Has Facebook done anything with their patents? I know they had an early spat with Yahoo and got access to a bunch to help with that, and have since put more effort into building a portfolio, but I don't recall seeing anything in the way of litigation. I know there's been issues with clauses in licenses, though.
[1] I've read both patents, I'm the only inventor, and I can't tell the difference between the two.
"You have one patent family with three patents in it. The lowest number is the parent, it was first to grant. Before it was granted a continuation was filed - they wanted to claim some shit that you disclosed in the parent but didn't claim, and it got granted. Before that one got granted a second continuation was filed to claim some shit that was disclosed in the first continuation. Sometimes that comes from realizing something else in the patent specification was also really important and deserves protection, or something comes up in prosecution and the easiest way to get around a rejection is to file a continuation. All the claims in the patent family are unique."
> they wanted to claim some shit that you disclosed in the parent but didn't claim, and it got granted
Also, thanks to your friend!
On the other hand, FB does have an incentive. Sure, they lose that investment, but they gain their own internal company that they own 100% of which has eaten your marketshare.
This is the kind of money I wouldn't say no except for a very good reason.
You can mark assets on a spreadsheet, plot profits on a graph, and the result is simply a representation of the abstract concept: finances.
When you factor intent, then money becomes objective. When you factor the ethics of the entity using financial influence, then the result is objective because it affects the real world.
I don't know how else to explain this, and maybe I can't convince you, but real people are affected by these choices.
Profits are never a meaningful metric precisely because they can't be divorced from ethics.