Facebook Purchases 650 AOL Patents From Microsoft

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Purchases 650 AOL Patents From Microsoft

Posted by Soulskill on Monday April 23, 2012 @06:32AM from the patent-rent-to-own dept.

eldavojohn writes "Not two weeks after Microsoft purchased 925 patents and patent applications plus licenses to AOL's portfolio for $1 billion, Facebook has now acquired 650 of said patents and patent applications for $550 million to which Microsoft retains a license. So, was Microsoft's $450 million worth it? According to their press release: 'Upon closing of this transaction with Facebook, Microsoft will retain ownership of approximately 275 AOL patents and applications; a license to the approximately 650 AOL patents and applications that will now be owned by Facebook; and a license to approximately 300 patents that AOL did not sell in its auction.' Will the patent-go-round continue, or has Facebook loaded up for a good old-fashion Mexican standoff?"

73 of 93 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

W00t by masternerdguy · 2012-04-23 06:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now facebook can monitor you even more effectively.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
1. Re:W00t by Yvan256 · 2012-04-23 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody expect the Roman inquisition!
2. Re:W00t by ozmanjusri · 2012-04-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Now facebook can monitor you even more effectively.
  No, it's just the Axis partners aligning themselves for another battle.
  Microsoft and Facebook have formed gang to beat on Google. This time, Microsoft paid for the ammunition, but Facebook will be pulling the trigger. Interestingly enough, there are hints that Apple may be piling on too.
  http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000850.html
  http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/some-of-the-anti-google-tea-party-is-astroturf/6496
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/facebook-enlists-pr-firm-burson-marsteller-to-pitch-google-privacy-story.html
  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-deflects-pr-firms-attack-gmail-privacy/story?id=13566971#.T5XZdFRUTrE
  http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/13/business/seeking-to-fix-damaged-image-apple-hires-burson-marsteller.html
  http://www.burson-marsteller.com/Innovation_and_insights/blogs_and_podcasts/harold_burson_blog/default.aspx
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Further Alignment by alphatel · 2012-04-23 06:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Google has already staked their company on G+. Does Microsoft gain an edge by helping Facebook even if there is no direct payoff?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
See where this is going?

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
1. Re:Further Alignment by characterZer0 · 2012-04-23 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Google has already staked their company on G+.
  What are you talking about?
  
  --
  Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
2. Re:Further Alignment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  I could care less about either company. I'm just hoping between this and the recent Apple patent trolling, more people will realize just how broken our patent system is.
3. Re:Further Alignment by alphatel · 2012-04-23 07:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Is this your first visit to /. ?
  Page re-aligns Google
  "When he took over as CEO, Page quickly made his top priority clear by moving Google's executive offices into the same building as the team working on Google Plus. Page also tied a portion of employee bonuses to the success of Google Plus and eliminated what he considered to be unnecessary distractions by closing more than 20 of the company's less popular services.
  "Larry is driven by his paranoia about Facebook. Clearly, these are two companies at war with each other," said Ken Auletta, who got to know Page while writing his book about the company.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
4. Re:Further Alignment by Nyall · 2012-04-23 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  No direct payoff? Microsoft put 240 million into facebook in 2007.
  They are merely protecting an investment.
  
