Amazon 'Friends' Patent Office: Gets Social Networking Patent
from the one-click-friending? dept
You may recall a few years ago that many people were up in arms over the ridiculousness of Friendster, the social network that kicked off the social networking craze (though it was hardly the first in the space), which got a patent (7,069,308) on the basics of social networking (claiming "a system and method for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks"). Lots of people pointed out the rather ridiculous amount of prior art on this patent, and feared that Friendster (by then very much an also-ran in the social networking world) was about to turn patent troll. Since then, the company has picked up a few more patents on some other aspects of social networking as well.So, we were a bit surprised to see lots of folks sending over the news (first highlighted at Slashdot), that Amazon has been awarded a patent, 7,739,139, on a "Social networking system."
Even though it was only filed in 2008, that's not actually the relevant date. It's a continuation patent -- a dreadfully bad part of the patent system that is regularly abused to create "submarine" patents. While patent system defenders will deny this, the continuation process is regularly used to adjust what a patent covers over time, to make sure that it really covers more modern inventions than when it was originally filed. The Patent Office tried to stop this abuse by limiting continuations a few years ago, but a court eventually told them the USPTO couldn't actually do that. In this case, this patent isn't just a continuation patent, it's a continuation patent of a continuation patent of a continuation patent of an original patent filed back in 1997.
And, because of that, we get patents like this one. Since the priority date in November of 1997, all the fancy social networking stuff actually invented elsewhere doesn't count as prior art, but given how many such systems were built between now and then, it's hard to see how the specific claims in this patent could possibly pass the obviousness test. Tons of companies came up with identical systems over the years, suggesting that it was clearly the next obvious progression in this area.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, social networks
Companies: amazon, friendster
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fortunately our Civil Servants will stand guard for the citizens!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My favorite patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My favorite patent
I just love software patents.
Which begs the question: has anyone ever been sued for copyright infringement on a patent application and document?
I wonder if he is going to file for a trapezoidal continuation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My favorite patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My favorite patent
http://www.google.com/search?q=Steven+Olson+St+Paul+MN&hl=en&pb=r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A great paper about continuation patent abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A great paper about continuation patent abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent system fundamentally broken
But the main stupidity seems to be that they file a patent in 2008 that has tons of prior art, but get around that simply by saying the patent is a continuation of one from 1997, when there wasn't as much obvious prior art. (I still think there was, but that is a different matter.) If you read the one from 1997 it doesn't really have much to do with the one from 2008, so how is it they are allowed to connect them just to get around the obvious more recent prior art?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRIOR ART( @9 afterwards )
and IRC Chat.
AND in a way one could argue that the net itself is actually designed in a way "a system and method for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks" .
Your social network at work will have various ways it uses and connects to the net and socialize to other businesses ( seeing how USA corporations have many rights of people )
Your social networks will vary by person and thus whom you connect to via the net.
OHHHH STUPID PATENTS
how about we just patent forever the toilet and charge these twits for flushing it down the drain.
Exmaplefor #9
So after the toilet invention patent, we had to make a new patent for the lever on the toilet cause we of course over the past 6 billion years we made them included the handle but forgot it in the design of the patent. THUS can we have a new patent lasting another 6 billion years?
I would argue if your patent you put forth does not include something it should have ot make the design work then you have that patent nulled and since there is NOW prior art cause there is a device which has this included it can't now be patented. CALL that the YOU STUPID IDIOT YOU FD THE PATENT clause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PRIOR ART( @9 afterwards )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PRIOR ART( @9 afterwards )
Keep in mind that prior art are inventions that are spit upon by current law. Those with savviness and $$ to file as many patent claims as necessary to get it right (and sometimes with little or no desire to actually build things) get monopolies for 20 years, while brilliant inventions whose author keep themselves busy (eg, with open source software) get "well you should have patented it instead of donating it to society".
My point is that I think patents should be automatic and $0 (like copyright) as a starting point to removing the very real bias towards the wealthy. [That or just abolish most patents.] At that point, it would be risky to sue and then find prior art since that other person could sue you. Also, it would become clearer that society functions because of how many people today don't seek broad patents.
It's very unfair to many inventors that don't file patents to pretend that prior art recognition is acceptable in a world where the more greedy and wealthy among us can sign up for 20 year patent monopolies (made even more ridiculous by the submarine option).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no such claim
They have no such claim. I have no idea where you got that from. If you can't report accurately, please stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no such claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no such claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no such claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
7000 social network patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]