MS is doing the same, by allowing the use of different account names, linked to the same user. So you can have a username from outlook.com, a username from hotmail.com, a user from msn.com, all linked to your 'main account' (whatever it is) and use them as one.
Having pseudonyms is not new. It's basically the same as having aliases for email accounts. This renders the "invention", something obvious with previous art. I can't see how this patent application can prevail.
That would require to define Social Network in a way that Microsoft can't say otherwise, because Microsoft has referred to them as social networks several times. And of course, they had Windows Live Spaces within their Services, which was defined as a "blogging and social networking platform".[1] So, the fact that it wasn't successful doesn't mean that it didn't existed at all.
And they define Social Network as:
"A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. "
That could describe Windows Live Messenger also:
- It is a social structure,
- Where users are connected by a common feature (contact, work, family, etc).
- It has explicitly-defined relationship between contacts.
- The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems (it allows to connect to facebook, and other services, and link contacts from there).
- It has a social graph of all users in the network (unlike mail, as somebody else suggested, but Windows Live Messenger does have this graph).
- This graph is a mapping of all users in the network and how they are related.
- (Read the definitions of memory: basically, memory of an electronic device, permanent or removable, volatile or static, etc) The graph it's stored in some kind of computer memory (As they include pretty much everything, including floppy disks!!!!!!).
--
The fact that the USPTO granted them the patent, doesn't mean that it can't be invalidated. And if Google tries to enforce this patent, it most surely will be invalidated.
I could agree with your take that Windows Live Messenger, and Windows Live Spaces fit the description of a social network used in the patent.
> "A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. "
I would also argue that any competent attorney could argue that the other three MS services don't fit that description.
But the fact that you can have at least one alias for your account (doesn't have to be from any other service), invalidates the issue. It's a social network (according to their definition) AND you can have different "identities" linked to the same account.
Anyway, this kind of disputes won't be solved in an online forum.
Besides, I don't think that MSFT and Google are willing to battle for this kind of issues right now. It could trigger a HUGE battle regarding all kind of assets (OS's, office suits, search engines, etc). Most probably, they would simply make a some kind of cross-licencing and forget the whole thing.
Having pseudonyms is not new. It's basically the same as having aliases for email accounts. This renders the "invention", something obvious with previous art. I can't see how this patent application can prevail.