Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo's Own Lash Out At Company Over "Weaponized" Patents
Velcroman1 writes "Yahoo is suing Facebook for patent infringement — and the people responsible for Yahoo's patents are outraged. Andy Baio sold Upcoming.org to Yahoo in 2005 for an undisclosed sum, and agreed at the time to help the company file for patents based on the site he had invented and the code he had written. Baio was hesitant to do so, but told Wired.com that he thought he was helping as a precautionary measure. 'I thought I was giving them a shield,' Baio said. 'It turns out I gave them a missile with my name permanently engraved on it.' He helped Yahoo file for eight patents, four of which were later granted. And while none were cited in the Yahoo complaint, Baio said a handful were now 'weaponized to use against people like me.'" bdking points out that Mark Cuban is sick of the patent fiasco as well but his approach is slightly different. "He's rooting for Yahoo to 'destroy' Facebook in its patent lawsuit. Why? Because if Yahoo collects, say, $50 billion from Facebook and forces the social networking company out of business, consumers will revolt and demand patent reform."
Destroying Facebook will not result in a "consumer revolt". The users will hop on the next big thing. They might go on G+, where they will incessantly upvote each others "Fuck Yahoo I miss Facebook" posts, without actually doing anything about it.
Social media is dangerous in that respect, because it encourages people to talk about doing right, in order to get recognition from their "friends", without actually following through. Everyone suddenly thinks they're an activist because they shared some viral pic.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
That is all.
Check your premises.
High profile employees bashing their own employers over company ethics and purpose - Google, Goldman Sachs, Yahoo, all just today.
Please RTFA and make an informed response. Oh wait, this is /.
People don't even revolt when stimulus helps unions and banks and congressional pork rather than real people.
People don't even revolt when gasoline and food prices go up, double, largely because of currency destruction which is a Presidential choice due to budget choices.
People don't even revolt when police set up random checkpoints on highways, airports, train stations, and their own front yard.
People are not going to revolt if Facebook stock gets crushed due to an outsized Patent award. It will simply mean Yahoo owns 50% of Facebook. The site will continue to function uninterrupted. It worked just fine with $40m so it will; work better with $5000m.
JJ
Because if Yahoo collects, say, $50 billion from Facebook and forces the social networking company out of business, consumers will revolt and demand patent reform.
As awesome as this fantasy scenario that takes out 2 birds with one stone sounds, lets be honest, it's just that. A fantasy.
Facebook isn't going to crumble any time soon, unfortunately.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
... not when they can be sold to other people. Here, the innovators are S.O.L. while Yahoo uses patents for their inventions for its own purposes.
(shrug). People make mistakes in life, and then later regret their actions. I'm not going to get all incensed at Andy Baio.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Oh that's rich! Yahoo needs to pull itself out of hole of spam and Viagra before it makes claims like that. Please! Who in their right mind still uses yahoo? People who are dying to get bombarded with useless adds? Good bye Yahoo, it was nice knowing you.
But Yahoo assured us that their patent portfolio was a precautionary measure, to defend against patent trolls and others who might try to attack Yahoo with their own holdings.
Assuming he is telling the truth, it is absolutely nothing like your comparison at all.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Facebook.... well, Mark Zuckerberg, kind of deserves this. It's well known he stole Facebook from several people. Sure he wrote the code, but he was paid to write Facebook. Yes I know Paul and the twins ended up losing their lawsuit, but just because they couldn't afford to fight a billion-dollar legal team doesn't mean they're wrong.
Is Yahoo's lawsuits just karma catching up with Mark?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I wonder how many techology companies are going to instruct their legal staffs to give Yahoo the ultimate anal probe with an eye towards brining them down. Revenge is a dish best served cold. ------ Someday I'll figure out how to put a pithy saying in this space.
Vietnam Veteran / Former Postal Worker -- Use Caution When Taunting!
... used as economic and financial TERRORISM by big corporations.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Another bitter soul who sold out and now is angry that he lost more than he realized. Get a life people. Nothing here to read.
"weaponized patents", that's like saying a weaponized gun.
Anyways, Facebook can defend itself. But think about the chilling effect on smaller companies like semi-successful startups.
There can be no ownership of an idea, unlike ownership of physical things. It is not defensible philosophically, as it is incompatible with control of your body (brain) and contractual agreements. Patents are simply monopoly privileges, which have as destructive effect on innovation and competitive entry when applied systematically.
I agree with Mark Cuban, but only if it happens soon enough. Obviously nothing is guaranteed but there does seem to be a certain lifetime for social networking platforms (and facebook may or may not be reaching its own as shown by declining membership numbers in its initial markets), so they would have to win their suits before facebook collapses on its own, otherwise they end up with no money and no outrage from consumers.
Inventor of Dynamite and the conscience easing Nobel Peace prize. Virtually every weapon is built upon something invented for peace. Forged metal works for plowshares and well as swords. You can't expect a promise like "do no evil" to assure that the future fate of developments made under that banner won't turn evil when sold. Dynamite was revolutionary to safe mining. And at the time it was thought might even end war since the prospect was so terrifying.
But I think the real prize here is neither of the options. that is to say Yahoo won't land a killer blow. All it needs to do is win even a token amount.
Then they can sell this "technology" to Google+. This will allow Google+ to be indemnified as it encroaches on Facebook, and also for google to shut out other competitors from apple or amazon that crop up.
Tat outcome would be good in the sense it would provide competition for Facebook. THat's good for everyone. But it's bad from a general competition point of view
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If Facebook were to be destroyed as a going concern because a verdict in Yahoo!'s favor exceeded Facebook's ability to pay (which is fantastically unlikely, but let's ignore that for a moment), its assets (including software, databases, and domain names, trademarks, etc.) would be sold off to pay its debts -- most likely sold to the same buyer, because they'd be most valuable together. And that buyer -- because its the best way to get value out of those assets -- would almost certainly continue to use them to operate the social network called "Facebook", with no break in continuity. Sure, if they didn't change anything they'd either have to (a) get a license from Yahoo!, or (b) be Yahoo!, but even if liability from past infringement was enough to wipe out the existing Facebook corporation, the value of future use would almost certainly justify any purchaser of the assets securing the needed licenses to Yahoo! patents (unless Yahoo! acquired the assets directly, in which case they wouldn't need a license.)
So, from a consumer perspective, the social network known as Facebook wouldn't be destroyed by the lawsuit, even if the business entity currently known as Facebook was destroyed by it. So consumers are unlikely to care.
It's much more profitable to fleece the sheep than exterminate them.
'I thought I was giving them a shield,'
Yeah, this country came along and asked me to make them a nuclear weapon, but promised they'd only use it if they were attacked. So I made it for them. And now that they're on the verge of collapse they're using it to extort their neighbours.
Who's surprised? Patents aren't defensive.
Has there ever been a patent that *wasn't* weaponized?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ok Cuban. Users will revolt over the loss of Facebook??? Hmmmm, Is a revolt what caused them to flee Myspace? Or any of the other social networking sites? They're all nothing but pet rocks and if FB disappeared tomorrow then the sheep will go running to some OTHER vanity site.
You make a weapon, you bear some culpability for its use in anger. I'm looking at you, Red Hat.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This rebuttal is used by morons who can't think
Indeed, the area of software patents looks to be the next frontier of extensive intellectual property legal battles. While I'm not against the idea of patenting software, I wouldn't be surprised if these coming fights eventually led either to new limitations on software patents, or even to their elimination altogether.