Facebook has now a patent granted on having a user privacy settings page | Hacker News Reader

Facebook has now a patent granted on having a user privacy settings page

patft.uspto.gov

45 pointsAhtiK20 comments

The first claim (which is typically the broadest thing claimed):

1. A method comprising: accessing a profile for a user stored in an electronic database; presenting a first user interface to the user; receiving a plurality of privacy setting selections provided by the user using the first user interface, wherein the privacy settings selections identify, for each of a plurality of different categories of information associated with the user, one or more other users who can access that category of information; updating the profile associated with the user to incorporate the plurality of privacy setting selections; generating, by a processor, a narrative explanation of which other users can access which categories of information based on the privacy settings selections, wherein generating the narrative explanation comprises, for one or more of the privacy settings selections, selecting a narrative explanation template based on the privacy settings selection, wherein the narrative explanation template comprises text that identifies a group of other users who can access a category of information about the user profile based on the privacy settings selection; and providing the narrative explanation to the user associated with the profile in a second user interface after receiving the privacy setting selections provided using the first user interface.

This seems to be attempting to patent the idea of having a dialog where the user can select settings, and then a system that explains the current settings back to the user using templated NLG. Except, limited specifically to privacy settings. Really at a loss how such standard techniques could constitute an "invention".

The novel bit is possibly the introduction of constantly changing policies, and auto-setting the new settings to something less than the user wanted.

Welcome to software patents.

Removing my original comment due to an excess of sarcasm and not actually having read all the claims. The first claim did leave me, um, rather unimpressed.

I suppose now I'll have to wade through the whole thing, when I get a chance.

Correct url for patent 8,225,376 "Dynamically generating a privacy summary": http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

Due to my linking mistake the original USPTO url started to return a different patent. A cookie feature and not the user privacy setting patent.

Looks like readwriteweb also covered this yesterday: http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2012/07/mark-zuckerberg-wi...

Could you resubmit the news with the correct link, and delete this one? It is very interesting news, but with that link it creates a lot of confusion...

thanks

The original link you submitted is very interesting as well. From what I understand this massive text describes a simple automatic caching strategy.

A part of the system figures out what resources are requested the most and caches them. Then it sends them over to the client together with a minimum page skeleton that can request more things once it's loaded. Based on the cookie, the system knows what additional parts that are being rendered in the background so once the cached parts are loaded, the remaining things can be delivered. This makes it possible to instantly respond and start rendering the website so tasks that maybe take 200ms to compute on the server side don't delay the response.

This is the first time I read an entire software patent. If all it takes to get one of those patents is taking a simple concept and blow it up to 11000 words, I must really ask myself why I spend my time writing software and not software patents.

Even though I think this is a nice idea for scaling high-traffic websites and having them be responsive also when server-side rendering takes relatively long, this is something that belongs in a technical blog post, not a patent. Being able to patent those kind of "inventions" really doesn't seem to benefit anyone.

The impression I get from the (software-)patent system is that its only current purpose is to have a cold war style arms race so large companies don't just nuke each other. In the end, all the big players have tons of "nuclear weapons" in their basements that they cannot get rid of and everybody else has to be afraid of pissing them off by competing with them.

The longer patents like this one are allowed, the worse the effect on business and innovation. This really has to stop.

I am completely flummoxed by this patent.

1) Setting cookies is a browser feature. How a social networking site, which was not involved in developing a browser can patent this? 2) How can setting a cookie be termed as an invention?

Ask Amazon.

Although I don't agree with this patent, or software patents generally, I think you're wrong. By using the coookies in a very specific way they are achieving something new. They aren't merely pushing a "set cookie" button. It is analogous to using standard electronic components in a new way to make a new circuit which has a particular purpose. You wouldn't call it "hey, they are just using resistors and capacitors, how is this an invention?"

From what I understand, this is not about cookies. It's about cookies storing information about pending server-side background tasks so the cached parts of a website can be sent out immediately and the slower server-side tasks can send over the results later without that resulting in a delayed response. If your slowest task takes 500ms, you simply spawn a worker who takes care of the task, immediately send out all things that are in the cache and then have your website render in <100ms. At 500ms, the rest will be filled in. It also seems to include a mechanism to figure out what resources are the most cacheable ones from the usage patterns of the clients.

It's still a joke, but it's more than just setting cookies.

Totally preposterous. If this doesn't fail the obviousness test for the uspto, I don't know what does.

Well, under re-examination the sealed, crustless sandwich patent eventually fell, so there's that.

> If this doesn't fail the obviousness test for the uspto, I don't know what does.

We're talking about the same USPTO that issued this patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/US6360693

It only took four years for the USPTO to figure out that there were already other patents like that:

http://www.google.com/patents/US4557219

http://www.google.com/patents/US428220

The title of the patent: "Setting cookies in conjunction with phased delivery of structured documents" implies that this only refers to a methodology used to set cookies in response to user input.

I'm unsure whether Facebook actually use this on their user privacy page. It would seem insecure to store permissions in cookies.

The rest of the document is corrupted or not written in English so I can't be sure of the details.

Interesting they bother here, this would surely be invalidated in a trial.

Is it just me or is the abstract little more than gibberish?

Software patents - a bit like patenting a way of making art or a way of speaking. Silliest idea ever.

No way it would stand up at trial, way too obvious.

This is crazy!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com