This will be an interesting development to follow. I wonder how this will affect sites like myspace and tagworld etc.

The patent was filed fairly late in the internet game (albeit early in the social networking sphere), so there has to be enough prior art undercut this thing’s value. I know the ability to ‘link’ to other user’s profiles to establish a relationship was around much earlier (ICQ is one example; there were also some vBulletin hacks available). I cannot think of any programs that allowed the searching of extended (friend of friend) relationships. Anyone have good examples of prior art?

As a patent this probably holds little value. However, as a press-winning device this could be quite valuable… any time Friendster wants to get on the news they can just sue another site for patent infringement

I would think that any type of yahoo or aol group member, of some associative group where other members who belong to the same group and could be traced through clicks is an example of prior art….More importantly and relevant in my opinion, is that such similar types of interaction are so similar, and prior to friendster’s application is that it demonstrates friendster’s inability to meet the statute of “the unobviousness clause”. This is why someone can’t patent blue shoelaces…even though it has been done, it is too obvious for a patent…and the same may apply here in many previous types of group internet interactions before friendster…geocities, avatar chat rooms, groups of programmers/evite etc…

I was doing a little digging into patents (like 10 minutes) and found other stuff to put this in context:
- Microsoft owns a patent that covers contact lists on mobile phones and using mobile IM (6,973,299)
- Microsoft also has a patent on location specific buddy lists - watch out dodgeball and meetro (6,968,179)
- John Boyd was granted a patent on all online invite/event arrangement services (6,963,900)
- Xerox owns a patent that covers electronic bulletin boards (6,964,022)
- Xerox has a patent that covers online file sharing that includes comments and recommendations (6,999,962)
- Sun has a patent on Peer-to-Peer networking (7,065,579)
- Bank One has a patent that seems to cover all CRM softwares (6,965,865)
- AOL has a patent on electronic calendars that include events from multiple sources, as found in google calendar and ical (7,039,596)

We are really just now seeing the impact of all the overarching patent claims made by large companies 3-5+ years ago. As Marshall pointed out, the system needs to be reformed because it does NOT encourage innovation. None of the patent owners above have been innovators in that space.

I think what the patent is actually covering is the ‘ whos in your circle of friends’ and the relationships between each users list. I think its unfair that the patent laws apply to something as fundimental as 6 degrees of seperation. there are lots of sites that were doing this including ICQ prior to friendsters existance, everyone does this now including nokia with its ’sensor’ application, infact even google/yahoo own a couple of sites with the similar relationship criteria. Im pissed off with companies such as friendster who start with the whole community / grassroots approach and then over time use their financial clout to arm twist the little guy.

A lot of this really doesn’t meet the unobviousness clause, but because it is tech, it is considered innovative to inexperienced people dazzled by sexy statements like “peer-to-peer”.

MercXchange had their previously issued patent overturned after suing ebay for years…I read the patent and it pertained to “buy it now”. They should have taken the $25 mil that ebay offered them to get them out of their hair.

Later, a judge found that lsiting items for sale on a website, which is basically what the patent stated, is obvious and therefore invalid.

Hopefully the same will happen with this friendster patent, because unliek xerox, sun and microsoft, I can tell that friendster are cyber-player-haters and are gonna try to shake down myspace and some others…don’t think it will work though, and in the process, if Kleiner backs them, they could hurt their reputation as stiflers of innovation rather than pioneers of innovation.

Anything programmed for the web can be replicated or reproduced. Patents will only hinder the conitinuation of innovative web programming.

The concept of Social Networking has existed for years, well before Friendster. How friendster gets the right to this patent, makes no sense to me aside from the fact that it was the most popular and/or commercialized concept to be widely adapted/used, but it was not the 1st social networking site.

“The patent covers the determining and display of relationships between individuals who have entered personal information into a social network; specifically, determining who is in your circle of friends and who isn’t.”

