4 ms·

You don't patent something because you built it. You patent something because you think someone else might build it, or because you don't want someone else to p

by tybris 15y ago

You don't patent something because you built it. You patent something because you think someone else might build it, or because you don't want someone else to prevent you from building it.

nextparadigms 15y ago
And that's exactly the problem with the patent system.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Both reasons imply an intention to track users. But there is a third possibility. They could have patented it because they are so convinced that user tracking across websites is evil that they want to save the world from it by preventing others from ever doing it. After all a company that has 600 million users has a responsibility to make sure all these people are not put in harm's way. Just imagine how Mark Zuckerberg's feelings could get hurt if even one of his users ("the dumb fucks") were to be taken advantage of by some evil, data greedy, ad funded search behemoth. And isn't it completely obvious that Facebook, unlike other major Internet companies, has no interest in tracking users? What on earth could they possibly do with that tracking data? Sell targeted advertising? No no no, Facebook isn't _that_ kind of company! And doesn't their track record of honesty and openness speak for itself?
- alexgartrell 15y ago
  I'd like to try to respond to this, but I can't, because you've gone out of your way to obscure whatever point you have with three paragraphs of ultra-sarcastic nonsense. Fundamentally though, I think your point is, "I don't trust Facebook because of statements and privacy mistakes they've made in the past." That's a fine opinion to have (even though I obviously don't agree with it), so please, for the sake of discussion, state it like that instead. Edited to add that, in response to your first point (the non-sarcastic one), it doesn't necessarily imply an intent to track users. Filing defensive patents is nothing new at FB (Facebook patented the News Feed and hasn't yet sued anyone for infringement).
  - 3am 15y ago
    The abuse of Occam's razor in this discussion warrants that level of sarcasm. And speaking of obscured points, what are you trying to say? Are you saying Facebook is _not_ working on an ad network that does cross domain tracking of users and displays ads based on social graph data, and this is simply a defensive patent? Or are you saying they are developing this feature, but we should trust your company to not abuse it?
    - alexgartrell 15y ago
      All I was trying to say was that there are reasons beyond desire to implement a product that would make a company file for a patent. I don't know anything about any product designed to do this, but I also don't know everything about every product at Facebook (it'd be impossible to get my own work done if that were the case).
      - 3am 15y ago
        That's fair, but you can see why everyone is skeptical that is the reason behind this patent filing? Shame on me, but I don't follow Facebook's announcements about privacy enough - it never even occurred to me they'd deny something like thi Just like Google started out monetizing the semantic graph (and providing them an superior search engine in exchanges is their goal. I thought that was the whole point, and the reason behind the $80B valuation (ads served in a Google like way using the social graph instead of the semantic graph). It just follows that this would require a certain degree of integration between ad partners and user tracking. ps -I'm not trying to single you out and lay the blame for all my gripes with Facebook on you, I hope it doesn't seem that way.
        alexgartrell 15y ago
        Last week, everyone lost their shit about Facebook's logged out cookies. Your traditional megacorp is going to say "oh well, so it goes, repeat the party line" and move on. Internally though, this spurred some engineers to actually investigate it, which lead to an audit, which lead to the discovery that we'd forgotten to delete the user id out of the cookies, which lead to a fix and a blog post and a clarification of our policies. So, beyond understanding the skepticism, I actually think it's really important, and personally[0] encourage it. We're not going to get better at privacy if people don't jump our shit over every perceived misstep, because we've either failed to make the right decision, or we've failed to communicate our decision effectively. All I'd ask is that we try to keep this communication as high signal as possible, and avoid going down roads with no plausible resolution[1]. I think that's best for Facebook, the internet, and discussion in general at HN. [0] I speak for myself and not my employer, Facebook Inc, blah blah blah. [1] If you think Zuckerberg is evil and that we're all just going to try to screw you, there's nothing I (or anyone else) can tell you that is going to change your mind.
TallTalesOrTrue 15y ago
You never know it may be built but just not released. I think its perfectly fair to patent it even though it sounds creepy. The expectation of privacy are changing in people's minds. Probably Facebook thinks that they want to keep the feature ready and not release it until the time is right. And obviously if anybody else releases it before them (most likely Google) then they can use the patent to prevent them from doing so.

