
Actually Reading the Facebook Feed Patent - ynniv
http://ynniv.com/blog/2010/02/looking-at-facebook-patent.html
======
cduan
If you look at the file history of the patent application (which you can get
from <http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>), you will see that the
patent was allowed only after adding the "where the link enables a viewing
user to participate in the same activity" limitation. It is mentioned in the
Interview Summary.

~~~
ynniv
This is an excellent resource that I was unaware of. That limitation was not
present in the 8-19-2009 claims, but was in 12-16-2009. I made a cursory
glance over the documents available on PAIR, but was unable to find the
examiners specific rejection that caused them to add this. There are a lot of
references on this application, tho.

~~~
cduan
Look at the 12/14/2009 interview summary (an interview is where the patent
applicants talk to the examiner), and in particular the third page.

------
danieldon
I guess I'm failing to see why this doesn't apply to a whole bunch of generic
social activity feeds. Github's activity feed, for example, seems to fall
under the patent. What am I missing?

~~~
ynniv
Does clicking a github news item cause you to also make a commit?

And realize that if github and other social networks have similar features
that were added after 2006, they are infringers, not prior art.

~~~
danieldon
You are referring to this clause, correct?

 _"attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another
user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a
viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user"_

The github news feed includes notifications of comments, and there is a link
that can be used to go to the comment page and also comment. As I'm reading
clause, the link itself doesn't need to actually cause an action, and the link
in that github news item "enables a viewing user to participate in the same
activity as the another user."

Also, you can edit and make commits from the web interface, so this could fall
under this as well.

~~~
ynniv
_The github news feed includes notifications of comments, and there is a link
that can be used to go to the comment page and also comment_

Ah, that would likely infringe. They could easily get around this by removing
the direct link to comment and having users view the comment thread before
commenting. Or have a text box instead of a link, where the user would enter
their comment directly in the news feed.

------
gojomo
Did you know having read a patent could increase the damages if you are later
found to infringe it?

Most bad patents die in obscurity, never enforced, never discussed -- which is
as it should be.

The best thing to do if you hear informally about a dubious patent is to
ignore it -- don't promote it, don't mock it, and for god's sake don't study
it.

Of course, if your professional patent counsel tells you otherwise, for
example after you are specifically alleged to infringe by someone with the
power to prosecute, that's different. In the meantime, amateur patent
kibbitzing only helps the trolls.

~~~
ynniv
Yes, knowledge of a patent could increase damages if you are found to be
infringing. However, ignorance of all patents causes Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt at the slightest mention of the an overly broad patent title. Knowledge
of the patents in your field is the only way to avoid infringing them. I used
to believe that ignorance was the better path, but that only leads to you
being sued over something you were unaware of. Now I opt to avoid being sued
in the first place.

~~~
prodigal_erik
That works if it's actually possible to avoid infringing all overbroad
patents. But the USPTO's bar for "novel and non-obvious" is so absurdly low
that I don't believe we can assume they left us any gaps in the minefield.

~~~
ynniv
True. Throughout the blog post and comments here, I never mentioned that I am
not in favor of software patents, but I absolutely agree. That said, there is
usually some way to weasel out of the shadow of a patent, and being sued for a
smaller outrageous amount isn't as useful as not being sued at all.

------
freetard
This sounds very much like it can apply to twitter.

@foobar said cool. <reply button> <retweet button>

That's an activity that can be public or only be viewed by your friends.
People can participate by doing the same activity (retweeting or replying).

This also applies to google buzz, myspace, hi5, github comments, linkedin and
tons of other services. It looks like the OP should re-read the patent.

~~~
ynniv
_It looks like the OP should re-read the patent._

Thank you freetard, that was insightful.

 _That's an activity that can be public or only be viewed by your friends.
People can participate by doing the same activity (retweeting or replying)._

In this patent, "News Items" are different from status updates, which would be
considered "actions". The related art section of the patent discloses that
users of social networks can already see direct actions of other users, and
the utility of this patent is to filter this list to dampen the noise. A more
apt example would be twitter providing a list of people who have been recently
followed by people that you are following, with the option of clicking the
news item to also follow this new person.

~~~
freetard
> A more apt example would be twitter providing a list of people who have been
> recently followed by people that you are following, with the option of
> clicking the news item to also follow this new person.

How would that be more apt? In twitter you can make your account private, so
only a few selected people can see your actions.

Also a retweet, a reply or even a tweet are all actions (the action to
retweet, reply and tweet ie say something).