  --
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
5. Re:Further Alignment by blind+biker · 2012-04-23 07:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, in principle I agree with you, but there is a caveat: I suspect that Facebook cannot further crush G+, since they, in essence, aren't competing against each other anymore. What I mean is, those that prefer the G+ style of doing social networking, won't leave G+, and those who prefer Facebook haven't joined and never will (or maybe joined for a brief moment, looked around and left). G+ won't grow much, I think (I'm a G+ user, BTW), but it doesn't really have to. Don't get me wrong, I am sure Google would love to see G+ grow much larger, but they aren't exactly sad even with a smaller social network - the users are loyal enough, and some profit can be created.
  I think G+ is the Linux of social networks: sure, there aren't many users of it, but those that are there don't care about the number of users. And some company (Red Had) can still make a profit off Linux.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
6. Re:Further Alignment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Making a product a priority and betting the companies future on a product are not the same thing. I very much doubt they will get significant revenue from G+ anytime soon.
7. Re:Further Alignment by tripleevenfall · 2012-04-23 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Whooooooooosh!
8. Re:Further Alignment by tripleevenfall · 2012-04-23 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  This will have no impact whatever on the structure of the patent system. Perhaps one in one thousand of the general public could even explain what a patent is.
9. Re:Further Alignment by tripleevenfall · 2012-04-23 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wait - Microsoft invested $240 million into facebook, and in return Microsoft... sold facebook $650 million worth of patents to 'protect an investment'?
  Who is investing in who?
10. Re:Further Alignment by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say yes, MS gains an edge, Google has staked too much on G+, so hitting them there hurts more than hitting them anywhere else. Given Google's anti-competitive games, and seeming immunity from anti-trust probes have made them a fair amount of enemies, taking them down a notch or three is a boon to pretty much everyone else in the industry, in every sector Google tries to invade.
  Who'd have thought, evil proprietary corporations cooperating for the greater good.
11. Re:Further Alignment by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-04-23 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I could care less about either company.
  ARGH! Fighting... grammar... nazi... tendencies...
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
12. Re:Further Alignment by Yvan256 · 2012-04-23 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  See where this is going?
  If you keep clicking on links, sooner or later you'll end up on an adult website?
13. Re:Further Alignment by zlives · 2012-04-23 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  the pre-ipo circle jerk continues
14. Re:Further Alignment by Nyall · 2012-04-23 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  First its $550 million. And yes it looks like microsoft has so far made a 550-240=310 million profit. But I can also see an advantage in facebook having their 900lb gorilla buddy microsoft being the one to go to AOL and negotiate for these patents. Namely if it was FB doing the negotiating that would have tipped their hand, then the patents might have been costlier.
  Also microsoft has a billion to throw around, while I'm not sure facebook has that pre-ipo.
  
  --
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
15. Re:Further Alignment by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-23 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has been "partnered" with Facebook for several years now. Nothing new here. It's also probably why MS doesn't have its own social network and such, but adds Facebook integration to many of its products (Windows Phone has it out of the box, for example, and so does Xbox).
16. Re:Further Alignment by gnick · 2012-04-23 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  ARGH! Fighting... grammar... nazi... tendencies...
  I think you meant to say, "I am fight grammar Nazi tendencies." But that's fine. For all intensive porpoises, their the same. Too different ways of getting your point acrossed. I could care less. =)
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
17. Re:Further Alignment by PCM2 · 2012-04-23 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Making a product a priority and betting the companies future on a product are not the same thing. I very much doubt they will get significant revenue from G+ anytime soon.
  How could you tell how much revenue Google gets from it? Google's entire business is based on capturing eyeballs in order to offer greater value to advertisers. Do you honestly think G+ is not designed to do that? And yet, the revenue Google captures from these moves will be reported in the advertising portion of its business. You're not going to see any "Google+ revenue" figure on its 10-K.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
18. Re:Further Alignment by PCM2 · 2012-04-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  G+ won't grow much, I think (I'm a G+ user, BTW), but it doesn't really have to.
  I'm not a huge fan of G+, but I think you might be wrong. It's just that G+'s growth will probably come at Twitter's expense, rather than Facebook's. That's just my gut feeling, though.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
19. Re:Further Alignment by interkin3tic · 2012-04-23 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  "Re-aligning" and "staking your company on" are two different things.
  
  McDonalds aligns it's advertising to the McRib sandwich every time it comes out. They do not stake themselves on the McRib though. They spend a lot on advertising that one sandwich each time, but if they don't sell any, McDonalds is not going to declare bankruptcy.
  
  Google is putting a lot of effort into getting you to use google plus, and maybe all the top people over at google are trying to beat facebook at the social media game, they are aligning to that. The front page has google plus tie ins. This does not mean they're putting all their eggs in google plus's basket. If google plus never goes anywhere, we'll still be using google maps, gmail, and google search, and they'll still be getting a lot of money for adsense based on just our searches, e-mail, and map searches.
  