Slashdot has had these features for years, albeit tucked away under the member-profile ‘friends/foes’ list.

doh… ‘circle of friends’, does not apply to slashdot, *nm* =p

ignore me. =p

yeah, i was looking this patent over as well, the images are really the most entertaining part of it…and here i was thinking that anthropologists had set precedent for this kind of thing eons ago when working on the first sociograms (later used in wwII)…what a creative world we live in…wasn’t it gertrude stein or was it picasso?) who said, “being creative is about knowing how to hide your sources”…

This patent will disadvantage Friendster in the long term rather than vice versa. The backlash that would entail from such an event would hurt Friendster and create all kinds of boycotting.

Profiting off your competitors is a sad business model and I don’t encourage it. Obviously their ad model wasn’t working.

Short term profits, long term bankruptcy.

Aidan Henry

> Anything programmed for the web can be replicated or reproduced. Patents will only hinder the conitinuation of innovative web programming.

@Sean O’Donnell , you’re totally right!

I agree with some of the other comments. This seems to be nothing more than a nice placeholder for future marketing. Weak sauce. Now I should go apply for my method of wiping my butt.

Social networks are represented as a graph (directed, undirected …whatever). Even if someone argues that they do not represent social networks as a graph one could find an argument that the representations are equivalent. Since there are plenty of algorithms developed for computer networks (discrete math) I woudn’t be surprised if this Friendster patent is just a special case of a more general patent … in which case it can be invalidated. Pretty useless …

Man… and I was working on coding a social networking site. This is bad for me.

I think Friendster needs extra money. See previous articles how they extra money from investors to get our of debt.

I see this as an opportunity to make 10-15$M on some patent claim to survive. I hate companies like this. One of the reasons, why I don’t shop on Amazon is their ridiculous patent on “one click purchase”.

In my eyes Friendster is company, which I will never use.

We live in a world where everyone is trying to be liked to get business done. I realy don’t give a damn.

I believe anyone can oppose things, but there comes a time
when you have to, ‘be for something.’ The people who do not like me
fall into two categories: the stupid or the envious. The stupid are
unconscious egos and can become conscious and saved. The envious are a hopeless bunch.

My message is wake up and realize we live in a world of “we to me,” and unless you are doing something to help your fellow man, “we to me” just won’t cut it.

Interestingly the Net is owned by nobody and using a technology should be done at your own risk.

How on earth can a SQL table relationship (a grandfather-father-child relationship, no less) be patented??? Someone in politics in the US better wake up and smell the coffee. It can be done - see what happened with the proposed EU patent legislation.

@ Henning Pedersen , Europe is still not fully awake! The patent battle here in Europe is still fought. And only though a huge lobby by freelancers, designers, small it companies, open source community and other small interest groups we have a voice. It is still pretty hard to convince politics and public opinion why these patents are a bad thing. Patents are seen as a good thing because for ages they protect(ed) the investment of the developer isn’t? Well they do not for eg. software. Therefore I truly see Belgium as Europe little David: Open to the public

The thing that worries me is how huge American and European corporations seem to be involved in that battle. E.g./ the rumors and conspiracy theories about Microsoft threatening European Ministers that they will significantly pull out of their country is an example. I do not know if these stories are over exaggerated or even true but it scares the hell out of me. Some people are even starting to predict the end of the internet as we know it because of the growing interest and political lobby by companies, they foresee multiple internet like systems. I do not even want to think of such a development at this moment.

Although I want to note that people who foresee such a future are communication experts grown out of the Television industry in the seventies, eighties and nineties. And indeed what we are facing now with this friendster patent is very similar with legal battles over patents and formats for television shows in Europe.

I am currently working for an independent Dutch television maker who nowadays rather works in Asia. He has faced a couple of legal cases over a show / idea / format. He made or written a show, which became very popular and after a while eg a French company came up with a legal format / patent document from some years before the broadcasting of the show, claiming that it was their idea all along. During the legal case it was often not a battle of proving that the idea was indeed first developed by the Dutchman but the Dutchman had to prove that the French document was false. In short he had to prove that the French document was singed by a solicitor who was bribed to alter the date. Anyway it is just an example of how growth, development and innovation can really be halted when legislation and patents are being drawn up like the Friendster one.

To end my long comment I would like to note that much of the ideas of social networking were already discussed in the 70 ties when the Social Networking theory was popular under social scientist e.g. by Cultural Anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain who over exaggerated the Social Netwoking Theory. My question is how can Friendster patent parts of this scientific thought?

