Just to be safe, it's probably best to limit this story to just a single tag. Under no circumstances should anybody tag this story with multiple categories such as "patenttroll" and "getfucked" at the same time.
Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."
Sorry, I've already got a patent on "A method of answering a question you have yourself posed in order to bring about a sense of smug self satisfaction."
That's not how it works. The description is just a description of what a patent is for. There can be a hundred different methods to associate a piece of data with multiple categories, and each one can be patented separately.
Now it may be that every single one of these is obvious and therefore non-patentable but you can't make that determination from the title.
Back in the day, BBS's had all of this plus eBay's auction functions et al. Prior art should invalidate most of this stuff. People who have adapted OLD ideas to the "new" age , are just assholes. 90 percent of all this was done on Bulletin boards before the internet became popular.
It is time for all of us old timers to bring this silly stuff to an end! We saw or developed it before ANY of these newbies ever thought of it. Sned your prior art to the patent office!!! Most of it was copyrighted before many of these douchebags were born !!!
If you actually read the patent, which is something that the submitter appears to have skipped, it goes quite a bit further than just many-to-many database relationships. For something written in 2000, it is definitely novel. Whether it is appropriate for patent protection is debatable, of course, but it's not just a description of a relational database.
Addendum: I don't know when it was written, but the provisional application was dated 2002 and the patent application was dated 2003, with an issue date in 2006 - still before Facebook implemented the features that the patent claims.
That said, the Facebook source code issue needs the following to be said:
1. Discovery in the courts gets you access to anything unless it is protected by trade secrets laws or the like. I haven't read the order or anything, but it'd be outright insane if the judge didn't order that the source code not be used for anything but looking for patent violations. I have seen similar things done, with stiff penalties to the lawyers and to the parties for violating such an order.
2. You don't need to look at the source code of Facebook to see whether it implements the invention described by this patent. You only need to create a user account. The patent doesn't seem to describe any algorithms, but rather a high-level information organization scheme.
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
You're right and that's exactly what everybody should encourage. Patent trolls are the best friends of those who dislike the patent system. I'll explain why. Nobody will care to reform a system which is quasi functional, but everybody, even lobbyists will push for reform on a system which is completely broken. If any Joe can sue the crap out of a major lobbying corporation for some silly patent you can be damn sure that the corporations will do anything to nullify this. And when the law is with Joe, the only thing left to do is to push for legislation change. So you see in a capitalistic world the absolute best way to make a change about anything is to show that the current structure is unprofitable for all major corporations. See it as "lobbying the lobbyists."
Anyone wanna take bets on how long until Leader Technologies comes out with their own social networking site that looks very similar to Facebook, and gets sued for having some technology that infringes on a Facebook patent?
But seriously, shouldn't the court be trying to determine infringement, rather than letting the plaintiff view every piece of code Facebook has written? That's almost like saying "Microsoft infringed on 'using a scroll bar'; let Red Hat view all of the source for Windows so Red Hat can make sure it's not infringing." - if Windows were the only product Microsoft had. It's a crazy statement to make. In industrial terms, it sounds even worse: "Caterpillar might be infringing on a patent for 'method of transporting hydraulic fluid'; give Mitsubishi all of their blueprints for every one of their products so they can make sure it's not infringing".
If you didn't catch it, did you notice the 'obviousness' factor in those examples? Associating data into multiple categories seems pretty obvious, as databases have been doing just that for a long time.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 10, @08:40AM (#29377775)
I don't know how this got modded insightful. Defendants in business litigation typically have to hand over the source code and other sensitive information (like sales data). The court simply issues a "protective order" limiting who can view the source code. Usually the protective order designates source code as "attorneys eyes only" meaning that only the requester's (Leader Technology) outside attorneys can view the source. Plaintiffs and defendants squabble over these issues as a way to drive up the cost of litigation and not because there is any risk that source code might be leaked and duplicated.
Slashdot is peer-moderated, which implies that the moderator may not be an expert (or even well-informed!) about the topic of a comment they choose to mod "informative" or "insightful". Duh.
It seems to me that is a different thing than the original statement, "Attorney's eyes only". . . . "Attorney's eyes only" either means what it says, or it does not.
