Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Sued By Rembrandt IP For Two Patent Violations
An anonymous reader writes "Ars is reporting that the patent-holding company, along with the heirs of Dutch programmer, Joannes Jozef Everardus Van Der Meer (deceased 2004), have filed suit against Facebook for violating two patents relating to social media web sites. The two patents in question were filed for back in 1998, a full four years before Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg first entered university at Harvard. Among the claims made in the lawsuit is that Facebook's "Like" button violates one of Van Der Meer's patents. Facebook even cited one of Van Der Meer's patents in one of their own filings later on. The suit seeks unspecified damages."
Please. I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but this is just ridiculous.
I patented the process to think. Everyone in the world owes me compensation.
Wow. You can seriously put down on a lawsuit you want "unspecified damages"?
"Yeah, we'll decide how much we want after you tell us if we won or not. If we win, we'll take your entire company and the next eight startups we think look good. If we lose, we'll just have asked for a pittance and make you look like selfish bastards for not giving us what we needed to survive. So, take your time deciding and all."
...will somebody sue me for patent violation due to previous art in "first", "second" and "third"?
Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
"The way the patent laws work, and have worked for 200 years, is that when someone else uses it—whether intentionally or unintentionally—they owe a reasonable royalty," said Melsheimer. "It's not necessarily a function of bad intent or malicious planning. The notion that the original inventor didn't succeed in commercializing the invention is, legally speaking, not relevant.""
Patents are absolute monopolies which allow any and all royalty rates ... reason doesn't enter into it.
Simple... If Facebook has the guts to do it. Turn all of Facebook off. That's right, just a blank page to Facebook.com and make all FB powered comments show one thing :
Do that worldwide.
Facebook will lose a day's revenue, and my-oh-my, will that get everyeone's attention. And before someone asserts that they're just protecting their IP... um... no. Not only do "copyright holding" companies fly against the very face of the very spirit of copyright protection -- that is to give innovators of a concept and creation to profit from that creation -- these guys don't invent anything, don't produce anything, don't contribute anything to society. It's the copyright equivalent of cybersquatting.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
Can someone explain why it's reasonable to have patents and copyrights continue to exist after the original author is dead?
I really never understood that.
We don't need this. It is a waste of time. What we need is a contact congress about eliminating software patents. All sites need to come down. Not just facebook.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the validation of the guy's patent is irrelevant because you aren't a patent examiner, nor do you work for the patent office. Everyone queuing up to bitch about patents, this situation is exactly why we need a protection system.
I haven't inspected the patents in question, but for the sake of debate, I'm going with the assumption that both online social networks and the 'like' button were novel in 1998, with probably no prior art. Having stated that, I'd like to hear from the other side why the Van Der Meer patents in question deserve invalidation, or why Facebook Inc deserves a free pass on paying royalties on the patents?
Hm, too risky. You forget, Facebook users aren't what I would call "active". The little twats on Twitter, maybe, but Facebook? They'd twitch a bit for a day or so, but they wouldn't say a damn thing to anyone that matters. If it goes too long, they'd quickly drift away. Advertisers and marketers wouldn't panic; hell, they've been saying that Facebook advertising isn't getting them much to begin with. The big brands would just write it off the same way they wrote off Second Life (remember that brief period in internet history?).
The most likely outcome is that Facebook would die or at least be seriously crippled. And the patent troll would WIN . Then they'd set their sights on something you cared about, since Facebook fell so easily.
I think patent should only cover ideas that are implemented. Under the current system, if you patent some ideas that cannot be implemented now, you essentially stop people in the future from implementing them, until your patent expires. This stifles innovation.
Facebook should really show 'em and shut down permanently!
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
You don't remember what happened to myspace very well, do you?
I wish facebook had the balls to do that. but they are a publicly traded company. so a board would probably have to approve that decision. they probably wouldnt because they correctly realize that after a day of people not using facebook, some people would just stop caring about it. on the other hand it could have a streisand effect as well. it would be on every news channel in the world.
i thought google should have done that when the chinese blocked them, for not blocking objectionable content. but google caved, and from a business perspective it was a good call to cave, since baidu or some other company would have stepped in. the difference there is nobody in china would have heard about it.
without facebook running so they can look up their congressman's facebook page, 90% of US facebook users wouldn't have a fucking clue what to do. they'll just go twit about how facebook is 'sooo lame' then find somewhere else to post pictures of their bathroom mirrors.
i'm not a fan of patents like this, but i'm kinda rooting for facebook to lose big here -- kinda like how a red sox fan roots against the yankees.
