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.
Near as I can tell, very few people are actually violating your patent.
...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.
not me, at least according to a few people :p
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
The more you think about it, the more it costs you...
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
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.
Pretty sure I can pull up some prior art dating back from before the patent system.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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?
Plato and Aristotle just to name two of the Great Thinkers. :)
> Turn all of Facebook off.
And nothing of value is lost.
I patented the process to think. Everyone in the world owes me compensation.
That would only be true if people were using it. All evidence is contrary to that assertion, so you get nothing.
morcego
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.
No, it is unspecified because they left the award amount up to the court. It happens on every suit I have seen. "We ask for relief as the court deems equitable."
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The more you think about it, the more it costs you...
Arguably the best patent comment ever.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
"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
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
"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.
Thankfully, we are now a first-to-file system, so we don't have to bother with pesky details like prior art dating back to the dawn of civilization.
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.
Prior art still restricts patentability in the first to file system. Unless you are in the one year 'grace period' where your disclosure is protected.
I refuse to take the credit; mine was a snarky reply to the actual best patent comment ever - the one which succintly makes it clear to anyone that in this age of fab-less production and freedom of information, patents are just stupid and almost completely stifle real progress, whilst feeding the fatcats (shareholders) who own and gamble on this world - unless it's *their* innovation, of course!
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
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
Ugh. For a site supposedly full of intelligent people, please can we stop repeating this nonsense? Two parties invent something, party A just before party B. Under first-to-invent, if party B files the patent, they can go through all of the expense of filing and then party A can come along and say 'actually, here's my lab record which shows that we invented that first, we'll take that patent.' Under first-to-file, party A can come along and say 'actually, here's my lab record which shows that we invented that first. It's prior art, so we'll invalidate that patent'. The latter is the only sane way of implementing a patent system, because if two people invent the same thing at approximately the same time then there is no social benefit to giving either of them a patent. It doesn't mean that you can patent things that have existing prior art: that's a completely orthogonal bug in your patent system.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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