I can't disagree with you there. What the original poster didn't mention is that "Attorneys' eyes only" means what the protective order says "Attorneys' eyes only" means. You have to look to the protective order itself to see what exceptions exist to allow outside experts to view the material.
9. For purposes of this Protective Order, a consultant or expert shall be defined as a person who is neither an employee, agent or representative of a party, nor anticipated to become an employee, agent or representative of a party in the near future, who is not involved in the application or prosecution of patents for the party, and who is retained or employed to assist in the preparation for trial in this litigation, whether full or part time, by or at the direction of counsel for a party. The procedure for having a consultant or expert approved for access to confidential material designated as CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order shalI be as follows:
a. Outside counsel for the receiving party shall (1) provide the consultant or
expert with a copy of this Protective Order, (2) explain its terns, and (3) obtain the
written agreement of the consultant or expert, in the form of Exhibit A hereto, to comply
with and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. Before providing information
designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE by a producing party pursuant to this Protective Order to a consultant or expert, the party seeking to disclose the information to a consultant or cxpert shall identify the consultant or expert to the producing party in writing and provide the producing party with (a) an executed Exhibit A, and (b) a written statement setting forth the consultant's or expert's residence address, business address, employer, job title, curriculum vitae, and past or present association with any party, as well as a list of litigation matters for which
the consultant or expert has provided any professional services during the preceding five
years;
b. Five (5) court days following the identification specified in the preceding subparagraph, the identifying party may disclose the information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order to the identified consultant or expert unless the party receives a
written objection to the identification, served by facsimile or electronic mail, setting forth in detail the grounds on which it is based. Failure to object within five (5) days of the
identification shall be deemed a waiver of the objection. If an identifying party receives
such an objection within five (5) days of the identification, the consultant or expert shall
be barred from access to any information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -
ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order for
fourteen (14) calendar days commencing with the receipt by the producing party of a
copy of the executed Exhibit A and accompanying information required in subparagraph
(a) above;
c. If within fourteen (14) calendar days, the parties are unable to resolve their
differences and the opposing party moves for a further protective order preventing
disclosure of information designated CONFIDENTIAL, H
Anyone wanna take bets on how long until Leader Technologies comes out with their own social networking site that looks very similar to Facebook, and gets sued for having some technology that infringes on a Facebook patent?
It really doesn't matter if they do develop a social network site or not. There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.
The only reason facebook was initially popular was because it was for college students only. Once they allowed anyone to have a facebook page, it became the crap fest it is now.
Interestingly enough, if the government created a database like facebook to track citizens, people would be outraged, but make it voluntary and it becomes the next new thing.
There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.
I think what really drives Facebook is that it reached the critical mass to get a strong network effect.
As you pointed out with the source code, there are numerous sites that could have served the role Facebook presently serves. I suspect this is a system that was destined to converge on one particular website, but was chaotic with respect to which site would get the crown.
So they basically claim they have a patent on the one-to-many Foreign Key?
NO! In fact, the patent itself specifically cites a one-to-many relationship as already being known. The attempt at claiming coverage of a one-to-many appears to come only from the incompetent who wrote the summary.
"associating a piece of data with multiple categories"?
Are you kidding me?! So when I create a database table that allows me associate a record with multiple categories I'm infringing on this patent? Surely this isn't the whole story... could someone smarter than me fill me in please?
I am going to go patent taking a wiz in the morning. Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything.
"associating a piece of data with multiple categories" is simply how TFA summarized the patent. It's not that simple, patents rarely are. If you look at the patent in question, it has several claims that go into detail about the processes involved in their system. It's likely one of these processes that is the focal point.
Now, are these claims patentable? I don't know. there is a lot of long-windedness in patent claims, and it depends on how borad or narrow they are interpreted. Obviously the examiner found them to be narrow enough to be patentable. I doubt it's as simple as a one-to-many relation in a database, because even though examiners miss things, they really wouldn't have missed that. Maybe the judge will overturn it though, if he reads the patent more broadly.
Additionally, while the judge in question deems it fine to let Leader Technologies look at Facebook's source (for a patent, no less!) in its entirety for a single feature, it would be "overboard to ask a patent holder to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit".