Although I would respect a patent for punch-you-in-the-face-over-IP.
I would press 'like' button if I had one.
> Turn all of Facebook off.
And nothing of value is lost.
They could do that, but patents are more beneficial than harmful for large corporations. Once they reach their position, patents insure they don't need to compete.
What Facebook can, and will do to these little morons, is either counter-sue and sue them for years now, bankrupting them with legal fees.
The damages aren't specified for a very simple reason. They don't expect to win any. Ever. They expect Facebook to settle, which they will.
Facebook is important, but not Google-like important. They already had problems a few days ago, doing it again will mark them unreliable, and they still need years before their monopoly is even a little bit solidified.
The fallout from that particular event isn't visible yet, but I expect it will have some interesting, long term effects.
I sure do. But Facebook is no MySpace. Their biggest mistake was staying static once getting to the top, whereas Facebook kept adding features, improving the systems in the backend and front. There are numerous games/apps that spread like wildfire. They were always actively trying to court companies into promoting through the platform and making it easier (read:harder) to share content without their direct cooperation and blessing.
They may be unscrupulous with regard to their cattle, but one thing FB never was, was complacent.
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
"What Facebook can, and will do to these little morons"
Underestimating your enemy is one sure way to get your ass kicked. Or, the reverse of that, overestimating yourself. I don't think "morons" run these patent holding companies. There are an awful lot of derogatory terms that might apply to them, but "morons" isn't one of them.
"either counter-sue and sue them for years now, bankrupting them with legal fees."
Sue? On what grounds? You're proposing frivolous suits, based on nothing, as a suitable counter weapon against a suit that *just might have some merit? How long until a judge figures that tactic out, and lashes out at Facebook, as well as all of Facebook's attorneys?
* I say "might have some merit", merely as a possibility. On the face of it, it sorta kinda looks like Facebook may have ripped off someone else's idea. But, that is only based on reading TFA, which seems little more than a PR statement from Rembrandt. I'd have to see more to even speculate whether Rembrandt has a case or not.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Because the concept of "like" has been obvious for hundreds of thousands of years in homo sapiens, and probably earlier. Implementing "like" on the Internet does not make an old obvious thing novel. This was not an invention, and in addition to the patent being invalidated, the USPTO examiner should be tarred and feathered.
Not sure where you are getting your info, but patents have limited time frames unlike copyright:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nyc-england-brace-feet-snow-18444937
>A patent is not a right to practise or use the invention.[17] Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others[17] from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, which is usually 20 years from the filing date[4]
So in addition to be knowledgeable in your domain, you must be an expert as a sales man and lawyer? Are you implying it should be illegal to outsource work you are not good at, which includes licensing your patents to others?
Stop falling for the propaganda (aka P.R.) there is no such thing as I.P. it was created to fool people into merging all concepts into 1 generic term for the benefit of the industry. In addition, it is called Property when it is not property or even tangible!
Also they put forward this myth people have fallen for that only big powerful interests can create anything of value. Music and art always existed and these laws did not exist during most of human of civilization. Inventions also happened without them; it is a mistake to assume the boom starting with the industrial revolution was due to patents because more people were educated, there was more investment, and more supporting technology to build upon. Government and Institutions did most the invention and science and they still do the majority of it today.
In fact, in our religious drive to privatize everything we have private corps funding our research institutions (and that is done largely for the patents.) It is possible secrets would be lost without patents and corporate spying would be huge (it is already) as well as much lower investment (one can argue for a moderate use of patents) -- but perhaps we would go back to our history and fund research again?? Public research does not waste as much time on Erection pills... There is a lot of good science that is underfunded while resources are put into consumer products people don't need. This new system makes research and education expensive or prohibited - its one thing to re-invent the wheel because of secrets and quite another to be FORBIDDEN because somebody "owns" an idea. Institutions used to SHARE science and now they censor it because their corporate sponsors don't want any patents going to the competition... plus the academic publishers must prop up their old DEAD businesses.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"Hm, too risky. You forget, Facebook users aren't what I would call "active". The little twats on Twitter, maybe, but Facebook? They'd twitch a bit for a day or so, but they wouldn't say a damn thing to anyone that matters. If it goes too long, they'd quickly drift away. Advertisers and marketers wouldn't panic; hell, ... "
Hm, too risky. You forget, Slashdot users aren't what I would call "active". The little twats on Twitter, maybe, but Slashdot? They'd twitch a bit for a day or so, but they wouldn't say a damn thing to anyone that matters. If it goes too long, they'd quickly drift away. Advertisers and marketers wouldn't panic; hell, ...
