantic. All that Hollywood shit is fake. We don't have good marijuana. All we have are ghettos and military bases, and who wants to live in a military state? Oh, and gays. California accepts the gays because it is a state nobody wants to move to. Everything is also really expensive and totally not worth it.
  
  Nope, don't move here. I can't even escape to Arizona because California took my car as tax money.
4. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by mosb1000 · 2012-02-28 17:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try.
5. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by Grishnakh · 2012-02-28 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  Are you trying to dissuade people from moving there to reduce competition for yourself, or just trolling? There's tons of tech jobs in California; I get calls from recruiters just about every day trying to get me to move to the Bay Area. There's surfing on the southern California beaches; I've never seen anyone try to surf at Virginia Beach or Nag's Head. And as for gays, California passed Prop 8, so apparently there's a bunch of homophobes there that can be mobilized to go to the polls.
6. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by fahrbot-bot · 2012-02-28 18:37 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen anyone try to surf at Virginia Beach or Nag's Head.
  Oh, people try to surf here - heh. Of course, the East Coast Surfing Championships have been held here in Va Beach every August (or so) for about 50 years...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
7. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 20:00 · Score: 2
  
  The best thing about California is that people who live there never make sarcastic comments that sail right over people's heads.
8. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  Round up all the people on California? Too much work. Detonate a couple of well placed explosives along a fault line, and you can get all those troublemakers to just slide right off into the Pacific instead. When that happens, that'll be the day I go back to Annandale.
9. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by mcgrew · 2012-02-29 04:08 · Score: 2
  
  Are you trying to dissuade people from moving there to reduce competition for yourself, or just trolling?
  woooooOOOOOSH!!!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
10. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by ndege · 2012-02-29 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  And you have to pay a $1,000 fine for playing Frisbee or football on the beach.
  bad information: See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/football-and-frisbee-beach-furor-la-county-reels.html
  
  --
  Sig Return: 204 No Content
11. Re:Is this one in East Texas? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Noted; thank you.
Like GeoCities? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:13 · Score: 0

Prior art ad infinitum since early 90s.
+FIRST ;-)
I'll settle by PPH · 2012-02-28 15:14 · Score: 5, Funny

My royalty payment is in an envelope, just behind my SUV.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:I'll settle by hobarrera · 2012-02-28 17:00 · Score: 2
  
  I've patented paying royalties, so you now owe me as well!
2. Re:I'll settle by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  I've patented paying royalties, so you now owe me as well!
  I sense an infinite loop...
3. Re:I'll settle by rvw · 2012-02-28 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  My royalty payment is in an envelope, just behind my SUV.
  In Suviet Union, envelops pay you - in your royal behind.
rejections appeals? by j00r0m4nc3r · 2012-02-28 15:16 · Score: 4, Funny

I tried that with the girls in high school -- it never worked.
1. Re:rejections appeals? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-02-28 15:20 · Score: 2
  
  I tried that with the girls in high school -- it never worked.
  Who has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the mother or the best friend?
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
2. Re:rejections appeals? by philip.paradis · 2012-02-28 15:28 · Score: 2
  
  I think you just redirected commentary on patent trolls to look like something from the Jerry Springer show. On second thought, the antics of patent trolls rival anything I've ever seen on Springer, so yeah, never mind.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
3. Re:rejections appeals? by TheLink · 2012-02-28 15:50 · Score: 2
  
  I'd think it's the Dad with an extensive firearm collection. He can play executioner as well as judge ;).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
4. Re:rejections appeals? by Hyperhaplo · 2012-02-28 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Her sister, actually, hence why it was damn difficult to continue dating.. I overruled her sister.. eventually. Thanks for asking.
  In relation to the article, your question provides an apt example of why the American system is so broken... an appropriate authority should be in place to determine a correct path - in particular for appeals - and where the party doing so has a personal interest in the outcome.. the outcome is unlikely to be fair and equitable.
  