TFA goes on to state:
Facebook has requested that they must know, whether Leader offers products that practice claims of the patent-in-suit, however judge agreed with leader that it could be overboard to ask a patentee to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit.
Moreover, Facebook has not cited authority that could support requiring a patentee to prove, through detailed claim charts. Facebook is entitled to know every Leader product or service that Leader contends practices any of the asserted claims.
The court has ordered, within ten days of the following order, that Leader shall supplement its response to Facebook and disclose all products and services.
Leader shall provide Facebook with a list of source code modules with respect to which it seeks production of technical documents no later than September 22, 2009.
Facebook shall provide Leader with all such relevant technical documents no later than September 29, 2009 and Leader shall promptly complete its review of Facebooks Source code and technical documents to Facebook no later than October 15, 2009.
So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.
You know, I get really tired of seeing articles like this, reading the actual article, and being a bit pissed off that they "got me" with their stupid summary. You'd think I would have learned better by now but the sad part is that most of these sensational things are entirely believable. It's really kind of depressing.
On another note, who the hell writes these summaries? Do they just have really awful reading comprehension or does all the sensational shit just float to the top? I suppose it's a combination of those 2 things isn't it?
While we're on a reform kick in this country maybe we could undertake patent reform.
Think of all the corporate money that is being thrown at killing healthcare reform in all it's different guises...
and then multiply it by 200.
That, my friend, is the reason it isn't happening. Find ways to reduce the corporate influence and money in these fights first and then there is a chance.
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
After reading through the '761 patent, any operating system which initiates a user working-space at login, e.g., a shell, will fall under the main claim of this patent.
I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.
This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.
If this is part of Discovery, then the requirement to turn over the code should be to the plaintiff's attorneys, not to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff doesn't actually get to see it themselves.
Tagging posts here in./ is clearly associating a piece of data (the post) to multiple categories (the tags). CmdrTaco, prepare yourself to disclose all./ source code and to pay a hefty check to Leader Technologies.
I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent. The patent mentions nothing of the sort. The patent seems to be about maintaining metadata across multiple application contexts and updating the context appropriately. It seems pretty wishy-washy, and I think it is too broad for a patent. But it's nothing like the mirage that has got everyone here foaming at the mouth. It's NOT a patent for associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's more like a patent for a web application API framework, if I understand the gobbledy gook at all... LS
Did ANYONE even read the patent? I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent.
It's a software patent, and therfor, to all of us not living in the United States, laughable.
That's an insane patent to have been granted. The fact that the patent holder is asserting that Facebook is infringing it without having seen their source code is extremely telling - the patent holder appears well aware that the patent (which should never have been granted) is so broad as to cover functionality rather than implementation and therefore anyone who appears to be doing what the patent covers is almost certainly infringing it.
It's as is the patent office granted someone a patent on cracking nuts as opposed to a specific nutcracker design, and the lucky patent holder would then be in a position to go after anyone selling shelled nuts on the grounds that they must have shelled them, ergo they must have violated their patent. Of course nuts, unlike software claims decribed in obfusctated legalese, are easy to understand. I'm 100% positive one could describe assigning a value to a variable in such a complex way, accounting for all possible implenentations, semantics, etc, etc, that some moron at the patent office would think it sounded like a highly technical and specific discovery and no-doubt patent worthy. I think I'll go apply for a patent of comments right now ("in the 42nd embodiment, a source code file, stored in EBDIC format on a USB storage device, embeds self-descriptive components, that will be automatically stripped by the FORmula TRANslation language lexical analyzer,...").
Given how complex software is, and how difficult it is for lay people to understand it, and given that the patent office in granting things like this make it obvious that they do not have software experts examining these patents, it seems that the whole notion of software patents needs to be reexamined. They are really doing more harm than good, and the intent of patents to encourage innovation is being subverted rather than helped by software patents. The patent office doesn't seem to understand the process of software design/development at all.
Seriously, someone needs to explain the process of object-oriented domain modelling, analysis, and design to the USPTO, and explain how virtually every outcome of such a process is "obvious to a qualified practitioner in the field." These patents on every "complicated-seeming" computer system that uses basic symbolic modelling of a domain and implements a few obvious methods on the objects, are ridiculous beyond belief, and one can take no position on these patents except to studiously ignore them.
First, the problem that they're attempting to address with this patent: when you create a document or receive an email, it's up to you to categorize that document or email by whatever context (category/job fuction/etc) is appropriate...like sales or engineering. Usually this is done by creating categorized folders to stick the files or emails or whatever into.
Their solution: When you're working on something on your computer (using their technology), you're doing so within a certain context. For example you might be working on Sales, Marketing, or Software Developement, etc. So if your current working context is Marketing, everything you create while in that context is automatically associated with Marketing. If you send someone an email, it's automatically tagged as related to Marketing, so there is no need for you or the recipient to stuff it into a Marketing folder for filing. When you switch contexts from Marketing to Sales, all the content you create is then tagged as Sales, so once again, there is no need for the user to organize their stuff.
It sounds like their idea also provides for things to be associated with multiple contexts, and workspaces can be created that cover multiple contexts, so things get tagged accordingly. Also, it allows for manual tagging.
I can't really think of how this applies to Facebook...and Leader Technologies doesn't appear to have an active product that does any of this. What do you guys think about my interpretation?
Absolutely! The laws serve no other purpose than to allow multinational corporations to bully... uhh... other... multinational corporations?
No, it allows more established corporations (and patent trolls) with large patent portfolios to prevent competition from young upstarts. Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction. They just cross-license their portfolios.
"Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction"
Its true they use patents more like negotiation chess pieces in some kind of tactical battle, but sometimes big companies do go after others big companies simply to achieve some tactical advantage. For example using the law as a delaying tactic against their opponent or to force them to give up some other patent rights as a negotiated compromise. Sadly its all tactical moves at their scale. It often has very little to do with engineering for them. They are more interested in its strategic value against opponents.
By anyway, this patent needs to die now. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ay99AAAAEBAJ&dq=7139761)
Its totally insane. In a long winded way as far as I can tell, its trying to say associating a piece of data with another piece of data. What like for example, associating a persons name with their postal address and then associating that postal address with their data of birth. etc.. etc.. etc.. Its what computers have been setup to do for decades!, yet this patent troll is trying to claim its their idea and Facebook should pay them!... yeah right, and how long after they go after Facebook, will it take them to then go after everyone else who uses a computer. I mean, FFS allowing patents like this makes a total mockery of the whole patent system.
[Disclaimer] I'm not a patent lawyer and these IP law comments are for entertainment purposes only;).. assuming you find IP law entertaining, (not that i'm implying IP law isn't entertaining;)... hmm.. this disclaimer could be made recursive.
this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Prior Art! [amazon.com]
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, but I have the patent on putting my pinky at the corner of my mouth and demanding huge ransoms while laughing in a maniacal way.
Oh, and it's usually 1 million, billion, fufillion, shabidydillion ... yen !!!
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:4, Funny)
... less then ...
I commend your efforts to avoid infringing my patent on spelling comparative phrases correctly.
*Applauds*
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it may be that every single one of these is obvious and therefore non-patentable but you can't make that determination from the title.
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Err... nevermind.
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the day, BBS's had all of this plus eBay's auction functions et al.
Prior art should invalidate most of this stuff. People who have adapted OLD
ideas to the "new" age , are just assholes. 90 percent of all this was done
on Bulletin boards before the internet became popular.
It is time for all of us old timers to bring this silly stuff to an end!
We saw or developed it before ANY of these newbies ever thought of it. Sned
your prior art to the patent office!!! Most of it was copyrighted before
many of these douchebags were born !!!
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the Facebook source code issue needs the following to be said:
1. Discovery in the courts gets you access to anything unless it is protected by trade secrets laws or the like. I haven't read the order or anything, but it'd be outright insane if the judge didn't order that the source code not be used for anything but looking for patent violations. I have seen similar things done, with stiff penalties to the lawyers and to the parties for violating such an order.
2. You don't need to look at the source code of Facebook to see whether it implements the invention described by this patent. You only need to create a user account. The patent doesn't seem to describe any algorithms, but rather a high-level information organization scheme.