Fixed that for you.
"The way the patent laws work, and have worked for 200 years, is that when someone else uses it—whether intentionally or unintentionally—they owe a reasonable royalty," said Melsheimer. "It's not necessarily a function of bad intent or malicious planning. The notion that the original inventor didn't succeed in commercializing the invention is, legally speaking, not relevant.""
Patents are absolute monopolies which allow any and all royalty rates ... reason doesn't enter into it.
Not so. Patents are absolute monopolies that can be used either for injunctive relief, which allows no royalties by definition because the infringer is no longer allowed to continue infringing; or for monetary damages, which allows a "reasonable royalty". In other words, you can either get 0 royalties and have an absolute monopoly, or you can get a reasonable royalty and no monopoly. You simply cannot have "any and all royalty rates," like 100% of revenue or infinite dollars per unit or whatnot. Check out 35 USC 284.
Sure but that's like suggesting Micro$oft try to kill Windoze, they certainly could but they have no intention to. Failbook is a HUEG megacorp with patents of its own. And those sure come handy when it suffocates any startup that threatens its existence. This is just cost of doing business.
Couldn't have happened to nicer company.
Finally, someone that feels the same way I do. Failbook is for fucktards and those fucktards will go ape-shit crazy without their daily Failbook fix. Maybe it will be too late for Failbook and Rembrandt IP will be able to shut Failbook down with their lawsuit. GOODBYE FAILBOOK!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Selling patents or the patents belonging to your employer is just as silly. It is "intellectual property". Either you keep it for yourself or you share it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I have written a vague yet extensive theory of how one might use some technical means, as yet undefined, to make some sort of vehicle, also undefined, travel faster than the speed of light. I'm hoping someone will hurry up and violate it soon, as I could really use the money.
Life needs more saving throws.
It works as follows:
- anyone with a patent that looks monetizable starts a cheap one-off company.
- this company floats an IPO through a crowd-funding offer (see e.g. http://crowdfunding.com/ ) for, say, $250,000 in which the text of the patent in question is put online plus a target amount of money you propose to raise through licensing
- if the IPO succeeds in raising the money, $10,000 is used for administrative affairs and the rest goes towards legal costs. Everyone who puts in money becomes a shareholder.
- as the legal resources aren't too big, you avoid suing large companies but go after medium-sized ones that you can 'touch' for, say, a $10,000 prot ... errm .. license
- when (if) you gain the target amount, you take a shareholder vote: continue as before, upscale (go after bigger targets), or liquidate (the company liquidated, the proceeds paid out, and the patent returned to the original owner)
- the original patent owner can now crowd-fund a new cycle for the same patent
That would put a little oomph into patent-monetization, right? So what's not to like?
Oh, and picture this: in the IPO you can list a number of companies that you view as infringers and likely licensees (read: "a list of companies that you're going to sue", hehe! Anyone want to see Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, IBM, or anyone else get sued? Queue here and contribute $49.99 ! Risk-free!)
Pssstt ... know any politician you don't like? Anyone at all? Pesky troublesoume Liberal? Dumb clueless Wingnut? There must be some patent his/her campaign is violating. And no, that's not stifling the democratic process through gross abuse of the patent system; it's solely about ... errm ... "monetizing your valuable intellectual property" (remember that term, you must be able to reproduce it letter-perfect if grilled by a judge or in a senate hearing). Just think of the possibilities!
Err perhaps I should have patented this idea before publishing, you never know.
Simple... If Facebook has the guts to do it. Turn all of Facebook off.
The problem is that all the facebooks or Google's of this world, has patents them-self and are part of the problem. They could the thing they do in a hear beat (and it isn't the first time that I see this mentioned) but they would cut in their own skin.
I was mightily confused by the concept of Rembrandt suing Facebook. Weird timeline.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You can copyrigt software you cant patent it
Facebook even cited one of Van Der Meer's patents in one of their own filings later on.
I thought the point of citing someone else's patent in one's patent filing was to show that the method covered in the filing is sufficiently different to award a patent. This legal claim sounds kind of dubious.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell