Comments on: Facebook’s News Feed Patent http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/facebooks-news-feed-patent.htm ipVA's blog on adding value through intellectual property Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:43:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Andres http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/facebooks-news-feed-patent.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8999 Andres Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:14:17 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=760#comment-8999 I've read the claims, and I'm still not wiser as to why this made it past an examiner who has even a passing understanding of databases. Take claim 1.: "A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; 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; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users." This is basic database linking and design, as I have said elsewhere, this is a trivial and obvious use of database filters. The rest of the claims are as bad. I’ve read the claims, and I’m still not wiser as to why this made it past an examiner who has even a passing understanding of databases. Take claim 1.:

“A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; 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; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.”

This is basic database linking and design, as I have said elsewhere, this is a trivial and obvious use of database filters. The rest of the claims are as bad.

]]> By: Andrew Watson http://www.tangible-ip.com/2010/facebooks-news-feed-patent.htm/comment-page-1#comment-8731 Andrew Watson Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:06:21 +0000 http://www.tangible-ip.com/?p=760#comment-8731 Rob. A good post and clearly explained. As you say, there is often a lot of gossip that surrounds patents in particular in the chatrooms. You've explained well that although Facebook has a granted patent that at first glance may appear to be wide, it effect it is not as wide as it might seem to the uninitiated. A commerically interesting question though? Could we really see a day when one social networking brand aware giant would use patents to try to stop the activity of another social networking brand aware giant? Is that really part of the IP strategy at Facebook? Would it have the desired effect of stopping the users of that competing service from carrying on its service...or would it just backfire as the users of the alegedly infringing service slaughtered the aggresor for mis-using the IP system. Imagine that damage in your Relationship Capital. Particuarly when nearly everyone I know has a Facebook AND a Twitter account. Or is this really just Facebook's IP counsel being sensible and trying to protect the core of what makes Facebook special to justify the probably very high R&D budget. eBay did get caught by MercExchange in the consumer internet IP skirmishes (one troll always get lucky in each new market), but could I see ever so popular Facebook dragging Twitter into a patent battle? Hmmmm..one to think over. I just can't see it. Rob. A good post and clearly explained. As you say, there is often a lot of gossip that surrounds patents in particular in the chatrooms. You’ve explained well that although Facebook has a granted patent that at first glance may appear to be wide, it effect it is not as wide as it might seem to the uninitiated.

A commerically interesting question though? Could we really see a day when one social networking brand aware giant would use patents to try to stop the activity of another social networking brand aware giant? Is that really part of the IP strategy at Facebook? Would it have the desired effect of stopping the users of that competing service from carrying on its service…or would it just backfire as the users of the alegedly infringing service slaughtered the aggresor for mis-using the IP system. Imagine that damage in your Relationship Capital. Particuarly when nearly everyone I know has a Facebook AND a Twitter account.

Or is this really just Facebook’s IP counsel being sensible and trying to protect the core of what makes Facebook special to justify the probably very high R&D budget. eBay did get caught by MercExchange in the consumer internet IP skirmishes (one troll always get lucky in each new market), but could I see ever so popular Facebook dragging Twitter into a patent battle?

Hmmmm..one to think over. I just can’t see it.

]]>