Parent
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
You're right and that's exactly what everybody should encourage. Patent trolls are the best friends of those who dislike the patent system. I'll explain why. Nobody will care to reform a system which is quasi functional, but everybody, even lobbyists will push for reform on a system which is completely broken. If any Joe can sue the crap out of a major lobbying corporation for some silly patent you can be damn sure that the corporations will do anything to nullify this. And when the law is with Joe, the only thing left to do is to push for legislation change. So you see in a capitalistic world the absolute best way to make a change about anything is to show that the current structure is unprofitable for all major corporations. See it as "lobbying the lobbyists."
Parent
Pretty absurd (Score:5, Funny)
Facebook should hire some of Diebold's lawyers. They're really good at keeping source private.
Re:Pretty absurd (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Patent infringement x 2! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone wanna take bets on how long until Leader Technologies comes out with their own social networking site that looks very similar to Facebook, and gets sued for having some technology that infringes on a Facebook patent?
But seriously, shouldn't the court be trying to determine infringement, rather than letting the plaintiff view every piece of code Facebook has written? That's almost like saying "Microsoft infringed on 'using a scroll bar'; let Red Hat view all of the source for Windows so Red Hat can make sure it's not infringing." - if Windows were the only product Microsoft had. It's a crazy statement to make. In industrial terms, it sounds even worse: "Caterpillar might be infringing on a patent for 'method of transporting hydraulic fluid'; give Mitsubishi all of their blueprints for every one of their products so they can make sure it's not infringing".
If you didn't catch it, did you notice the 'obviousness' factor in those examples? Associating data into multiple categories seems pretty obvious, as databases have been doing just that for a long time.
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to patent some code that checks submissions for stupid patents, but the patent office stack overflowed...
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how this got modded insightful. Defendants in business litigation typically have to hand over the source code and other sensitive information (like sales data). The court simply issues a "protective order" limiting who can view the source code. Usually the protective order designates source code as "attorneys eyes only" meaning that only the requester's (Leader Technology) outside attorneys can view the source. Plaintiffs and defendants squabble over these issues as a way to drive up the cost of litigation and not because there is any risk that source code might be leaked and duplicated.
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how this got modded insightful.
Slashdot is peer-moderated, which implies that the moderator may not be an expert (or even well-informed!) about the topic of a comment they choose to mod "informative" or "insightful". Duh.
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:4, Informative)
I can't disagree with you there. What the original poster didn't mention is that "Attorneys' eyes only" means what the protective order says "Attorneys' eyes only" means. You have to look to the protective order itself to see what exceptions exist to allow outside experts to view the material.
In this case, the exception is found in paragraph 9 of the protective order [uscourts.gov] (PACER access required; the cost for the document is $1.92 - goes to $0 if you don't download $10 worth of documents by the end of the year [uscourts.gov]):
9. For purposes of this Protective Order, a consultant or expert shall be defined as a person who is neither an employee, agent or representative of a party, nor anticipated to become an employee, agent or representative of a party in the near future, who is not involved in the application or prosecution of patents for the party, and who is retained or employed to assist in the preparation for trial in this litigation, whether full or part time, by or at the direction of counsel for a party. The procedure for having a consultant or expert approved for access to confidential material designated as CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order shalI be as follows:
a. Outside counsel for the receiving party shall (1) provide the consultant or expert with a copy of this Protective Order, (2) explain its terns, and (3) obtain the written agreement of the consultant or expert, in the form of Exhibit A hereto, to comply with and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. Before providing information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE by a producing party pursuant to this Protective Order to a consultant or expert, the party seeking to disclose the information to a consultant or cxpert shall identify the consultant or expert to the producing party in writing and provide the producing party with (a) an executed Exhibit A, and (b) a written statement setting forth the consultant's or expert's residence address, business address, employer, job title, curriculum vitae, and past or present association with any party, as well as a list of litigation matters for which the consultant or expert has provided any professional services during the preceding five years;
b. Five (5) court days following the identification specified in the preceding subparagraph, the identifying party may disclose the information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order to the identified consultant or expert unless the party receives a written objection to the identification, served by facsimile or electronic mail, setting forth in detail the grounds on which it is based. Failure to object within five (5) days of the identification shall be deemed a waiver of the objection. If an identifying party receives such an objection within five (5) days of the identification, the consultant or expert shall be barred from access to any information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order for fourteen (14) calendar days commencing with the receipt by the producing party of a copy of the executed Exhibit A and accompanying information required in subparagraph (a) above;
c. If within fourteen (14) calendar days, the parties are unable to resolve their differences and the opposing party moves for a further protective order preventing disclosure of information designated CONFIDENTIAL, H
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter if they do develop a social network site or not. There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason facebook was initially popular was because it was for college students only. Once they allowed anyone to have a facebook page, it became the crap fest it is now.
