

The 10 patents Yahoo is using to sue Facebook (and what they really mean) - bdking
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/13/yahoo-sue-facebook-patent-infringement/

======
mmatants
They seem to be oversimplifying "US Patent 7406501 System and method for
instant messaging using an e-mail protocol". It's not "just" instant
messaging: the actual useful bit is the "reply to email to send instant
message internally" functionality that FB notification emails have.

Still not patent-worthy, of course, since any coder will instantly come up
with same implementation (unique tracking token) the moment they hear that
problem description.

Their write-up just irks me because it's misrepresenting the patent (silly as
it may still be).

------
bproper
I wonder if Facebook would consider offering rewards for prior art in order to
crowdsource a defense. I think that's a fascinating way to locate the needle
in the haystack. Article One is building a startup around this.

Another solution is MSFT, which has a patent sharing agreement in place with
Yahoo and a vested interest in Facebook's success. They could certainly lend
FB some much needed IP muscle.

~~~
dredmorbius
The problem with patents is that litigation is extraordinarily expensive.

Yahoo are apparently borrowing from IBM's playbook. "We found these ten
patents your product/business is infringing, and it would be horrible if
something were to happen to it". Note that for the second time, Yahoo are
confronting a company immediately prior to going public, during its quiet
period.

If the ten patents turn out to be of poor quality, a proof which will cost
$1-5 million of court and lawyer time, Yahoo will dip into its portfolio and
pull out another 10 patents.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

Eventually (depending on the depth of the portfolio), paying $20-$100 million
for the problem to go away begins to make a lot of economic sense. IBM has the
largest portfolio of any company (for a time it had a target of $1b in annual
licensing revenue, though as I understand it's pulled back somewhat from this
objective), and can play the game very effectively.

Even if the patents themselves are bullshit.

What's curious here is Yahoo's positioning. They're not making themselves any
friends, and are possibly hurting themselves in front of at least two
potentially interested parties (FB & MSFT). I see implosion in the cards.

Maybe Aol. wants to buy them....

------
untog
Yahoo's reputation is really going to take a hit over this one, and that's a
huge shame for the developers that work there. From YQL to Yahoo Maps to YUI,
there are obviously a really, really talented bunch of people in there
somewhere. It might be time for them to find a new home.

~~~
rplnt
Do you feel the Apple has some sort of reputation issues (in fields that
matter to them)? Because I don't.

But I believe lawsuits like these will eventually push people to acknowledging
that software patents are a very bad idea.

~~~
untog
No. But I would argue that Apple is a very different company. The Yahoo
services I mentioned are very developer-centric, and their reputation amongst
the developer community is important. I'll think twice about using Yahoo Maps
now, for example. Apple doesn't really have anything like that. We use XCode
because there are no alternatives.

------
gxs
What I'm curious about is Microsoft's position in all this. They are well
known investors in Facebook and Yahoo search and Bing have been intertwined
for some time now - must suck to be in the middle of this.

~~~
bproper
As I said below, MSFT could be of great use to FB in this matter. But I think
they may be sitting this one out. Remember Yahoo brought a patent suit against
Google back in 2004 and that only settled 10 DAYS before the IPO. Things may
get down to the wire before MSFT decides which way to go.

------
sun123
Should we "upgrade" the patent system to identify silly ideas that are not
patent worthy ?

~~~
ChrisNorstrom
It already is. There are numerous rules of the patent system that were
specifically put in there to prevent people from patenting vague, broad,
obvious inventions. Sadly, no one upholds that part.

~~~
Karunamon
I'm thinking there's a distinct lack of computer-knowledgeable people (coders,
hackers, engineers) approving the patents at USPTO. So many of these patents
are of the type where any two-bit code monkey would think of the exact same
solution given the circumstances.

These patents just reek of an ignorant bureaucratic type rubber-stamping the
patents without doing any research.

------
monochromatic
> Here are the 10 patents Yahoo is using to sue Facebook (and what they really
> mean)

Article DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the word "claim."