  Staking the company on google plus would probably look like "In order to use google search, gmail, or google maps, you MUST BE SIGNED INTO GOOGLE PLUS." Which would be a stupid move and I'd be surprised if anyone working at google would be dumb enough to suggest it.
20. Re:Further Alignment by rtb61 · 2012-04-23 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly right. Facebook paid M$ nothing for 650 patents. M$ who already owns a chunk of Facebook, helped to create the illusion of wealth by accepting $? worth of Facebook junk shares prior to IPO. Seems like M$ is going to bail on it's investment of Facebook not long after the IPO, it's working to fatten the calf for the slaughter that follows.
  These stories should make a clear distinction between paying for somehow with hard cash and making junk share payments prior to IPO. What is the SEC asleep at the wheel again, this kind of pre-IPO marketing tactic is really pushing the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
21. Re:Further Alignment by Sulphur · 2012-04-23 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  Google has already staked their company on G+. Does Microsoft gain an edge by helping Facebook even if there is no direct payoff?
  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
  See where this is going?
  Alignment with the galactic center. Film on 12-21-2012.
22. Re:Further Alignment by drinkypoo · 2012-04-24 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft DOES have its own social network, they have single sign on and they have forums and messenger. But nobody particularly wants to use it; normal people don't want to use it because it sucks and nerds don't want to use it because they have to trust Microsoft to run scripts on their computer to even log into anything Windows Live any more. That means I can't even look up most forum posts about Halo Reach. Consequently Microsoft has had to go afield to find social networking users.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:Further Alignment by Xest · 2012-04-24 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft invested in Facebook very early on. Politically it's hard to see Facebook and Microsoft as a separate entity, they seem almost identically aligned in this respect, they've been scratching each others back for a long long time now to the point it's really impossible to consider whether an action by Facebook against a competitor of Facebook was really an independent action at all. Microsoft's opinion seems to hold a lot of sway at Facebook, and vice versa to a lesser extent. I'd argue the companies are perhaps the two most closely aligned of the major tech companies in Silicon Valley nowadays.
24. Re:Further Alignment by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-04-24 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft DOES have its own social network, they have single sign on and they have forums and messenger.
  That does not make for a social network.
25. Re:Further Alignment by drinkypoo · 2012-04-24 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  That does not make for a social network.
  You can make people your friend and follow their output, just because it's a shitty social network doesn't mean it isn't a social network. They also have Xbox Live, although that is fairly specific. That's an even more limited social network because it only permits real-time socialization, but it still is one. (You can leave messages, too, but they're not public. You can, however, publish some content to the network publically.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re:Further Alignment by blind+biker · 2012-04-24 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  It all depends on how you define "grow much" - I agree that there will be growth in numbers for G+, but not more than a couple million users from now till the end of this year, and steadily slower growth after that. That it will be on the expense of Twitter... well, it makes sense. Plus, I've met more than just a few such people who moved over from Twitter to G+, and almost nobody (very, very few) who moved over from FB.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
27. Re:Further Alignment by zlives · 2012-04-24 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  well you gotta get to 100billion$ (pinky and all) some how :)
Greater Fool Theory by McGruber · 2012-04-23 06:47 · Score: 2

All this means is that Zuckerberg is a greater fool than Balmer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory)
That is to be expected, since youth and talent are no match for age and treachery.
1. Re:Greater Fool Theory by who_stole_my_kidneys · 2012-04-23 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  youth and talent are no match for age and treachery.
  
  until Alzheimer's kicks in
2. Re:Greater Fool Theory by interval1066 · 2012-04-23 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  All this means is that Zuckerberg is a greater fool than Balmer.
  I don't buy that for a second. Some college kid creates 2 billion dollars in his dorm room (never mind whatever swindling and conniving he did along the way for a secod), and buying some AOL patents suddenly makes him a fool? I don't think so. Something else is afoot.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
3. Re:Greater Fool Theory by bbbaldie · 2012-04-23 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Peter Principle. Zuckerberg hit his peak as a swindling conniver in college, it's all downhill from here.....
4. Re:Greater Fool Theory by interval1066 · 2012-04-23 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming the world doesn't end in December I guess we'll all see...
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
5. Re:Greater Fool Theory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's the Law of Unsuccessful Douchebags.
  People who aren't wildly successful often become hostile douchebags to anyone achieving success. Douchebaggery usually includes negative caveats (eg, the aforementioned, 'Baaaw, swindling!') or trendy hatred ("Facebook sucks because everyone on an Internet forum agrees with me!") without any actual knowledge surrounding the acquisition of the target's success.
  I've noticed it usually affects my fellow Americans more than other cultures; be that as it may, it's a truly worldwide phenomena.
6. Re:Greater Fool Theory by gstrickler · 2012-04-23 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  No, he demonstrated that a few weeks ago. $1B for Instagram?
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Gearing up for IPO.. by who_stole_my_kidneys · 2012-04-23 06:49 · Score: 2

