Facebook Wants To Own Idea Of Crowdsourced Translations

from the some-prior-art? dept

Apparently Facebook is trying to patent the idea of crowdsourced translations of its service. The actual patent application was filed in December of 2008, but the real priority date (I believe) is December of 2007 (when I think the company filed a provisional patent).

This one caught my attention for a few reasons -- with a major one being that way back in March of 2006, some friends of mine were working on a startup called Gabbly, which did online chat, and they had amazing success with crowdsourcing translations. Now, the Facebook patent is a little more advanced, because beyond just asking people to translate, it includes a voting mechanism. But, still, the evolution of crowdsourced translations shows the total silliness of even trying to throw patents in the middle. Almost immediately after Gabbly started doing crowdsourced translations, another online chat provider, Meebo, did the same. Gabbly used a forum. Meebo tried a wiki. Others picked up on the idea and did slightly different variations, and everyone kept innovating, and no one felt the need to own the concept of crowdsourced translations or to prohibit others from doing it.

But now, suddenly, there needs to be a patent on the concept?

I'm confused how anyone could think this meets the criteria of "promoting the progress." After all, plenty of others had figured out how to do crowdsourced translations earlier, and each one improved on the process a bit as they went. It's pretty obvious that including little voting mechanisms is an obvious next step (they were already popular on sites like Digg). So what benefit does the patent provider here other than to slow down innovation? It's difficult to believe that this "innovation" would not have occurred but for the patent system -- or even that it would have taken longer to happen but for the patent system.

Hopefully, the USPTO quickly dumps this, but just the fact that Facebook and its lawyers felt this was worth patenting shows you something about the ridiculous state of the patent system today.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apparently, Providing Derrida's Works For Free 'Harms The Diffusion Of His Thoughts'

from the oh-really-now? dept

JJ points us to an interesting case down in Argentina, where a philosophy professor is being charged with criminal copyright infringement for being so bold as to create a series of websites with Spanish translations of the works of famous philosophers, after it proved difficult to impossible to find those works for purchase in Argentina. From the article, it certainly sounds as though Argentina has no educational exception for fair use. As troubling as the story is, the most bizarre statement comes from the copyright holder of the works of Jacques Derrida:

Horacio Potel has posted, over the course of several years, without authorisation, and free of charge, full versions of several of Jacques Derrida's works, which is harmful to the diffusion of his (Derrida)'s thought.

Ok. I can understanding the (incorrect and misleading) argument that posting such works should be seen as infringing, but I can't fathom an explanation that giving away the works of a philosopher online for free could possibly "be harmful to the diffusion of his thought." It would seem that the opposite would be true.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, Getting Users To Translate Facebook Into Other Languages Isn't Exploitation

from the you-are-getting-compensated dept

A few people have sent in the recent story about how Facebook has relied on volunteer users to translate the site into other languages. That story has resulted in something of a debate from users who feel that this is somehow exploiting these translators, since they're working for "free" for a company that is supposedly valued at $15 billion (despite revenues of about $150 million). This is the same old bogus Nicholas Carr argument that this is somehow exploitation because the users aren't getting paid in cash for their labor. That, of course, is missing the point. No one is being forced or compelled to do these translations. They're doing it because they are getting compensated in their own way. It's either recognition from the community, or merely the fact that doing this enables them to use Facebook more effectively -- and that's compensation enough. For the users who do the translation, it's obviously a fair trade, otherwise, why would they take part?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..