  --
  You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
5. Re:rejections appeals? by Flere+Imsaho · 2012-02-29 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Crying isn't appealing
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:19 · Score: 0

are broke beyond repair.
1. Re:Patents by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, dumbass. Patents are broke because this guy had his rejected and he's still suing for patent infringement anyway.
Re:Ron Paul FTW! by mooingyak · 2012-02-28 15:26 · Score: 3, Informative

From the summary:

... claims that four million Facebook business account holders, including at least three major presidential candidates, are guilty of infringing his patent. He's suing Facebook for infringing on his patent as well as the three candidates.
This particular usage is simply saying that they are referring to the same three candidates that were mentioned in the previous sentence, not that they're necessarily more legit than any other candidates or anything like that.

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Everybody Just Calm Down by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Everybody calm down. Even if this is appealed it will be struck down for the useless crap it is. The appeals process is normal, and the "inventor" has a very real financial incentive to appeal. But keep in mind the patent examiner has lready struck it down, so it's not an actionable patent yet, and will definitely never be.
1. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Everybody calm down. Even if this is appealed it will be struck down for the useless crap it is. The appeals process is normal, and the "inventor" has a very real financial incentive to appeal. But keep in mind the patent examiner has lready struck it down, so it's not an actionable patent yet, and will definitely never be.
  No the summary and article are bad. This actually produced an issued patent, # 7,644,122 (which issued in 2010). But the patent is now under inter partes reexamination (# 95/001,411; you can look up that application number in Public PAIR), and that reexamination of the patent has resulted in all claims rejected. The right of appeal notice (it's not exactly a final rejection; inter partes reexamination works a little differently than ex parte prosecution) is under appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. It may take awhile to get a decision though given the backlog at the Board.
  When that is done, there is an appeal route to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When the proceeding and all of the litigation is complete, the Office will issue a reexamination certificate, which would cancel all of the claims (if the rejections of record hold up).
  Technically there's nothing stopping the patent owner from suing someone else in federal court, but such litigation would surely get stayed in light of the reexamination in the USPTO.
2. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by mug+funky · 2012-02-28 16:58 · Score: 2
  
  next we work on getting patents like this rejected on application, rather than when it's involved in a costly lawsuit...
3. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by sjames · 2012-02-28 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's is total garbage. It's a shame crap like this is allowed to cost the defendants even a bit of time and money. The courts should be able to shoot crap like this down before the defendants even have to hear about it.
4. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by Grishnakh · 2012-02-28 18:03 · Score: 2
  
  No, the USPTO shouldn't issue these shitty patents in the first place. I hope they change their decision and un-reject this patent, so it can go to court. The only way we're going to get reform of the USPTO is if the wrong politician gets burned by their antics, otherwise they'll keep inflicting us with this BS.
5. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by whoever57 · 2012-02-28 18:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even if this is appealed it will be struck down for the useless crap it is.
  He is hoping that it won't be struck down before Facebook's IPO and that Facebook might decide that it would be prudent to keep their IPO paperwork clean of pending patent litigation by paying him some money to go away (AKA "settling the case").
  
  Nice IPO you have there, it would be a shame if you lost a few $B on the IPO because of a little lawsuit, wouldn't it?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
6. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Right, so in fewer words, there is no actionable patent. There is a patent number with a bunch of rejected claims, and that is not really a patent.
7. Re:Everybody Just Calm Down by MountainLogic · 2012-02-29 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  It is worth noting that this is not his first filing on the topic. He has previous patent 6,671,714 filed in late 1999 that issued in 2003. That patent is for a cute scheme to assign standard email names to everyone.
  The claims of that older patent are:
  1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of: assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "name@subdomain.domain;" wherein the "name" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same and unique for each particular one of said members such that an only difference between said URL and said e-mail address for said member is that in said URL the "@" symbol of the e-mail address is replaced with a "." and wherein said "subdomain" portion of said URL and said e-mail address is the same for all members of said group.
  2. The method of claim 1 wherein said members of said group comprise members of a licensed profession.
Much better sources at Patently-O by PatPending · 2012-02-28 15:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Political Candidates Sued for Patent Infringement
Complaint
P.S. And no it's not in East Texas; it's Central District California.

