Facebook Granted Patent Covering Location-Based Social Networks And Checkins | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Granted Patent Covering Location-Based Social Networks And Checkins

techcrunch.com

49 pointsssclafani30 comments

This is why I hate Software patents.

The whole patent system in general is screwed up, but its stuff like this that drives me crazy. Software patents as broad as this can basically kill innovation(which is contradictory to the actual purpose of patents). IANAL, but we can speculate with a patent like this, Facebook could essentially kill foursquare and gowalla with Litigation.

And even if Facebook never litigates, this still distracts entrepreneurs from solving useful problems. Every meeting or hour of research that foursquare or gowalla or some new startup has to give to this is time wasted.

I remember reading a while back about Twitter raising some money early in the company for a number of reasons: growth, hiring, finding revenue streams and "because we're going to get sued a lot." Looking for a citation...

Reading stories like this greatly decreases my motivation for creating software and services. Based on the evidence, it seems that anything I create, even if it is wholly original to me, will probably get me sued for patent infringement if I ever start making any money from it. It seems even the most obvious and easy to implement software functionality is now covered by multiple overlapping patents. When I was a kid in the mid 1980s, my best friend and I spent countless hours brainstorming what the computers of the future would be used for. We correctly anticipated just about everything and if our 10 year old selves had found a good patent lawyer, I guess I'd be a rich patent troll instead of just another developer Angry at the Man.

Take the opposite approach and start creating more software and more services right now. Then when some big player comes knocking, you'll have documented prior art.

Google's similar patent (applied for at the time of the dodgeball acquisition):

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...

The fact that patents are granted on this sort of stuff is, imho, total bullshit. Anyone who puts their name on this sort of thing should be embarrassed.

I may be wrong, but can't you essentially patent anything you want so long as it's unambiguous and no similar patents exist? Since Gowalla and Foursquare have been around for so long prior to this I'd expect the patent to be invalidated if it were ever asserted against those companies, who seem to me to have an abundance of evedence for prior art.

IANAL.....

The patent was filed in February of 2007. Long before Foursquare and Gowalla were launched.

I'd still think it still should get thrown out due to prior art, since others came before it (from this thread no less): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1764925

but not before dodgeball.

Patents in the US are on a "first to invent" basis -- so if someone else has done it before, then you theoretically can't actually patent it. This is different than in Europe where it's a "first to file" system.

Now the problem is that lots of people patent things anyway that they shouldn't be able to because (1) patent examiners are underpaid (2) they're overworked (3) they spend less than 24 hours on each application and (4) they only check very limited databases for prior art, which do not include the internet. Crazy, I know.

There was a lot of buzz about location based/aware services for years before this, see HP Cooltown, which dates back to 2001.

http://www.w3.org/Mobile/posdep/HPw3cwapref.html

Developers interested in creating location based services had to wait until carriers allowed the requisite devices and started offering reasonable data plans. It was only in the second half of 2008 that Apple's app store launched. As a Palm developer around 2002 I talked with fellow enthusiasts about leaving digital "graffiti" at various locations using GPS, for only friends or subsets thereof. I looked into developing for Verizon with J2ME and BREW, but there was no clear path to getting an app published, no public API to get location, and data plans were out of reach for most of the public.

Apple managed to pry its way in with the 2007 release of iPhone, allowing users to see what is possible when carriers relax their restrictions. Other competitors are still effectively locked out though, due to device "subsidies". Your monthly bill on AT&T remains the same whether you buy a $200-$300 subsidized smart phone or spend $300 more for an unsubsidized model not sold by the carrier. Most people don't seem to understand this and simply see unsubsidized phones as a rip off. There is a big penalty for choosing a phone outside the carrier's selections, and in the case of Verizon, outside choices aren't possible. This leaves little incentive for new players to enter the smart phone market, because after all the R&D, you are likely to be locked out.

It was only by around 2007 that there were indications that the carriers may offer a path to developing a location based services, with check ins and tracking friends being one of the most basic applications. Just about the time this patent was filed for. By that point though, a lot of location based service ideas had been floated around by enthusiasts for a couple years already.

IA(ALSO)NAL, but it looks like the patent [1] was filed in Feb '07 - 4Sq didn't exist until '09.

Doesn't mean I Like it - or software patents in general - any more, but it doesn't look like they were as late to this game as their actual launch implied.

[1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

Foursquare was hardly the first startup to do this:

Dodgeball was created by Crowley (one of the founders of Foursquare) in 2000. Loopt was founded in 2005. Whrrl, buzzd, and brightkite were all founded in 2007. There are probably dozens of other examples.

EDIT: Had the wrong date for Dodgeball. Thanks Batsu!

Close - Dodgeball was created in 2000 and acquired by Google in 2005. In 2009, they discontinued Dodgeball in favor of Google Latitude.

It looks as though prior art existed well before Facebook even existed. I don't think anyone has anything to worry about.

What about the cost of simply defending against a lawsuit?

http://www.inventionstatistics.com/Patent_Litigation_Costs.h...

If it's not enforceable, why the hell is it granted? That's total bullshit, seriously.

Because the patent system in the US, particularly software patent, is entirely broken: http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-business/patent-office-a...

Ah, ok - I don't know the history of the space that well. Either way it's a god-awful patent, but especially with clear prior art.

I had this idea in 2003 and have the Internet archive Wayback machine link to prove it: http://web.archive.org/web/20030706235741/http://gadgeteer.o...

I did this as a defensive publication for just such a case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_publication

I love that you did that. What I would love even more is a project where people just post descriptions of ideas, publicly, so that a year or two down the line, patents can be blocked. What a service to the world: force companies to only get patents on TRULY innovative, non-obvious stuff, whilst the rest of the startup scene can take these admittedly obvious features and focus on executing them damn well without the fear of patent litigation.

All I can think of is a missed opportunity at a clever(er) title. Something involving "check in" and "check out".

My simple attempt: "Check in companies, check out the check in patent"

Patents check in, innovation checks out.

Filling out my patent application for the "method of typing data into a text box and submitting it to a server for storage in a database". I'll see you all in court.

I wonder how this affects Latitude... I can't imagine facebook would want to litigate with google?

The question is, what is better - having the patent owned by Facebook or owned by patent trolls?

Third option: patent is not "owned" by anyone. Anyone can implement the feature without worrying about wasting time/money due to the threat of litigation.

Indeed, if other companies developed the technology and did not patent it, it should be in the public domain.

The premise of patents is that Facebook would not have done this innovation if it was not protected by patents. I highly doubt that is the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com