Once FB goes public they will be lawfully required to turn a profit by any "lawful" means necessary, suing everyone over patent infringement is just another revenue stream, and makes them more "desirable". The problem with them holding all the cards is we don't know what those cards and if they are even worth anything.
1. Re:Gearing up for IPO.. by PickyH3D · 2012-04-23 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I would suspect that that's one reason for the patent purchase, but I would also expect that the other is because Yahoo is already suing them for patent infringement.
2. Re:Gearing up for IPO.. by Sir_Sri · 2012-04-23 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably a bit of both. Once they have to make (more) money they have to start doing things which make money beyond just showing some sketchy adds on the side of the page. That runs the risk of headbutting into patents that people do, or did use to make money (think amazons 1 click), and suddenly you're at risk for very expensive legal fights. The one click thing is a good example, because even though the patent is up in the air, and under discussion several places, if it is granted (in the EU for example), or if some part if it is upheld that you're infringing on you could be in deep shit fast. Facebook needs a defensive portfolio.
3. Re:Gearing up for IPO.. by Pope · 2012-04-23 08:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Once FB goes public they will be lawfully required to turn a profit by any "lawful" means necessary
  There is no such law.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
4. Re:Gearing up for IPO.. by b4dc0d3r · 2012-04-23 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Read "lawfully required" as "forced by shareholders and external parties through lawful (legal) means".
  Maybe there is no statute that says they are required to turn a profit, but there are piles of statutes, case law, regulations, SEC requirements, and "guidelines" which can be used as the basis for a lawsuit and other punishment.
  If you sell public stock, you have to try to be successful or you may suffer all kinds of wrath. Shareholder lawsuits against the board of directors are probably the most common, and they can force a decision on the board, and therefore the company.
  Departing CEO severance package too big? Sue the board for over-spending. Takeover opportunity missed? Sue the board for malfeasance.
  Read a bit at lexis-nexis, and read a bit more if you really want to know what you're talking about
See where this is going? by MRe_nl · 2012-04-23 06:50 · Score: 1

Only I will remain.

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
1. Re:See where this is going? by gnick · 2012-04-23 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  In the end there can be only one.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Tech Version Of The Cold War by blcamp · 2012-04-23 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is not terribly different from different countries on the map lining up with either the US or the Soviets... or going non-aligned.
It's a good old fashioned "military alliance"... just with patents and lawyers instead of nuclear warheads.

--
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
1. Re:Tech Version Of The Cold War by bgarcia · 2012-04-23 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think in this case, I'd prefer to be on the side of the 1000 lb patent gorilla - IBM.
  Hopefully all of the companies involved are happy with a standoff, but if things ever escalate, my money's on IBM destroying all enemies with its portfolio.
  
  --
  I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
2. Re:Tech Version Of The Cold War by pegasustonans · 2012-04-23 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  This is not terribly different from different countries on the map lining up with either the US or the Soviets... or going non-aligned.
  It's a good old fashioned "military alliance"... just with patents and lawyers instead of nuclear warheads.
  So, we wait until one of the sides goes bankrupt and Ronald Reagan takes credit?
  
  --
  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
3. Re:Tech Version Of The Cold War by H3lldr0p · 2012-04-23 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  This isn't the first time this has happened.
  It also happened way back when with the start of the airline industry. Back in 1903, the Wright Brothers started one over the way one controlled a plane. Long story short, WWI started and seeing as how planes were a cool new war toy, the US government stepped in and made them make peace or else no one would get the patent money.
  I have to wonder what's it going to take to get that to happen this time around.
4. Re:Tech Version Of The Cold War by marcosdumay · 2012-04-23 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  IBM is laughing all their way to the bank, while everybody pays them for the benefit of standing on their side. (In fact, that is not a new strategy for them)
  Don't bet on they destroying anybody.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
In Soviet Mexico... by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-04-23 06:57 · Score: 1

Will the patent-go-round continue, or has Facebook loaded up for a good old-fashion Mexican standoff?"
In Soviet Mexico, we just call them "standoffs".
Re:I bet $100... by OakDragon · 2012-04-23 07:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Sorry, you are in violation of my patent "placing a wager on an Internet forum". My lawyers will be in touch.

--
Dark Reflection
They're going to have free patent exchanges by Deliveranc3 · 2012-04-23 07:02 · Score: 1

At some point the world is going to wake up and notice that the U.S. forces it's patent and copyright laws down everyone's throats while all the big U.S. companies have agreements to ignore each other's IP.

Basically they're forcing everyone to adopt IP law while they don't (hypocritically obviously) but also telling them that it's for their good while not doing it themselves.
With all this constant patent reselling by Ukab+the+Great · 2012-04-23 07:05 · Score: 1

How exactly do you know whose patent you're potentially infringing on? Do searches on the US patent website return correctly updated info?
1. Re:With all this constant patent reselling by mystikkman · 2012-04-23 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually worse with patents. Reading patents before going on to allegedly violate them will make it wilful infringement and subject you to triple damages.
  http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Wilful_infringement
2. Re:With all this constant patent reselling by HornWumpus · 2012-04-23 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not knowing about the patent _can_ protect you from punitive damages.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Brilliant (or not so much) by Shamanin · 2012-04-23 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Facebook, it's the new AOL!