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
1. Re:Much better sources at Patently-O by PatPending · 2012-02-28 16:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Here is the plaintiff's website.
  Golly, I haven't seen a website using frameset/frame since 2000.
  
  This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
  Joking aside, there's this noteworthy paragraph from their February 21, 2012 news release:
  
  According to EveryMD's attorney Frank Weyer, the timing of Facebook's IPO Prospectus could not have been better. "Earlier in the litigation, we had offered our patent to Facebook for a minimal fee, representing a one-time fee of less than $.02 per Facebook member at the time--an almost negligible amount given the vast sums of money that Facebook intends to make off its users," says Weyer. "Instead, Facebook rejected that offer and tried to overwhelm us with their team of high-priced attorneys. We are now pleased that Facebook did not take us up on our earlier offer. Thanks to Facebook's IPO prospectus, we realize our earlier offer was greatly undervalued. It will now take a substantially higher sum to resolve this ongoing patent dispute."
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
2. Re:Much better sources at Patently-O by gl4ss · 2012-02-29 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  why don't they sue all bbs forums on the planet..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Four candidates. by Rinisari · 2012-02-28 15:31 · Score: 1

Ahem. Four candidates.
Paul
Romney
Santorum
oh
and Gingrich. Everyone forgets him.

--
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
1. Re:Four candidates. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  You have some evidence that all four are being sued?
2. Re:Four candidates. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Paul wasn't mentioned in the complaint. Neither was Obama, who is also a candidate. Perhaps they don't have FB accounts? (The complaint uses the qualifier "business" to describe accounts--not sure what this distinction means.)
  (CAPTCHA: defended)
3. Re:Four candidates. by MightyMartian · 2012-02-28 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's one candidate and a bunch of unelectable lunatics.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Four candidates. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's 1 lunatic, and 4 corporate whores, 3 of whom are playing the role of lunatics to get elected. (Actually, Santorum seems like he's genuinely a lunatic, not just playing the part to get the religious vote.)
5. Re:Four candidates. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  It's any number of unelectable lunatics numbering from somewhere between 1 and 4, equal to the number being sued. Yes, I'm saying they're all of them unelectable lunatics. Santorum is a fundamentalist wacko, Romney is a cult-member, (don't feel bad, actually all four for of them are, as far as I'm concerned), Gingrich put out a contract on America a while back, and eventually America will remember. Oh, and what's that other guy's name? The guy who's too damn old and also too honest, and that's a shame, because America is about ripe for another experiment with isolationism like we had between WW1 and WW2. It worked out great then, when our "Europe's problems are EURPOE'S problems, not ours" attitude almost let Germany rule the entire planet. You do know that without our involvement, Germany would have been the first to have ICBM's AND nukes, and the Nazi's were running the show there, right? Good thing Ron Fool wasn't in charge then.
  Sorry, I meant Paul. Ron PAUL.
  The plain and simple fact is the debates don't matter, nor does the Republican primary process, since they're only fighting to see who gets to get stomped like a narc at a biker rally, by BHO in November. Enjoy the party, losers.
6. Re:Four candidates. by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 19:51 · Score: 2
  
  But Santorum is a lunatic and a corporate whore. I could show you a Venn diagram with lunatic and shill circles in it that all the candidates fit into, makes it easy to visualize. And since it's displaying a Venn diagram on the web, that is of course a patentable advance.
7. Re:Four candidates. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Ok then: 1 is a lunatic, but not a corporate whole (Paul). One is not a lunatic, but is a corporate whore (Obama). One is both a lunatic and a corporate whore (Santorum, aka Mr. Frothy). And the other two appear to me to be corporate whores who are acting like lunatics to get the lunatic right-wing vote.
Can we say sanctions? by SecurityGuy · 2012-02-28 15:36 · Score: 1

So this guy is suing for patent infringement over a patent HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE? How is this not instantly thrown out and the lawyers fined a hefty sum for this stupidity?
1. Re:Can we say sanctions? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, would be more than happy to explain. After all, they had no problem doing SCO's bidding these last 10 years.
get over it for once by ChipMonk · 2012-02-28 15:39 · Score: 0

Stop being a Paul-bot and RTFA.