Interestingly enough, if the government created a database like facebook to track citizens, people would be outraged, but make it voluntary and it becomes the next new thing.
Parent
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's been dozens of Myspace and Facebook clones out there. None have particularly succeeded. The underlying tech isn't what drives their success. It's the ability of their Marketing Droids to convince people that the emperor is really not, in fact, stark naked.
I think what really drives Facebook is that it reached the critical mass to get a strong network effect.
As you pointed out with the source code, there are numerous sites that could have served the role Facebook presently serves. I suspect this is a system that was destined to converge on one particular website, but was chaotic with respect to which site would get the crown.
Parent
Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Prior Art? (Score:4, Insightful)
NO! In fact, the patent itself specifically cites a one-to-many relationship as already being known. The attempt at claiming coverage of a one-to-many appears to come only from the incompetent who wrote the summary.
Parent
what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"associating a piece of data with multiple categories"?
Are you kidding me?! So when I create a database table that allows me associate a record with multiple categories I'm infringing on this patent? Surely this isn't the whole story... could someone smarter than me fill me in please?
I am going to go patent taking a wiz in the morning. Apparently prior art doesn't mean anything.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, are these claims patentable? I don't know. there is a lot of long-windedness in patent claims, and it depends on how borad or narrow they are interpreted. Obviously the examiner found them to be narrow enough to be patentable. I doubt it's as simple as a one-to-many relation in a database, because even though examiners miss things, they really wouldn't have missed that. Maybe the judge will overturn it though, if he reads the patent more broadly.
Parent
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
TFA goes on to state:
So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, who the hell writes these summaries? Do they just have really awful reading comprehension or does all the sensational shit just float to the top? I suppose it's a combination of those 2 things isn't it?
Parent
And you, slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Are those multiple tags I see against the summary?
Source, now!
Re:And you, slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
That claim (Score:3, Funny)
Of "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" sounds suspiciously like tags.
They'll come for slashcode next!
Raise Your Hand If You've Violated This Patent (Score:5, Funny)
I've got both hands in the air.
How about patent reform? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about patent reform? (Score:5, Insightful)
While we're on a reform kick in this country maybe we could undertake patent reform.
Think of all the corporate money that is being thrown at killing healthcare reform in all it's different guises...
and then multiply it by 200.
That, my friend, is the reason it isn't happening. Find ways to reduce the corporate influence and money in these fights first and then there is a chance.
Parent
Re:How about patent reform? (Score:5, Informative)
Total health care spending is 17.6% of GDP. Nowhere near 200 times as much money could be involved in patents. :-)
Parent
FIRST CLAIM! (Score:4, Informative)
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
Most OSes fall under the claims of this patent. (Score:5, Informative)
I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.
This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.
-Todd
Discovery (Score:4, Interesting)
If this is part of Discovery, then the requirement to turn over the code should be to the plaintiff's attorneys, not to the plaintiff. And the plaintiff doesn't actually get to see it themselves.
At least, that's how it worked in SCO vs IBM.
CmdrTaco beware (Score:3, Funny)
Did ANYONE even read the patent? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent. The patent mentions nothing of the sort. The patent seems to be about maintaining metadata across multiple application contexts and updating the context appropriately. It seems pretty wishy-washy, and I think it is too broad for a patent. But it's nothing like the mirage that has got everyone here foaming at the mouth. It's NOT a patent for associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's more like a patent for a web application API framework, if I understand the gobbledy gook at all...
LS
Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
Did ANYONE even read the patent? I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent.
It's a software patent, and therfor, to all of us not living in the United States, laughable.
Parent
Get rid of software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an insane patent to have been granted. The fact that the patent holder is asserting that Facebook is infringing it without having seen their source code is extremely telling - the patent holder appears well aware that the patent (which should never have been granted) is so broad as to cover functionality rather than implementation and therefore anyone who appears to be doing what the patent covers is almost certainly infringing it.