by tybris 15y ago

You don't patent something because you built it. You patent something because you think someone else might build it, or because you don't want someone else to prevent you from building it.

nextparadigms 15y ago

And that's exactly the problem with the patent system.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

Both reasons imply an intention to track users. But there is a third possibility. They could have patented it because they are so convinced that user tracking across websites is evil that they want to save the world from it by preventing others from ever doing it. After all a company that has 600 million users has a responsibility to make sure all these people are not put in harm's way. Just imagine how Mark Zuckerberg's feelings could get hurt if even one of his users ("the dumb fucks") were to be taken advantage of by some evil, data greedy, ad funded search behemoth. And isn't it completely obvious that Facebook, unlike other major Internet companies, has no interest in tracking users? What on earth could they possibly do with that tracking data? Sell targeted advertising? No no no, Facebook isn't _that_ kind of company! And doesn't their track record of honesty and openness speak for itself?

alexgartrell 15y ago
I'd like to try to respond to this, but I can't, because you've gone out of your way to obscure whatever point you have with three paragraphs of ultra-sarcastic nonsense. Fundamentally though, I think your point is, "I don't trust Facebook because of statements and privacy mistakes they've made in the past." That's a fine opinion to have (even though I obviously don't agree with it), so please, for the sake of discussion, state it like that instead. Edited to add that, in response to your first point (the non-sarcastic one), it doesn't necessarily imply an intent to track users. Filing defensive patents is nothing new at FB (Facebook patented the News Feed and hasn't yet sued anyone for infringement).
- 3am 15y ago
  The abuse of Occam's razor in this discussion warrants that level of sarcasm. And speaking of obscured points, what are you trying to say? Are you saying Facebook is _not_ working on an ad network that does cross domain tracking of users and displays ads based on social graph data, and this is simply a defensive patent? Or are you saying they are developing this feature, but we should trust your company to not abuse it?
  - alexgartrell 15y ago
    All I was trying to say was that there are reasons beyond desire to implement a product that would make a company file for a patent. I don't know anything about any product designed to do this, but I also don't know everything about every product at Facebook (it'd be impossible to get my own work done if that were the case).
    - 3am 15y ago
      That's fair, but you can see why everyone is skeptical that is the reason behind this patent filing? Shame on me, but I don't follow Facebook's announcements about privacy enough - it never even occurred to me they'd deny something like thi Just like Google started out monetizing the semantic graph (and providing them an superior search engine in exchanges is their goal. I thought that was the whole point, and the reason behind the $80B valuation (ads served in a Google like way using the social graph instead of the semantic graph). It just follows that this would require a certain degree of integration between ad partners and user tracking. ps -I'm not trying to single you out and lay the blame for all my gripes with Facebook on you, I hope it doesn't seem that way.
      - alexgartrell 15y ago
        Last week, everyone lost their shit about Facebook's logged out cookies. Your traditional megacorp is going to say "oh well, so it goes, repeat the party line" and move on. Internally though, this spurred some engineers to actually investigate it, which lead to an audit, which lead to the discovery that we'd forgotten to delete the user id out of the cookies, which lead to a fix and a blog post and a clarification of our policies. So, beyond understanding the skepticism, I actually think it's really important, and personally[0] encourage it. We're not going to get better at privacy if people don't jump our shit over every perceived misstep, because we've either failed to make the right decision, or we've failed to communicate our decision effectively. All I'd ask is that we try to keep this communication as high signal as possible, and avoid going down roads with no plausible resolution[1]. I think that's best for Facebook, the internet, and discussion in general at HN. [0] I speak for myself and not my employer, Facebook Inc, blah blah blah. [1] If you think Zuckerberg is evil and that we're all just going to try to screw you, there's nothing I (or anyone else) can tell you that is going to change your mind.

TallTalesOrTrue 15y ago

You never know it may be built but just not released. I think its perfectly fair to patent it even though it sounds creepy. The expectation of privacy are changing in people's minds. Probably Facebook thinks that they want to keep the feature ready and not release it until the time is right. And obviously if anybody else releases it before them (most likely Google) then they can use the patent to prevent them from doing so.