Your favorite candidate has no chance of winning the one poll that matters, and he never will, thanks to his own history. And the fact that everybody knows this, does not mean there is some big Conspiracy to Keep Your Man Down. He did it to himself; the only thing everyone else is doing to him is telling the truth. It's why he refuses to do most campaign interviews: he knows he'll be called to account for his past actions.

He's no victim. Stop with the histrionics.
1. Re:get over it for once by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:50 · Score: 0
  
  not paul-bot
  
  paulistinians
Excellent! by Citizen+of+Earth · 2012-02-28 15:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

We need MORE patent trolls to beat up on the presidential candidates with completely bogus nonsense to help bring attention to the brokenness of the current system. Set up a WikiTrolls organization to sue every major politician.
1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  going after possible presidential candidates and suing them over something stupid. Let me know how that works out (eye roll)...
2. Re:Excellent! by phantomfive · 2012-02-28 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds stupid, doesn't it? Suing people for having an 'online identity?' And yet it is no stupider or more obvious than the one-click patent from Amazon, which has withstood many attacks.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:Excellent! by MightyMartian · 2012-02-28 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  My Mexican jumping bean died, and it's ALL NEWT'S FAULT! I'm filing papers and suing him 20 quadrillion dollars!!!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  They'll make sure patent trolls (read: small guys) can't hit real innovators and manufacturers (read: campaign donors). But I like your idealism.
5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  Along with DMCA's on all the political websites?
6. Re:Excellent! by Spykk · 2012-02-28 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  No judge will side with the trolls when the victim is as high-profile as a presidential candidate. This will just give them an excuse to say "See, the system works!" Meanwhile countless little guys who can't afford legislation will be swept under the carpet.
YES!!!!! by Apothem · 2012-02-28 16:16 · Score: 1

Huzzah! For once the politicians are feeling the bite of their badly influenced decisions!
1. Re:YES!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Heh. It's not often one sees on Slashdot an example of the Law of Exclamation.
2. Re:YES!!!!! by KermodeBear · 2012-02-28 17:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And this is a good way to get it fixed. Contact the candidates involved in the lawsuit. Encourage them to take the matter seriously and to look into the abuses of the patent system. Use Righthaven as an example of a Patent Troll.
  We all know that a vast majority of our representation in the government is technologically ignorant. They probably don't know that this kind of stuff is a real and serious problem; they likely see this lawsuit as some crazy on-off event.
  It's not. Contact these people. Make sure they understand.
  
  --
  Love sees no species.
3. Re:YES!!!!! by Dog-Cow · 2012-02-28 22:30 · Score: 1
  
  RightHaven wasn't a patent troll.
  God. Sometime slashdotters are so ignorant it's really sad.
LOL by hobarrera · 2012-02-28 16:59 · Score: 1

I'd laugh out load on this, but I might be infringing someone else's patent.
1. Re:LOL by PatPending · 2012-02-28 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  Use of LOL is no laughing matter!
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:20 · Score: 0

Facebook was launched 2004, the patent was filed 2007. Looks like the infringing implementation actually is prior art.
1. Re:Great! by PatPending · 2012-02-28 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's a bit more complicated than that: In the 7,466,122 patent, there's this (added emphasis):
  
  Parent Case Text CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This patent application is a continuation of pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/747,881 entitled "Method, apparatus and business system for online communications with online and offline recipients," filed Dec. 29, 2003, now abandoned which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/447,755 entitled "Method, apparatus and business system for online communications with online and offline recipients," filed Nov. 23, 1999, issued Dec. 30, 2003 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,714.
  The "priority date" of Nov. 23, 1999 was also mentioned in their complaint.
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
THE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:57 · Score: 0

"as well as THE three candidates"
So Ron Paul does not once again not exist?!?
http://www.reddit.com/r/ronpaulcensored
Am i dreaming by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 17:59 · Score: 0

Is this even real did it actually happen am I on some sort of acid trip.
I think all patents should now be scrapped the whole idea is flawed and serves no purpose in our world.
Hidden Agenda? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:00 · Score: 0

from the article I read it seems that the candidates are all Republican, with no mention of other parties being targeted, even though they have Facebook and online presence. Probably a disgruntled democrat needing another handout, time will tell...if he doesn't get squashed first.
Patents... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:10 · Score: 0

Let's hope nobody comes around holding a patent on "The moving of ones bowel, another person bowels or a group of people bowels."
We might all be in serious trouble for hitting the bathroom.
1. Re:Patents... by PatPending · 2012-02-28 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, shit.
  
