"Facebook has said repeatedly that its patent applications should not be taken as indications of future product plans. "Most of the technology outlined in these

"Facebook has said repeatedly that its patent applications should not be taken as indications of future product plans. "Most of the technology outlined in these patents has not been included in any of our products, and never will be," Allen Lo, a Facebook vice president and deputy general counsel, and the company's head of intellectual property, said in an email." The author suggests Facebook through these filings shows a commitment to collecting personal information. Mr. Lo's statement does not deny this suggestion. Note also he uses the word "most". This implies that some of the technology has been or will be used by Facebook. Instead of addressing the issue, Lo recited a truism. (At least that is all we're told about the email response.) The truism is that out of all US patent applications filed by all applicants for all inventions, the vast majority are never embodied in either a product nor a service. For a company with its size and budget, it is obvious that this would apply to Facebook. What is a US patent? It is not a "government-granted monopoly". It is not a right to make or sell an invention. In terms of rights, it is nothing more than the right to sue an accused infringer. By seeking patent protection for methods Facebook will never use, Facebook demonstrates it has an interest in either (a) being able to sue others who might use them and/or (b) whether anyone else has that ability. Thus, the question for Mr. Lu is why Facebook wants to be able to sue others for patent infringement based on the methods disclosed in these applications and/or why it cares if others have that ability. If we are to believe that Facebook will never use the methods disclosed in the applications, then we can also believe that Facebook would never be a target of patent litigation based on use of the methods in these applications. As such they would have no reason to want to keep others from having the ability to sue. If we are to believe Facebook is hoping to license or sell these applications to others, then we can also believe that Facebook does not care if others use the "creepy" methods disclosed in the applications. In that case, Facebook's interests are misaligned with the interests of users who care about use of methods like the ones disclosed in these applications. If we are to believe Facebook wants patent rights as a "defensive", retaliatory or coercive measure against some other company (e.g., Facebook wants counterclaims if it is sued, or wants to be able to make Steve Jobs-like threats of "thermo-nuclear war" via patent litigation) then we can also believe that Facebook perceives itself in competition with companies that may practice the "creepy" methods in these applications. The underlying issue raised by these applications and many others filed by Facebook is the nature of its interest in collecting personal information (cf. merely publishing information that users choose to upload or post): Does Facebook perceive itself in competition with companies that collect personal information and take money from advertisers? Does Facebook perceive itself in competition with companies who would use the methods in these application? If yes, why?