What is Digg?69 Comments
- ninjakin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22that's why we need the pirate party of the US.
http://www.pirate-party.us/ - SuperGhost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You know I think patents relating to internet web sites should all be dropped. I mean I can't even put a "Buy It Now" button on a website because someone's going to come sue me! Give me a break! It's anti-competitive and draws back innovation!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"that's why we need the pirate party of the US.
http://www.pirate-party.us/"
No...this is why we need SERIOUS patent reform. Go back to the old way where you have to show a working prototype and get rid of the patenting ideas crap. - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Pleaaaaaaaaase wield this. Please wield this patent as you would wield a two-handed broad sword and cleanly remove the head of the MySpace Ogre.
- benhorstmann, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8More Patent Trolling. Web 2.0 is living off of patents and advertising, the products are just a side-note anymore. I hope this isn't upheld, almost any W2.0 site has social networking involved.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The internet is a network of people."
No, it's not. The internet is tubes...lots of tangled tubes. Just ask Senator Ted Stevens. He'll tell ya!
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32770 - mzwaterski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Wow. Another article about patents that doesn't even list the patent numbers and discusses the specification as if it defines the invention... You can't argue about a patent without knowing the claims. The specification means nothing without the claims.
- deusexlibris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5First, the obligatory IANAL. However, I do have extensive experience both in writing and filing patents as well as patent litigation. Having a patent granted, particularly a software or business process patent, is virtually meaningless. For this to have any impact on the industry, several things would have to happen:
1) Friendster would need to pursue specific companies.
While some lawyers will take on such cases on a contingency basis, it still requires a significant amount of work on both the attorney and patent holders part to identify specific examples of infringement. Most often, such undertakings are designed to encourage a settlement rather than to stop a business practice. Consequently, both Friendster and their attorneys need to feel confident that they can get more money in license fees than they spend in pursuing the infringement case.
2) Friendster would need to show infringement of specific claims.
It is not sufficient to read the preamble and say "Hey, company X does that! Let's sue them!". You must show that the company infringes a specific claim of the granted patent. I have not reviewed this particular patent, but this is a tedious and often difficult thing to do. First it presumes that the patent was well written. Second, it presumes that you understand the specific mechanisms of the opposing company well enough to feel confident they are infringing a particular claim. And third, you have to be confident that the claim is non-obvious.
3) You have to convince the opposing company that it would cost them less to license the technology than to defend against a lawsuit.
This is an easier barrier to overcome since infringement defenses can get very expensive. Still, the companies Friendster would be most likely to go after - MySpace and Yahoo - have very deep pockets and aren't likely to roll-over unless the terms are extremely reasonable.
4) Even assuming Friendster gets other companies to license the technology, so what?
It is highly unlikely that the amount of money that would exchange hands would have any impact on the larger players, and the smaller players are probably not worth the time to pursue.
So, the truth of the matter is that this is likely to go nowhere and have little to no impact on the industry. Friendster undoubtedly filed the patent to make their VCs happy and may have no intention of pursuing litigation for this.
And for the record, yes, our patent system is badly broken. For some views on this, take a look at Brad Feld's blog and this post in particular: http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/001820.html - darkclarity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's a good thing, it allows teenages and kids to make messed up websites within an enclosed environment that I'll never visit. ;)
- KJay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes, the patent system that once bolstered innovation (by providing a means of profiting from it) in the 19th and early 20th century does nothing but stifle it anymore.
- glafira, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6DOWN WITH MYSPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- GopherGod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I want to see one of these go to trial. I think it is time that something like this makes it to the supreme court and sets a precedence. Without it... people will keep making these "general" patents on things that are common place.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In the world of software, patents are more like Magic trading cards than legal documents. You show them off to your friends and threaten your enemies with them, but actually using them is a big ordeal. See http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html
The optimist in me wants to believe that the supreme court will make an intelligent precedent-setting decision on software patent law if a software patent case gets appealed up that far. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You really need to lay off the coffee...or meth... or crack...or paint thinner...
- CoolWind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's too ridiculous to believe. The USA is in a free fall.
- Lowry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The internet is a network of people. The patent covers people networking. Way too obvious, won't hold up in court.
- KJay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Anyone ever notice how the mere mention of the pirate party gets you dugg up? Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The party itself is ridiculous. Sure, we need patent reform, but they need to get serious before voting adults (and not just kids) take them seriously.
Here's a quote from their front page:
"Creativity has come to a standstill in this country for those who wish to work within, and benefit from, the confines of the law."
Yea, because there isn't ANY innovation in this country. It's completely stopped. We haven't any serious tech. inventions in years...not counting dvds, mp3 players, dual core processors, satellite radio...etc. etc... - MatthewDuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Instead of just whining and hating on MySpace...why don't we all get out there and find some prior art to blow this patent out of the water? The article is skimpy, but apparently the filing date was in 2003. We need "social networking" examples before that. It should be easy to find. I was working with some fellow grad students on real-time social networking ideas in 2002...
- procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hahahaha, explain to me why everyone hates myspace so much. i dont see any reason to hate it unless you hate music.
- darkclarity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hmm... is this just for US websites to be worried about? I was thinking about adding social networking features to one of my websites and I'm not located in the US.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's the actual patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(social.TI.+AND+networks)&OS=ttl/social+and+networks&RS=(TTL/social+AND+networks) - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2According to the abstract, this patent is concerned with uncovering "the pathways connecting any two individuals" and displaying "the social network itself" in "any number of degrees of separation."
It doesn't cover ALL social networking. - hello2usir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2
If you want to build a mouse trap out of popsicle sticks and beef jerky and patent it that's fine, but you shouldn't be able to patent the concept of a mouse trap itself. I think that's ultimately where the system fails. - Specks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not worried. Anyone have a link to the patent or its application?