--
come on fhqwhgads
1. Re:Brilliant (or not so much) by HornWumpus · 2012-04-23 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  Because definitions of signal and noise vary by user.
  Facebook's growth has improved the S/N ratio for the rest of the net while not hurting facebook's. It is the new AOL.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Brilliant (or not so much) by AioKits · 2012-04-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Me too!
  
  --
  "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Re:I bet $100... by tripleevenfall · 2012-04-23 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sure AOL (for all its failings) never did a single thing in its entire existence that was patent-able while it ran (held captive?), for a time, nearly the entire online world.
Re:Social what? by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-04-23 07:26 · Score: 1

I don't care about any social media. I refuse to use any of it. I consider myself a technological hermit, and proud to be one.
Slashdot is the first and leading social media destination for technology professionals and IT decision makers. Slashdot’s highly engaged community of IT influencers share and socialize hundreds of pieces of content every day, including news, analysis, peer questions, and professional insight. Slashdot is a website of Geeknet Media, a wholly owned subsidiary of Geeknet Inc. (Nasdaq:GKNT).

link
makes sense by w_dragon · 2012-04-23 07:36 · Score: 1

Facebook is a great, big, popular walled garden. AOL was a great, big, popular walled garden. There's probably at least a few patents in the bunch that FB steps on that they would prefer to own, even if they are half way to expired by now.
Re:Social what? by HornWumpus · 2012-04-23 07:41 · Score: 1

/. is anti-social media if it makes you feel better.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:I bet $100... by Ihmhi · 2012-04-23 07:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Sorry, you are in violation of my patent "requesting a lawyer or lawyers to communicate to a third party that the third party is in violation of a patent or parents and humorously notifying the third party of this fact." My lawyers will be in touch.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Yahoo? by RedDeadThumb · 2012-04-23 07:58 · Score: 1

Perhaps there is something in this bunch that helps FB against the Yahoo suit. That is still on, right? Such silly games we force companies (and people) to play.
Re:I bet $100... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-23 08:03 · Score: 1

Don't forget that AOL also owned all Netscape patents, which covered basic web infrastructure things like cookies and SSL (and even various tags such as HEAD).
Gurr... Patents Bad STOMP! by jellomizer · 2012-04-23 08:04 · Score: 1

This looks like normal business to me.
For most businesses they don't see patents so negativity. For the most part if they know about the patent before hand they normally work to either buy it, or purchase a license to use it. Now they could fight it (to invalidate the patent), but that usually happened after they asked for it and they said no. You are looking at the Patent Case between Apple and Samsung or Google and Oracle, but those are more the exception then the case. I am willing to be that Apple and Samsung Google and Oracle agree and share patents and license them to each other for a lot more cases then the ones they fight over.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
FB has decided its next area of business growth: by Chryana · 2012-04-23 08:11 · Score: 1

Patent litigation.
New product range by TheBogBrushZone · 2012-04-23 08:20 · Score: 2

Now Facebook will be able to mass produce drinks coasters with impunity.

--
And behold, a command prompt and he who sat upon it, his name was shutdown and -h 3:11 followed with him
Re:I bet $100... by TaoPhoenix · 2012-04-23 08:59 · Score: 1

You have a +1 Funny phrasing, but I gotta believe the company that spawned its own Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan Movie had to have been innovative enough to have a few real doozy patents. But ya know? Of all the scuttle I remember about them, it wasn't vicious IP wars. We bitched about their Coaster Marketing, and Eternal September, sure, but Patent Wars? Surprisingly little that I heard of. (Maybe I didn't hear much, but nothing on today's scale.)

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Re:I bet $100... by AmberBlackCat · 2012-04-23 09:56 · Score: 1

My guess is Facebook is about to claim it has a patent on instant messages.
Tangled Web by ohb1knewbie · 2012-04-23 11:37 · Score: 1

Oh, the tangled web They weave. When Patent Guilds Conspire as thieves. Patents today have become like some magic amulet from D&D. You only have to possess it for a short time to impart its magical protection to you forever. After that, you're free to pass (sell) it on to the next troll who needs to up his powers. Does anyone really believe that MS will not, as a term of the sell, keep an eternal license to the patents just as AOL likely did in its sell to MS? Patents must DIE.
Facebook donates $550M to MS by Trogre · 2012-04-23 13:57 · Score: 1

Given that software patents are 100% worthless, I hope Microsoft enjoys their donation from Facebook, and AOL enjoys their cool billion.
Eeeasy money.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife