Contrary to what you state, no one rushed out at that time and insinuated you were an “idiot”.

Well, you have to admit angry dude’s usual verbal diarrhoea did indeed call his competence into question:

Mikey’s area of expertise is brainwashing…
He knows nothing about real economy and even less about tech

AD, where are you now, you coward?

The jury is probably tech illiterate and wouldn’t know an IP address from a MAC address.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

BTW, the reference in the news reports to “commercial activities” suggests to me that the plaintiff likely had the claimed invention in public use or on sale more than one year before the initial application was filed, creating what is referred to as a “statutory bar” under 35 UC 102.

This may be correct; an earlier opinion issued in this case indicates that Facebook was alleging that:

“…the McKibben deposition establishes that more than one year prior to the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 101732,744 (the “‘744 Application), Leader offered to sell the Leader2Leader product to at least three third parties.”

(It seems to me that the ‘744 application became the ‘761 patent, which is at issue here – although this isn’t fully clear from the ruling).

~ ~ ~ ~

The case took a weird turn when the court actually ordered Facebook to hand over its source code. We were confused as to how this made sense. Since the lawsuit was about patents, not copyright, the specific source code shouldn’t really matter.

This isn’t really that unusual, and I don’t understand why it would be confusing. Compiled software is like a machine encased in a black box: you can observe how it responds to particular inputs by generating certain outputs, but you cannot always deduce from this the mechanism. The source code discloses the mechanism: the inner-workings of the machine.

Saying that you necessarily don’t need source code to determine software patent infringement is like saying that you necessarily don’t need to open the hood of a car to determine automotive patent infringement, even if the patent covers some aspect of the engine or the carburetor.

Patents are supposed to disclose enough about an invention that one of ordinary skill in the art could practice it. That is, if I patent a mechanism that is implementable in software, I have to explain how someone like a programmer could implement it. I cannot always explain that in sufficient detail by only talking about inputs and outputs. Often I have to disclose the specific steps. Consider a claim from the RSA patent, a classic algorithm patent:

. A cryptographic communications system comprising:

A. a communications channel,
B. an encoding means coupled to said channel and adapted for transforming a transmit message word signal M to a ciphertext word signal C and for transmitting C on said channel,

where M corresponds to a number representative of a message and

0.ltoreq.M.ltoreq.n-1

where n is a composite number of the form

n=p.multidot.q
where p and q are prime numbers, and
where C corresponds to a number representative of an enciphered form of said message and corresponds to
C.ident.M.sup.e (mod n)
where e is a number relatively prime to 1 cm(p-1,q-1), and
C. a decoding means coupled to said channel and adapted for receiving C from said channel and for transforming C to a receive message word signal M’
where M’ corresponds to a number representative of a deciphered form of C and corresponds to
M’.ident.C.sup.d (mod n)
where d is a multiplicative inverse of e(mod(1 cm((p-1),(q-1)))).

Given just a binary black box, it is difficult or impossible to tell whether this is what is actually going on. If the software takes the exact same inputs and produces the exact same outputs, but through some novel mechanism, then that software is not necessarily covered by the patent unless, for example, it is found equivalent under the Doctrine of Equivalents.

The source code is sometimes really necessary to understand whether the mechanism of the software is the same as, or equivalent to, the mechanism claimed in the patent. When this is the case the court can order the software disclosed under very, very restrictive conditions to make this determination.

Finding infringement can be a technical and subtle process: you must show that each and every element of the claim is found in the infringing product. You cannot, as many patent detractors fantasize, just take a sidelong glance at the product and the patent and go “yep, infringes!” or “nope, doesn’t infringe!”