What friendster has gained here is a company with an asset worth buying. To say it will only hurt them I think is not looking at bottom line type of attitude. When it comes time to sell, Friendster’s prices tag will go WAY UP and may even make a “big” buy them up at a very high price. AOL bought Netscape for the patent on the browser cookie, SSL and bought ICQ for the patent on instant messaging. Patents although they can be used for infringements and media, most of all it makes a company buyable at a competitive high price to either keep the patent dormant or to use it. I agree it is out of control in this age but its part of business and not playing will probably hurt companies more. Look at all the lawyers at Microsoft and IBM buying up the future, just so they dont’ have to pay, not necessarily to make others pay. You can bet though a company going down, with no buyers, will pull out the secret patent arsenal (watch out if AOL ever goes down)

I am going to patent wiping my ass upwards, anyone who wipes their ass upwards will need to pay me a small fee, else, its wiping your ass downwards with the tissue for the rest of your life. I dare anyone to come up with prior art to that!

obviously, the patent must be so general and so ridculous obvious and used by many that the founder doesn’t find worth to patent it. The founder having been in web for so long will not have miss this opportunity. They must have realized that it’s stupid to file for something that so so so obvious and universal that they did not think it worth trying.

The VC must have encouraged to file this “stupid” patent in hope that their $15 million will ripped 10times its value based on royalty. The VC doesn’t care anything but $$$$$$ , no matter how respectable they are in market. They don’t put “shit” into company for nothing. If they don’t find way to dig money off friendster, then these VC will be shited then.

so boycott friendster and stop using this service. It killing innovation and try to eliminate competition because their “old” service just doesn’t make it anymore, so like SCO, they try to put bullshit from patent.

So user, help to stop these bullshit.
Long live innovation, to hell with Friendster’s patents !!!!!!

You nerds must admit that Friendster did something new. Who cares if it was SQL tables or coded in BASIC, the Friendster idea is gigantic. I’ve been a nerd since the first IBM PC, for a long time, and seriously Friendster took the Internet mainstream. All you have to do is look at the Myspace numbers–we are still feeling the shockwave of this idea. I can remember a time when nobody on the street ever mentioned computers or the Internet. Friendster changed that. “Hey, did you hear so and so’s roomate is on Friendster?”

ICQ did not have a web-based contact list. And, you could never browse the friends of your friends. Just admit it, Friendster was the first to use a free, web-browsable friend grid. Where’s the prior art? Hah.

I beg to differ with your last comment about building a strong patent system and it fostering innovation. Maybe if Friendster had been awarded the patent, it would have taken ground breaking innovation to build the next generation social networks rather than building more of the same - MySpace, Facebook, Xanga, etc.

I dont have anything against those services but in terms of technology innovation, I see nothing there. Maybe a patent would have forced these companies to think of something groundbreaking rather than just copying or segmenting the market further.

Anil, that certainly is one way to look at it! I see your point.

I remember the day a company out there got patent for ecommerce shopping system 3-4 years ago. I also read their patent description which was pretty impressive..They started their patent description from defining a computer(memory+cpu etc)
They were also planning to start to sue big players.

I have not heard anything related to that story…

I do not think friendster will get anything out of this patent…
I do agree with some comments saying it is so silly to give patent to this kind of application…

Thanks
Troy

“The Death of Friendster” is what this is!!!! Social Networking and Collaboration is the spirit of open source and knowledge as public domain.

Some of the young MBA entrepreneurs and attourneys out there need to understand that if you start playing the legal game of patents, you are are selling out just like most people in my baby-boom generation did. The old corporate model based on exclusive ownership is dying: exclusive property ownership and rights is anti-social and it is anti-global economy and anti-community.

Good-bye Friendster - you traded in your passion and vision for old-fashioned fear of competition and want for more and more and more ownership of all the goodies in the world.

Friendster increases it’s market value because of the patent, and since their competitive market value is almost zero to none they sure need this patent if they want to be bought some day.

Friendster didn’t invent the Social Network Theory it’s system is based upon. Social Scientist have been using programs for mapping network relations between their studied groups for ages. I would not be surprised if it turns out that there were some Japanese games or dating sites who used similar networks bases systems prior to Friendster.

Yes it is potentially harmful for future social network based website’s: eg if you want to built a website where you want to show some interrelation between member profiles you might need a feature described in the patent and inconsequence pay for it. Therefore it excludes less fortunate brilliant entrepreneurs who can’t bring up the fee. Besides in relation to patents a lot of open source builders do not have the money or interest to start a legal case against eg Friendster or any patent holding company.

May I remind you why patents are there in the first place:

It’s supposed to push progress forward by opening non-obvious ideas for everyone for a limited time. Not monpolize obvious ideas for the benefit of one person against the rest of society -
from a Slashdot comment

Anyway I am leaving Europe in a while to head off to Asia to hopefully develop more neat open source websites, programs and more with my growing number of Asian and emigrated European and American buddies.

Just admit it, Friendster was the first to use a free, web-browsable friend grid. Where’s the prior art? Hah.

Absolutely correct. The fact is, Friendster was on this before anyone - at least anyone on such a scale. Imagine their disappointment - they come up with this cool idea, it starts to take off, they apply for a patent - and in the THREE FREAKING YEARS it takes the government to process the paperwork, Myspace - an unabashed “Friendster Plus” comes along and grinds Friendster into dust. The poor folks a F-Ster had to be PISSED.

You want to talk about obvious things? Myspace would not exist had Friendster not been there first. Tom was not working on Myspace in some roach-infested apartment, unaware of what was going on. He and his partners saw Friendster, said to themselves “we can do this better” and voila - Myspace.

Whether this should be a matter for patent or copyright can be argued. But either way, the idea was taken from them. If your band covers someone else’s song, but you add string sections and symphonies to it - you may incorporate it into a larger work. Now it may be bigger, more complex - but it’s still - at least partially - their song. And they would deserve royalties for your use of it.

But then, one couldn’t expect a bunch of P2P-junkies to give any credence to the concepts of intellectual property or authorial control, and that’s what most of the ‘netizens obsessing over this are.

If the Friendster team is smart, they’ll sell out to FOX, the owners of Myspace, for whatever they’re offered and be done with it. Or, alternately, arrange a licensing fee.

Thank you for categorizing me as a p2p junkie, does not really make you argument any stronger. The point is that Friendster had build it’s service on numerous idea’s, theories and techniques from others. So where to start with concepts of intellectual property or authorial control? Indeed Myspace an others copied and improved the system, good for them. What my fear is that one of these mayor players will buy Friendster or it’s patent. By doing so these companies are gaining more and more control over what freelance builders and small entrepreneurs are capable of using as building blocks for their own systems websites whatever. So intellectually patents limit further development in e.g. software. Something we could well do without since less and less countries are formally or informal recognizing US patens on e.g. software. Why should they? My opinion is that countries who are enforcing patens like the Friendster one are afraid of competition and by doing so they limit the free unlimited development of innovative thought. Indeed building on ideas from others, improving them and face competition.

The European software patent battle isn’t over yet:
Lobbyists prepare for next software patent battle

Not sure what you’re all on about like it’s a surpise how screwed up things are these days.

Prior art that comes to mind: I was using a social networking service called sixdegrees back in the late 90s. Check out the webarchive in 1998 (it existed prior but this is the first decent example with the FAQ and most stuff). Friendster didn’t kick off until around 2002 and then had that incredibly long “closed” beta which you had to be invited to and then could invite friends, etc.

So there’s your prior art. Unfortunately, it changes nothing. Granted Friendster was never very good and these days is downright abysmal, but at least this might be a chance to spur actual innovation as Anil mentioned.

Ja

The patent office has long since caught up with the internet. The old bromide that they don’t know what they’re doing doesn’t wash anymore. These guys are young and smart, which you’d know if you’ve ever dealt with them. It _is_ harder to research prior art for software than it is for oil drilling bits, but they’re doing a pretty good job. If they missed something, anybody can challenge the patent.

The problem is that internet developers somehow think they are outside the patent system. If something is novel and non-obvious, it can be patented by the first person to invent it. That’s the law. That’s the law in the U.S., in Canada (whose patent law is for all practical purposes identical to the U.S.), in Japan, and, contrary to popular belief, in Europe.