  --
  What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
2. Re:Patents... by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  The Santorum capaign is already familiar with fighting against bowel movement issues.
Not a Troll by xkr · 2012-02-28 18:23 · Score: 1

Just pointing out an error in the headline. A "troll" is "non-practicing entity" AKA NPE. This guy has a working web site and business built around the patent. I am just saying ...

--
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
1. Re:Not a Troll by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's why he's certainly never going to profit from this move. NPE patent trolls survive only because they can't be destroyed with a coutersuit, when the larger company finds something in their patent pool that applies well enough to launch the suit. The proper trolls have no product that can be infringing, making them immune to that fear. The minute this guy gets any real traction, he's going to be countersued into oblivion. You can't play something almost like the patent troll game but while having a real product. The best thing that could happen this this company is that their patent is invalidated; they might stay in business that way.
2. Re:Not a Troll by EmagGeek · 2012-02-29 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  Around what patent? The patent office rejected the patent claims. There is no patent.
3. Re:Not a Troll by xkr · 2012-02-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  The patent has been granted. It is currently in, but not out of, re-examination. However, the current progress in re-exam doesn't look favorable for the patent holder.
  
  --
  I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Um, I've got one... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:34 · Score: 0

Has someone patented hating all this patent nonsense yet? They have? Crap. I'm infringing hard right now.
Should have sued Obama in 2008 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 18:45 · Score: 0

Considering that Obama was a big user of social media, including Facebook, in the 2008 presidential campaign, this guy should have sued Obama back in 2008...
Not a patent troll by Theaetetus · 2012-02-28 18:57 · Score: 1

From the article:

The lawsuit was filed by Weyer's company EVERYMD. That company provides communications services to over 300,000 medical doctors.
But I suppose "Small company fights uphill battle against Facebook over willful infringement of their patents" doesn't make as good a headline.
1. Re:Not a patent troll by greg1104 · 2012-02-28 19:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  How about "small company temporarily patents the obvious and loses a lot of money to lawyers" instead then? That's where this is going; the fact that they do have a product just means they can be counter-sued to death, a problem true patent trolls are immune to.
  Can't be sympathetic for the small company when it's yet another variation on the " but on the web now!" patent nonsense. The idea that this was novel is 2007 makes the one-click ordering patent look like genius innovation; at least that hadn't been going on for a decade, all over the world, by the time of filing. I had a database-backed web site communicating among groups of people (the various divisions of my employer being one set) with an e-mail to FAX gateway in 1995. It was new then, but even at that point I considered it an obvious step, once the infrastructure was available.
2. Re:Not a patent troll by Theaetetus · 2012-02-29 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  How about "small company temporarily patents the obvious and loses a lot of money to lawyers" instead then? That's where this is going; the fact that they do have a product just means they can be counter-sued to death, a problem true patent trolls are immune to.
  Can't be sympathetic for the small company when it's yet another variation on the " but on the web now!" patent nonsense. The idea that this was novel is 2007 makes the one-click ordering patent look like genius innovation; at least that hadn't been going on for a decade, all over the world, by the time of filing.
  Unlikely, since the time of filing was 1996, and the claims include URLs, which were only invented in 1995.
  