It's as is the patent office granted someone a patent on cracking nuts as opposed to a specific nutcracker design, and the lucky patent holder would then be in a position to go after anyone selling shelled nuts on the grounds that they must have shelled them, ergo they must have violated their patent. Of course nuts, unlike software claims decribed in obfusctated legalese, are easy to understand. I'm 100% positive one could describe assigning a value to a variable in such a complex way, accounting for all possible implenentations, semantics, etc, etc, that some moron at the patent office would think it sounded like a highly technical and specific discovery and no-doubt patent worthy. I think I'll go apply for a patent of comments right now ("in the 42nd embodiment, a source code file, stored in EBDIC format on a USB storage device, embeds self-descriptive components, that will be automatically stripped by the FORmula TRANslation language lexical analyzer, ...").
Given how complex software is, and how difficult it is for lay people to understand it, and given that the patent office in granting things like this make it obvious that they do not have software experts examining these patents, it seems that the whole notion of software patents needs to be reexamined. They are really doing more harm than good, and the intent of patents to encourage innovation is being subverted rather than helped by software patents. The patent office doesn't seem to understand the process of software design/development at all.
Thank the spaghetti monster I live in Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Where I can ignore the insane US patent system.
Seriously, someone needs to explain the process of object-oriented
domain modelling, analysis, and design to the USPTO, and explain
how virtually every outcome of such a process is "obvious to a qualified
practitioner in the field." These patents on every "complicated-seeming"
computer system that uses basic symbolic modelling of a domain and
implements a few obvious methods on the objects, are ridiculous
beyond belief, and one can take no position on these patents
except to studiously ignore them.
Ok, lets see if I can break this down (Score:4, Interesting)
Their solution: When you're working on something on your computer (using their technology), you're doing so within a certain context. For example you might be working on Sales, Marketing, or Software Developement, etc. So if your current working context is Marketing, everything you create while in that context is automatically associated with Marketing. If you send someone an email, it's automatically tagged as related to Marketing, so there is no need for you or the recipient to stuff it into a Marketing folder for filing. When you switch contexts from Marketing to Sales, all the content you create is then tagged as Sales, so once again, there is no need for the user to organize their stuff.
It sounds like their idea also provides for things to be associated with multiple contexts, and workspaces can be created that cover multiple contexts, so things get tagged accordingly. Also, it allows for manual tagging.
I can't really think of how this applies to Facebook...and Leader Technologies doesn't appear to have an active product that does any of this. What do you guys think about my interpretation?
Re:American "Justice" (Score:4, Insightful)
That will happen just as soon as the "right thing" becomes highly profitable for those doing the bribing.
So, never.
Parent
Re:American "Justice" (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely! The laws serve no other purpose than to allow multinational corporations to bully... uhh... other... multinational corporations?
No, it allows more established corporations (and patent trolls) with large patent portfolios to prevent competition from young upstarts. Megacorps don't often go after other megacorps because it would end up as mutually assured destruction. They just cross-license their portfolios.
Parent
Re:American "Justice" (Score:4, Funny)
Its true they use patents more like negotiation chess pieces in some kind of tactical battle, but sometimes big companies do go after others big companies simply to achieve some tactical advantage. For example using the law as a delaying tactic against their opponent or to force them to give up some other patent rights as a negotiated compromise. Sadly its all tactical moves at their scale. It often has very little to do with engineering for them. They are more interested in its strategic value against opponents.
By anyway, this patent needs to die now. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ay99AAAAEBAJ&dq=7139761)
Its totally insane. In a long winded way as far as I can tell, its trying to say associating a piece of data with another piece of data. What like for example, associating a persons name with their postal address and then associating that postal address with their data of birth. etc.. etc.. etc.. Its what computers have been setup to do for decades!, yet this patent troll is trying to claim its their idea and Facebook should pay them!... yeah right, and how long after they go after Facebook, will it take them to then go after everyone else who uses a computer. I mean, FFS allowing patents like this makes a total mockery of the whole patent system.
[Disclaimer] I'm not a patent lawyer and these IP law comments are for entertainment purposes only
Parent