RSS
Twitter
Facebook Sued For Patent Infringement
from the welcome-to-the-big-time dept
It's pretty much a rite of passage for any tech company these days, as you get larger and more recognized, some company that has an overly broad and probably obvious patent will sue you for patent infringement. For the company in question, the lawsuit is as much a publicity event as it is an attempt to squeeze revenue from an actual innovator. The latest example of this is with an Ohio company no one's heard of called Leader Technologies, who is suing Facebook for patent infringement, and was kind enough to send out a press release announcing this before Facebook even got to see the lawsuit. Clearly, this is a publicity stunt.
As for the patent itself, it basically describes the rather obvious process of associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's almost surprising that the company is suing Facebook instead of Google. While I'm not a heavy Facebook user, I'm not sure where Facebook uses such a system. Google, however, has made widespread use of a similar idea with its Gmail "labels." The idea is that rather than sorting data into a specific folder or category, it can be associated with multiple categories. If that seems rather obvious and ridiculously broad, well, that's the patent system for you these days.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
If this company owns such a patent, they could make a ton of money off of a ton of different companies.
come on, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories"?? we all do that at least a million times a day! these frivolous litigators should really just shut the fuck up and stick their "patent" up there ass where it came from.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Wow, they should sue every database vendor on the planet as associating data in such a manner has been part of relational theory since day 1.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm, I think I have prior art sitting on my desk. I have a report labeled with variously colored stickies on each page so I can quickly thumb to a given topic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sue EVERYONE!!
Just like Anon said, you can sue every database company. You can also sue anyone who uses tags like Yahoo's Flickr, blogs like WordPress and TypePad, and Delicious simply because they assign meta data to data.
Not only is this idea obvious, the chances of someone ELSE owning such a patent is likely given the widespread use of such a broad patent years before the Internet was handed over to the public domain.
FAIL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Don't print the names of these companies or links to their press releases. Your just giving them what they want.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Let me see if I have this right. A company, Leader Technologies, files a provisional application in 2002, converts it into a regular application in 2003, has the patent issue in 2006, along the way has to distinguish how its invention differs from other inventions by lunimaries such as Xerox, Microsoft, IBM, and MCI (among others), has a technology savvy examiner in the patent office go back and forth over about 3 years time to narrow the patent claims so that the distinguish over the prior art in terms of both novelty and nonobviousness, asserts the patent against a company it believes may be infringing the patent, and then has techdirt come along and opine by a non-technical person lacking substantive technical knowledge in the details of the described and claimed subject matter that the patent is "rather obvious"...once again implying that yet another unwarranted patent has issued.
Seriously, Mr. Masnick, are you such an expert in the technology field that you can make such a statement without even having reviewed the application as originally filed, together with the file wrapper history associated with its prosecution before the patent office?
I urge you to stick with your economic arguments and view that patents and copyrights are "monopolies", and resist the urge to dip your feet into "legal waters in which you have no substantive experience. The former is within your area of expertise. The latter most certainly is not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RDBMS
Someone patented the many-to-many relationship and, apparently, tagging?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mikey's area of expertise is brainwashing techdirt lemming-punks until they belive him
He knows nothing about real economy and even less about tech
His degree is in PR
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
The patent is linked to in the article with the original filed paperwork. Looking at it myself it looks exactly like what Mike said.
Unless I'm mistaken, this patent is on the definition of database.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
?
Software patents are so ambiguous its ridiculous. They need to revamp the entire system
Visit P2P Tech Time http://www.p2ptechtime.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The patent defines almost any trivial web application today.
I cannot believe this patent made it through the system. It is a basic overview of how almost all web apps store and relate data with users. It has been around well before 2006.
I should patent the process of requiring users to click on links for site navigation. Now that is novel!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i'm going to patent chewing and make billions
System includes teeth, jaw, muscular tissue, and some form of food and/or recreational material. Process involves tightening of muscular tissue causing one set of teeth (referred to as "upper teeth") to come into contact with another set of teeth (referred to as "lower teeth"). During this process, Upper Teeth and Lower Teeth crush the food or recreational material (e.g. gum) modifying the consistency of the food or releasing flavor or nutrients.
Refers to previous patent #100,230,994,202,451 for process called "Sense of Taste".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
acdc
I didn't realize you were being ironic until I got to this bit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"Don't print the names of these companies or links to their press releases. Your just giving them what they want."
Seconded.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Trolls
Don't feed the trolls. Don't give them attention of any sort. It's the worst thing we can possibly do to them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What Next? a Lawsuit for breathing oxygen, maybe?
If this can become a subject of lawsuit, they'll have to spend several trillions just to file lawsuits! And can end up the richest company in the world!
Has someone patented the 'process of breathing in and breathing out', yet? Must check out right away!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Labels...
...this may have to do with the "networks" that you belong to. Same as Gmail and being able to add multiple labels to an email, Facebook allows you to join multiple networks. Me, for example, am apart of the Washington DC network, my university network and my companies network.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Never heard of them before, eh?
But surely you must remember the folks who "were relied upon by the Governor of Louisiana to support the entire state's response to Hurricane Katrina"? (quote taken from their website, for which I shall expect a lawsuit for copyright infringement)
Now there's something to hang your hat on... If my business had anything whatsoever to do with the government's response to that disaster, I'd be doing everything in my power NOT to publicize it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
But your missing the point of the patent, this idea uses technology! It may be easy for you in real life, but no one knows how to apply basic sorting to data in a computer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Many-Many Joins..
Obviously this company never heard of the premise of a many to many data relationship. I think IBM will be sued next for it's implementation in SQL.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I like this bit
16. The method of claim 9, further comprising accessing the user environment via a portable wireless device.
How does this have anything to do with the design of the system???
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Many-Many Joins..
...and IBM will fire back with its own patents, which it most surely has given that this functionality has been present in Lotus Notes (it's called "views" in Notes), since oh, the early 90s or so.
As SCO learned, going up against IBM in a patent battle is anything but trivial.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I like this bit
How does this have anything to do with the design of the system???
It likely doesn't, but nothing says that an infringing article must infringe every claim of a patent. It only needs to infringe one claim.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Quicker is keeper
It is like finder is keeper: "Quicker is keeper". Doesn't make sense to me. They can not win, there could be two separate algorithms. To win patent case, everything has to be identical. No way, especially for such a commodotized feature...LOL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That sucks, this patent is so broad that he can almost every major company.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Right. Does anyone have a patent to the many-to-many relationship concept? Or to many-to-one? Or, maybe, one-to-many...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I thought that when you OWN the rights, that was it! So now, when you do not own, you are allowed to run all over the person or company that owns the rights?
Pat
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment