Friendster Patents Social Networking 96
Pontifex maximus writes "Friendster has said that as of this week, it has a patent covering online social networks. It applied for the patent before the company's downward spiral and recent growth." From the article: "'It's way too early to say' whether the company would pursue licenses and litigation from its competitors, Friendster President Kent Lindstrom told RedHerring.com. 'We'll do what we can to protect our intellectual property.' Though the Friendster patent could be challenged in either the patent system or the courts, opponents would face an uphill battle. 'Once the patent is issued there is a presumption of validity that follows with it,' said attorney Bill Heinze of Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley."
Instant profitability (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's on that track... the lawyers are warming up in the bullpen. Expect a spate of lawsuits within the next 6 months, trying to milk money out of anyone and everyone who might even be thought to be violating the patent. As usual, the USPTO has totally overlooked how generic the patent is and once more a software patnet threatens to gum up the works. Two words: patent reform.
Six Degrees... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, SixDegrees.com [wikipedia.org] would be a great example of prior art. The company folded in 2001, a year before Friendster launched, and two years before Friendster applied for the patent (June 2003)
Re:Just another example of how the USPTO is broken (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. It will follow the same process that spamming does. They only need a marginal rate of return to jusitfy the expense.
$50,000/patent * 1000 patents = $50 million
One successful patent litigation = $500 million award
That is a 1000% return on investment.
They can then use the other 999 patents as leverage to bargain with the other large corporations.
I whole-heartedly agree with point #1 though.
Prior art examples... (Score:3, Informative)
Regards,
Ross
Re:Prior Art? Yes, by 34 YEARS!!! (Score:3, Informative)
"An Internet Pioneer
Founded in 1969 as a computer time-sharing service, Columbus, Ohio-based CompuServe drove the initial emergence of the online service industry. In 1979, CompuServe became the first service to offer electronic mail capabilities and technical support to personal computer users. CompuServe broke new ground again in 1980 as the first online service to offer real-time chat online with its CB Simulator. By 1982, the company had formed its Network Services Division to provide wide-area networking capabilities to corporate clients.
CompuServe also led the interactive services industry overseas, entering the international arena in Japan in 1986 with Fujitsu and Nisso Iwai, developing a Japanese-language version of CompuServe called NIFTYSERVE. In 1989, the company expanded into Europe where it grew to be a leading Internet service provider.
A Key Brand
Since February 1998, CompuServe has been a wholly owned subsidiary of America Online, Inc. As part of the AOL Web Properties group, CompuServe plays an important role by providing Internet connectivity for value-minded consumers seeking both a dependable connection to the Internet and all the features and power of an online service. "
The original CompuServe was in competition with hundres of local Bulletin Board Systems. I was a user/member of several of them between 1979 until I connected to the Internet via dialup in the mid 90's. Some were social and some were professional BBSs.
All of them predate this "Intellectual Property".
When will the patent office award a patent for breathing? The way the USTPO agents work, or don't work, it won't be long now.
Re:Just another example of how the USPTO is broken (Score:3, Informative)
From what I gather, the business method bar on patents was considered a bad judicial opinion. The statute is silent on this, and prior courts inserted the bar. So, if you want to fix this, just persuade your Congressmen to amend the statute.
And, these implementations can be done. The fact that another poster mentioned the SixDegrees.com is one example. Claim 9 of the patent has been done for years before the 2003 posting. Several of the other claims look rather easy to defeat.
It reminds me of a patent I saw a few weeks back. Somebody invented the pocket handkerchef in 2000, including methods for folding. The entire patent was accepted. A supplimental patent was issued that revoked all the claims--effectively deleting the patent.
Actually, the patent mentions 4 being the number of degrees of separation (probably the default), and that the degrees could be set by the computer operator. So, you could circumvent this patent by setting the number to any number _but_ four, and by not allowing the operator (I would think this is the user and not administrator) to set this value.
"2. Punish non-English application. No, I don't mean application in a foreign language, just the ones that read like they are. Plain english is a must. Jail time in Gitmo otherwise."
That's one of the requirements: that somebody competent in the field should be able to take the patent claims and specs and reproduce that is described. Just looking over the patent, I recognize quite a few things that I've been doing for nearly a decade now.
"4. Part of application fee (say 1/2) will go as a bounty to anybody who can disprove it - in other words show prior art, etcetera. This could be anybody - college students, professors, employees of another company. This will also lower amount of patents applied and speed up patenting time."
I don't think this is a good idea. The current system requires that the patent holder sue an alleged patent infringer, then allow the patent infringer to contest the validity of the patent. The bounty system increases the amount of litigation with people rushing to prove invalidity to get the bounty. This is not economical from a judicial perspective.
"Why hire clueless clerks when you could flocks of knowleable people examining patents because of a profit motive to turn them down? They won't have the power to deny a patent, they bring the case against it."
The clerks aren't clueless. They're supposed to be subject-matter experts. But, as I mentioned with the handkerchef patent, they are likely overworked. Then again, they are government employees--so for some _any_ work is overwork.
"5. No renewable patents. Lower patent length from 17 years to 9-10 years or so. Back in the 1700's, business and the pace of life overall was slower, let's reflect that."
Patents aren't renewable. The patent length is 20 years, less for certain types of patents. Perhaps what should be done is create a software patent that shortens the cycle to 7 years. Why seven instead of 9-10? Any number would be arbitrary without some analysis that shows how long such a patent is truely valuable. Patents exist to coax the inventor to publicize his invention by giving him a temporary right to exclude others from using it. The alternative is to allow the ideas to be protected by trade secret, which might bury certain ideas longer than if we had a patent system.
As far as temporary monopolies are concerned, I have a bigger beef with copyrights. I would rather see copyrights 1) shortened to 14 years renewable to a maximum of 28 years, and 2) all copyrighted works prior to 1976 not be covered by the Copyright Act of 1976. The statute allowed the Act to be retro-active, but that deprived the public domain of many works. Presentl