But before everyone has a fit, read the actual patent. EVERY element of a single claim needs to be duplicated to infringe a patent. Read the elements. It’s unlikely that the patent office approved a really broad, vague set of claims. They drag you through the coals making you limit the claims (which you’d also know, if you’ve been through the patent process). So, no, “social networking” has not been patented.

I’m quite aware how the patent office works in Europe and the US and have some experience with it.

Without going into some cases where eventually it turned out that the patent holder was in fact not the true inventor. And as an result effectively halted the development for quite some time or bought enough time to get rid off serious competition. By doing so the cost of the law case were far lower than the profits that were made during the time he exploited his unlawful patent.

The main problem you face are the cost, it is pretty expensive to get a patent and if you find a loophole in someone’s patent it is even more expensive to win the case. Besides if you develop something you really have to get into patens and in most cases hire a specialist for advice and guidance. Again I see patents as a barrier for innovation and development. The existence of patents on eg software results in a rat race for patents. Please note that a lot of builders do not bother to apply for one or can’t pay for one. Therefore the existence patents hinder competition and create monopolies on certain techniques.

In a way US and European patens systems not only exclude a lot of innovative ideas and improvements in their own States, it also excludes foreign innovative companies techniques and products on their markets. Patens are a power tool of States and the lucky few who can afford them. In the long term I consider patens on software as an weapon of the weak, patents are used to keep competition out and in a lot of cases are just being used as for speculation. They make innovation extremely expensive and it is therefore a political choice - which parties do you support? America and indeed al lot of European member States rather choose for a patent system because of their imagined dependence on big software companies for growth. In the Netherlands innovation and economical growth in the IT sector is for the larger part a result of freelancers and small / medium seized companies. These companies are lobbying against patents, so it is not only p2p junkies who are against.

For me as an right wing European young entrepreneur I want a choice where to develop my ideas into products, in my own company, as a freelancer, within a small or medium seized company or a huge multinational like Google or Microsoft. I want to choose on basis of where my interest is best served not on basis of who will pay for the license fees and the patent I am in a way forced to get. So as for an European when I have to choose sides in November between the pro-patent groups like The Organization Progress and Freedom Foundation and other pro-patent companies and groups, including Microsoft and the Association for Competitive Technology I choose the side of Nosoftwarepatents.com. Not because I dislike companies like Microsoft or their products, a lot of them are great, but because I believe in free unlimited competition between products and thoughts. But maybe I am a hippie indeed when I project my social scientific ideals on free unlimited accumulation of knowledge onto the hard reality of the internet industry.

Some of the young MBA entrepreneurs and attourneys out there need to understand that if you start playing the legal game of patents, you are are selling out just like most people in my baby-boom generation did.

Thank you for categorizing me as a p2p junkie, does not really make you argument any stronger. The point is that Friendster had build it’s service on numerous idea’s, theories and techniques from others. So where to start with concepts of intellectual property or authorial control? Indeed Myspace an others copied and improved the system, good for them. What my fear is that one of these mayor players will buy Friendster or it’s patent.

Well, that’s the last nail in the coffin of Friendster.

And did I say, “NO SOFTWARE PATENTS!” http://www.nosoftwarepatents.c.....index.html

@Ja,

it existed prior .. with the FAQ and most stuff So there’s your prior art. Unfortunately, it changes nothing. Granted Friendster was never very good and these days is downright abysmal, but at least this might be a chance to spur actual innovation as Anil mentioned.

I agree, but then..

but at least this might be a chance to spur actual innovation as Anil mentioned.

???

I really can’t follow your logic here, it would translate as:
They really didn’t deserve it, but hey now they can do things at least they dind’t deserve??

I really can’t follow your logic here, it would translate as:
They really didn’t deserve it, but hey now they can do things at least they dind’t deserve??

Sorry, I should have been more specific there. What I meant to get across is that since the patent was granted to Friendster (no use crying over spilled milk), if competitors began to worry about being dragged into court they may break away from the typical mold and go in new innovative directions with their networks just to try to avoid infringement lawsuits. Innovation is a good thing… especially since there are no decent implementations of social networking out there yet.

Jā