  I had a database-backed web site communicating among groups of people (the various divisions of my employer being one set) with an e-mail to FAX gateway in 1995. It was new then, but even at that point I considered it an obvious step, once the infrastructure was available.
  Maybe you should've talked to a patent attorney rather than essentially representing yourself and deciding you had nothing.
how is that working with the SuperPACs? by mbkennel · 2012-02-28 20:11 · Score: 1

Even after the PacMen have gone batshit deranged on the corporations-have-Constitutional-rights-to-buy-elections-too Republican candidates, not a single candidate has changed his mind about their legality. Their only response is "We need more money for ours".
More Like That by Greyfox · 2012-02-28 20:25 · Score: 2

As more candidates get burned by IP issues, they ARE going to wake up to how bad the system has become. Since it affects them individually, you know they're going to want to fix the system. Mostly so they can use whatever they want royalty-free. Romney and Newt both have been burned by copyright issues in this season. If a multi-million-dollar presidential candidate can't get this shit right, you think an average Joe has any chance? So yeah, keep picking on the candidates. We'll see how long those pesky laws remain on the books...

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:More Like That by Apothem · 2012-02-28 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, it'd be funny to just start assaulting all the candidates with every crappy lawsuit one could come up with. I'm not even saying just throw random stuff, but more of watch not only the patent trolls but also DMCA law and all the horrors associated. It'd be a dream to see an entire campaign site get a DMCA takedown notice.
2. Re:More Like That by smellsofbikes · 2012-02-29 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  As more candidates get burned by IP issues, they ARE going to wake up to how bad the system has become. Since it affects them individually, you know they're going to want to fix the system. Mostly so they can use whatever they want royalty-free. Romney and Newt both have been burned by copyright issues in this season. If a multi-million-dollar presidential candidate can't get this shit right, you think an average Joe has any chance? So yeah, keep picking on the candidates. We'll see how long those pesky laws remain on the books...
  I seem to remember that when Jackson Browne sued John McCain for copyright violation over McCain's use of "Running On Empty", McCain's first response was to propose legislation exempting political ads from copyright law (although a quick google search just shows lots of results on him losing the fight with Browne and settling out of court.) So my suspicion is that we'd see the same thing: politicians would exempt themselves but leave the rest of us in the same situation we're currently in.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Too Big To Fail (TM) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 20:34 · Score: 0

You really thought you could wield software patents against the big players? Hahahahaha....
sheesh! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 22:26 · Score: 0

the nutjobs really crawl out from under the rocks when there's dinero afoot, eh?
Re:Venn diagram on the web by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-28 22:30 · Score: 1

xkcd probably has prior art on that kind of thing!

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Recursive patent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-28 23:58 · Score: 0

Let's just file a recursive patent on filing patents, or even on owning any patents, and of course on filing patents about owning patents and vice versa, so we can sue anyone who files or owns any patents, including ourselves, which in any case of a patent-related lawsuit immediately leads to a recursive patent trial, occupying every human being with participating in the trial, and crashing world order as soon as no more people can be allocated to participate in the trials... and maybe let's get some popcorn first... ;)
Man bites what? by paiute · 2012-02-29 00:56 · Score: 2

Hold on a tick - the Patent Office rejected a claim? The United States Patent Office? Are you sure about that?

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The new McCain-Feingold by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2012-02-29 02:34 · Score: 1

This is horrible! This makes patents look like the best thing to come along since the McCain-Feingold Act! Someone who can tell politicians to sit down and shut up, and legally enforce that?
This could start a new era of rule by patent! The sky will fall and there will be anarchy in the streets!
Until... I sue rioters because I hold the patent on anarchy for large groups in public locations for the purpose of civil unrest but not gathered for a particular reason, Patent #828238271238414235

--
I8-D
Best path to patent reform... by AttyBobDobalina · 2012-02-29 03:37 · Score: 0

What better idea is there to get the dry idea of patent system reform on the radar of politicians than to start suing them individually. Even if the suit is totally frivolous, they will still need to hire attorneys to defend the suit and get it dismissed (albeit probably quickly). Would think being able to sue someone individually under these circumstances would really stick in the craw of someone like Romney.
shoot him by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-29 04:20 · Score: 0

Its time to start shooting these faggots, and their lawyers. All it takes is just one of us, who never had police/law trouble in his life, shoot the mofo, and go back to your life. Ideally, to the first hit, the families should be shot too, so that as an example it scares the shit out of other ppl.
Kill one of them, this will educate the rest.