Facebook Patents Foursquare?
from the ah,-modern-competition dept
A bunch of folks have sent in the news that Facebook has apparently been granted a very broad patent covering all sorts of location-based "check-in" type services. The patent in question (7,809,805) almost certainly would cover what Foursquare, Gowalla, Google Lattitude and others have done. Of course, it's interesting to note that Facebook itself started offering a product in this space just a couple months ago, when lots of folks noted that it was "late to the game."The patent filing appears to predate most of the competitors in the space, so it's not like those competitors directly represent prior art. However, Dodgeball, the company that Google acquired (and basically killed) whose founders went on to start FourSquare definitely predates this patent. Even so, there are lots of companies exploring various location-based offerings for many years. The problem wasn't that it needed some big "invention" over how to create a location-based social network. The problem was that the technology hadn't caught up yet: i.e., there weren't that many smartphones with GPS. Once that happened, it was natural to build more location-based services. So it seems particularly silly to patent something that was naturally going to come about once GPS in phones became more common... but that's how the patent system works.
To be fair, to date, Facebook hasn't been known for asserting its patents against other companies (trademarks are another story). But, it's still pretty ridiculous. After all, as it stands right now, there's healthy competition in this particular market, and it's causing all of the players (and some new ones) to keep on innovating and trying to offer better service. If Facebook actually asserted its patent here, it would do the opposite -- and that seems like a clear situation of hindering progress, rather than enabling it.
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: location, patents
Companies: facebook, foursquare, gowalla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promote the progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds familiar ... DVR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is new?
I'm sure the good people at Alcatel/Lucent could give some prior art on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where you at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where you at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still somewhat effective patent
I have tried a couple of these services and have explored using most of them. None of them seem to me to have gotten it completely right. I think there is still room for a new company to come in and sweep up the market. With the patent announcement that is less likely too be a new kid on the block.
It probability does not matter that the parent is almost certainly invalid. Facebook wins just by having the threat of a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you do the bidding
Face it, you hate patents, or at least vehemently oppose likely because you do the bidding of large corporate infringers. But without patents, small entities have no chance of benefiting from their discoveries. Once they prove a market large well funded firms step in and elbow them out. You are not a journalist. All your writing is payola. You are a saboteur. All you do is spread misinformation and bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
Big companies should not be worried about other big companies. They need to worry about upstarts. Patents help the big company execs sleep well at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: you do the bidding
Wait, what?
Even for you, you're being stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
Facebook = large company
FourSquare, Gowalla, loopt = small innovators
Facebook + patent --> harm small innovators :-(
This Patent = sux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you do the bidding
Funny then, that I tend to call out large corporate misusers of patents all the time (more often than NPEs), huh? And I don't "hate" patents. I have no emotional attachment to patents. What I do have is the research and the evidence of how patents harm innovation. And I believe that innovation is important for our own economy and prosperity.
ut without patents, small entities have no chance of benefiting from their discoveries.
Ah, an absolute statement that is absolutely false. As we've shown over and over again, small entities can benefit from their discoveries in many ways, from selling things in the marketplace to selling their expertise. All without patents! So, your "no chance," is blatantly wrong. And we've explained this to you before.
Once they prove a market large well funded firms step in and elbow them out.
Except, again, we've shown that's actually not true. In most cases, those large companies don't do a very good job of "elbowing them out." There are some cases where it happens, but tons that show the small company is more agile, better understands the market and stays ahead of the big players (often later becoming big players themselves). We list out so many of these examples to claim otherwise is pure ignorance.
You are not a journalist
Never claimed to be one. And I could just as easily make some non sequitur like "you are not an economist."
All your writing is payola.
Now, that's just flat-out false. It amuses me that in accusing me of lying, the best you can do is make statements that are clearly defamatory. You're lucky I'm not a litigious individual.
All you do is spread misinformation and bias.
If I was spreading misinformation, you could ocrrect me with facts instead of lies. The fact that you don't is quite telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides, the USPTO has always granted bogus patents so how can you prove that the problem is worse and that their granting of more patents with about the same cost and number of inspectors is going to lead to more bogus patents? Maybe it got better but this is just one of the bogus patents that they would have granted regardless. So nothings changed and you have nothing to worry about. This is just a continuation of the bogus patents that the USPTO granted before and since we're already used to that and life and everything didn't turn out worse than it did then we should just accept it. The USPTO will continue granting bad patents but who cares, we'll manage just like we always have. Heck, with this speculative surprise in quality assurance there is even the potential that the USPTO might grant a good patent or two, who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, sounds like the way to progress...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you weren't an Anon Coward, we might have recognized a pattern from your prior comments, but as it is, you've been POEn'd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe it is time for Techdirt to make another offer to go dark for a year for $100,000,000. Timing is everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Why, large software companies, who initially feared process patents, have spent BILLIONS lobbying for their proliferation? Could it have something to do with the skyrocket cost of patent litigation? Coupled with a very low rate of success at trial. Most folks who arent exploiting the system, as I'm sure you are, know something has to be done ASAP.
2. Why startups don't go patent gaga from the word go. I mean face it, innovative startups are the prey, not the predator as you suggest? These companies thrive, rise to dominate some sector then start looking for ways to burn the ships, so others can't do as they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I never read an argument from them in defense of startups, but rather of the guy with the so-called "flash of genius". This guy, apparently is unable to get funding and actually execute his idea, but he's damned talented at working the USPTO for monopolies on an idea.
It seems to me that RJR is not just against big companies, as he always writes, but any company big or small. Every bit of progress, in this view, belongs to some name on some patent, and that inventive person should get all rewards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]