- xjqcf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is, apparently, the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(friendster.ASNM.+AND+20060627.PD.)&OS=an/friendster+and+isd/6/27/2006&RS=(AN/friendster+AND+ISD/20060627)
And, for those too lazy to follow the link, this is claim 1, the only independent claim (and, thus, the broadest claim):
1. In a computer system including a server computer and a database of registered users that stores for each registered user, a user ID of the registered user and a set of user IDs of registered users who are directly connected to the registered user, a method for connecting a first registered user to a second registered user through one or more other registered users, the method comprising the steps of: setting a maximum degree of separation (Nmax) of at least two that is allowed for connecting any two registered users, wherein two registered users who are directly connected are deemed to be separated by one degree of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than one other registered user are deemed to be separated by two degrees of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than N other registered users are deemed to be separated by N+1 degrees of separation; searching for the user ID of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, and not in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are greater than or equal to Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, until the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets; and connecting the first registered user to the second registered user if the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets, wherein the method limits the searching of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, such that the first registered user and the second registered user who are separated by more than Nmax degrees of separation are not found and connected.
Now, in order to be declared an infringer, one must have every element as described in the claim; terminology used in the claim may need to be interpreted as described in the specification, ahd the meaning of the entire patent is legally how "one of ordinary skill in the art" would interpret it..
As far as applying prior art to defeat the claims, a piece of prior art must show every element in the claims (with pieces connected the same way) to invalidate it under 35 USC 102, or it must be found to not be "non-obvious" under 35 USC 103, which typically uses multiple pieces of prior art. The obvisousness bit, of course, thends to be the most difficult and controverted part of any dispute over the validity of patent claims, and is curently highligted by the US Supreme Court accepting an appeal where the main issue is what really needs to be shown to establish obviousness. - Darkdashing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2God, I hope so! motherF myspace
- rotten777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"US patent office, US courts, so yeah, everyone else should be safe."
That's what TPB thought before the "someone" bought a higher up in their homeland's criminal justice system and all their equipment was later confiscated. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I want to see one of these go to trial. I think it is time that something like this makes it to the supreme court and sets a precedence. Without it... people will keep making these "general" patents on things that are common place."
Why? The current system is in no way illegal or unconstitutional. What we need is for it to be abolished, but the courts aren't going to do that. - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I concur. The only "social networking" site I use is facebook. That's because they at least attempt to keep it legit so I'm not constantly baraged with spam and "friend requests". Instead I get to surf my actual social network, not one with people that I've never met or that may not even exist.
- mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although I think your explanation is very level-headed and reasonable, I think everyone would much rather blame patents for the downfall of society than actually learn about what is happening here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Um... DVDs were a Sony invention, right? I'm not exactly sure but I *think* Sony is a Japanese company.
;) - KJay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yea, social networking is now patented. The U.S. is falling apart.
- odyss3y, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the comma ruined the ease of use on your spam attempt
- Betamaxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would just like to note that people feel like "social networking" began with Friendster. Before Friendster there was Makeoutparty.com, followed by lipstickparty.com, and lipstickandcigarettes.com - granted that these were scenester oriented sites, but it was so social networking before Friendster!
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It looks as if the "N degrees maximum" thing is the key element of the key claim.
Pretty narrow, but LinkedIn probably infringes.
It is also a little hard to believe that there is no prior art among all previous work on social networks. An upper limit on degrees of separation probably appears in numerous older works on building an analyzing social networks. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually we'd rather just dismiss it as junk without reading it.
- ochito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2US patent office, US courts, so yeah, everyone else should be safe. In fact, even in the US everyone should be safe, since no sane judge would grant an injunction based on this patent and it will most certainly not stand up to a review.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is the claims that matter, not the description:
The description can seem very broad, but if the only claims that survive the patent examination process are trivial, then the patent is worthless.
Too many journalists don;t understand this. Plus, claims are a lot less easy and fun to read. Many are really turgid and only get past examiners because the examiner can't really understand the claim.
It has been my experience that examiners reject claims mainly based on keyword matches to other patents' claims. So difficult-to-understand claims that use unusual terminology have a perversely better chance.
It's a pretty ***** up system, and should never have applied to software. - pnutbutr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The patent office should be burnt to the ground if they let another ridiculous idea patent slide through.
- coolmojito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why should we bother doing Rupert's work for him? I'm sure MySpace has a team of overpriced lawyers already on it.
- cremate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tell all those hippie emo kids to go outside and get a job!
- coolmojito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Concise and clear explanation. Thanks.
- coolmojito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just another example of a patent office with overworked examiners who don't understand technology. No wonder that so many BS technology patents have been granted.
- sansbury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually the funny part of your story is remembering when AOL represented the upper echelons of geek sophistication.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not about social networking, dimwit. It's about the sheer stupidity of the kind of patents issued in the US. That talks about the intelligence of the people in the Patent Office, which speaks about the state of the country. Combine that fact with the well-informed and bright political leaders and you have an inevitable destiny for the US - fall apart and die.
- joshHighland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1if they try to come down on http://www.notpopular.com, i'll move it off shore.
- procdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I know most digg users hate these kinda sites, but from a personal experience. Friendster is one of the WORST (in the mainstream category). Would be a shame to see them prevail over all of the others simply because of a silly Patent.
- mikeabundo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Five million Filipinos use Friendster. It pisses me off that they'd rely on patent troliing instead of innovation.
- thefinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Moreover, Friendster is doing a last gasp, a money grab before final implosion. Good riddence too.
- mikevickrocks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Once again (I think there was some article yesterday involving patents) our United States Patent System seriously sucks!
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is