Don't be evil, Google!
The slashdot posting seems to be little more than flamebait. Google+ is a privately held social network and Google can choose to require real names on it if they so wish. The patent deals with persona mappings on a social network and does not prevent other companies from implementing anonymous communications on their own social networks. It could prevent mapping that information in the method described by the patent but that's it.
I really have no idea why this is on HN unless it's posted as an example of what's wrong with /.
But Windows Live Messenger can be defined as a SN, with that definition. I don't know if Yahoo! Messenger could also be included, because I don't use it and I'm not very familiar with it.
Read my response above. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4541041
Having pseudonyms is not new. It's basically the same as having aliases for email accounts. This renders the "invention", something obvious with previous art. I can't see how this patent application can prevail.
And they define Social Network as:
"A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. "
That could describe Windows Live Messenger also:
- It is a social structure,
- Where users are connected by a common feature (contact, work, family, etc).
- It has explicitly-defined relationship between contacts.
- The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems (it allows to connect to facebook, and other services, and link contacts from there).
- It has a social graph of all users in the network (unlike mail, as somebody else suggested, but Windows Live Messenger does have this graph).
- This graph is a mapping of all users in the network and how they are related.
- (Read the definitions of memory: basically, memory of an electronic device, permanent or removable, volatile or static, etc) The graph it's stored in some kind of computer memory (As they include pretty much everything, including floppy disks!!!!!!).
--
The fact that the USPTO granted them the patent, doesn't mean that it can't be invalidated. And if Google tries to enforce this patent, it most surely will be invalidated.
> "A social network is any type of social structure where the users are connected by a common feature, for example, Google Plus. The common feature includes friendship, family, work, an interest, etc. The common features are provided by one or more social networking systems, such as those included in the system 100, including explicitly-defined relationships and relationships implied by social connections with other users, where the relationships are defined in a social graph 179. The social graph 179 is a mapping of all users in a social network and how they are related to each other. The social graph 179 is included in the memory 237 that is described below in detail. "
I would also argue that any competent attorney could argue that the other three MS services don't fit that description.
Anyway, this kind of disputes won't be solved in an online forum.
Besides, I don't think that MSFT and Google are willing to battle for this kind of issues right now. It could trigger a HUGE battle regarding all kind of assets (OS's, office suits, search engines, etc). Most probably, they would simply make a some kind of cross-licencing and forget the whole thing.
The fact is that product managers at Google+ want cash cow personalities like Ashton Kutcher tweeting their tweets at Larry King from Google+ instead of Twitter, and these VIPs are the bait for the rest of the faceless rabble who serve merely as an online entourage, and a justification for ad prices. Google+ is a business based on personalities. They don't come right out and tell you this, but it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Popularity and rejection cut to the heart of an individual's emotions when participating online, especially when playing for keeps with their actual identity. Google+ is forcing you to play for keeps, but what about the dangers? They want the money that comes with veracity, but they offer little in return (just like facebook). Who picks up the pieces after someone gets smeared, or execises porr judgement. There's no padding. No undo file. Just you. Left out in the cold.
Google+ is courting special people, but not everybody is special. Exclusive treatment for some, unprotected, unmitigated public exposure for others. Pay to play, but the VIP handlers probably won't pay attention to you, unless you have special representation. Need I harp on the cognitive dissonance this has with a "democratic internet"?
True, but the tons and TONS of people are harangued into using Google+ by irritating tool tips and notification messages when using other Google products (like mail, chat, docs/drive and even Chrome, which in and of itself has it's own browser campaign whenever you visit the search product with a non-Chrome browser).
If not provoked into Google+ by pushy interface cues (and don't play naive, you KNOW they've got top UX and marketing people trying to find that sweet spot of deniable annoyance, when crafting those notifications), then people are click-sniped into Google+, by stumbling into it, when they click on whatever caught their attention, simply out of curiosity and yes-ing to death EULA notices, not realizing that their publishing information publicly in the product and outward to the service, visible to other users (potentially in search results no less).
This is what happened to me, when I carefully clicked on things when it first came out, and relized I'd have to go back, delete things out and void my account and activity in Plus where I didn't want it. Add to this the recent privacy policy changes. But sure, gloss over these details.
Google learned their lessons from the Buzz debacle, and its accompanying lawsuits, so they aren't railroading people into inadvertent public disclosures anymore (like who they've been e-mailing, and their auto-contact list), but they ARE cattle prodding people into it.