6 ms·

Author here, or as they say, “Principal Inventor”. This started out as an Easter Egg John and I put into Facebook Chat in 2012. It was very simple: if you typed

by aristus 12y ago

Author here, or as they say, “Principal Inventor”. This started out as an Easter Egg John and I put into Facebook Chat in 2012. It was very simple: if you typed the ID of a Facebook object in double brackets, like [[zuck]], it would display Zuck's profile photo instead. Months later Reddit found the egg, and did all sorts of fun things with it like construct composite troll faces from strategically-placed profile photos. It even made the tech news rounds on what had to have been a very slow news day. http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/24/a-christmas-miracle-facebook-chat-kind-of-supports-extended-rage-faces/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/24/a-christmas-miracle-faceboo... http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/np3qi/you_can_make_rage_faces_on_facebook_im_no_shit_im/ http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/np3qi/you_can_make_rage... The lawyers said they wanted to see me. Not to pat me down before being escorted off the premises. No. They wanted to get the details in order to file for a patent! I could not refuse. My employment contract said I was to make reasonable effort to assist in the creation of patent applications that resulted from my work. I've done a lot of stuff I'm proud of. But it seemed that my landmark contribution to human knowledge was going to be what TechCrunch dubbed "extended rageface support". So when the lawyers asked me to provide illustrations of “example uses", I did the only reasonable thing. It was the first and probably last time that a troll face was relevant in a patent.

oh_sigh 12y ago
Can you tell me how this is significantly different from what instant messaging systems have been doing for decades, whether its through image embedding, or smiley faces that turn into images? Is it because you put the word "social graph" in there?
- aristus 12y ago
  It was not my decision to pursue this patent application, so you're asking the wrong person.
  - rootlocus 12y ago
    You were the one to "invent" the "technology" and you don't even know if it's different than the smileys used in every forum around the internet? Was there someone else who formulated your application? Have you even read it?
- dguaraglia 12y ago
  I'd imagine this is Facebook's lawyers trying to guarantee they don't leave a door open for patent trolls if they ever decide to use this as a feature. I very much doubt they'd enforce it at all.
mitchty 12y ago
I have to admit, seeing a troll face in patent images makes me laugh. At least you made the best of it.
scoot 12y ago
I won't pretend to understand how patents work, or comment on the general absurdity of the claim overall, but it did strike me as peculiar that Facebook would attempt to claim ownership of the invention of (this embodiment of) a 'composite image' that can (with evidence you kindly provided) be attribute to members of reddit. Also, I can only assume Facebook's patent lawyers charge by the word!
- scoot 12y ago
  (And bravo on the troll-face image! The irony will not be lost should this patent be granted and FB attempt to assert it...)
- DSMan195276 12y ago
  To be fair, they didn't attempt to claim to invent the 'composite image'. While there is a picture of a composite image and it is mentioned in the description, nothing about composite images is in the claims. The claims themselves seem to be specifically about using a text identifier on a social-network messaging system to display in-line images. The composite image figure is simply an example of multiple in-line images used together in a single message. This is also just an application, so there's no guarantee the claims will stay the same before it is accepted (If it ever is) That said, I'm not a patent lawyer so take that with as much salt as you want.
stevejohnson 12y ago
> My employment contract said I was to make reasonable effort to assist in the creation of patent applications that resulted from my work. While this is true, you must also be aware of the damage that software patents are doing to the industry, and by extension, your professional peers. How do you reconcile that morally? Is your current job and standing in your company worth the damage you've done by assisting in the creation of this [seemingly] obvious patent that [seemingly] ignores prior art[1] and could be used to stifle innovation? [1] The Textual IRC client, for example, has been inlining images and other URLs since at least as far back as 2011. I'd guess Hipchat has been doing it for longer. (I hope this is the right tone to take for this kind of comment. Please advise if not.) Edit: It's pretty rare that you get a software patent author answering questions in an HN thread. I don't currently know anyone who's written patents, that I'm aware of. I'm actually interested in the answers to these questions, and I'm not just taking jabs to bring someone down.
- jfb 12y ago
  Don't assume that everybody shares your opinions, even if those opinions are popular. The OP could be a fan of robust intellectual property regimes, including software.
  - stevejohnson 12y ago
    Clearly he/she has a different opinion. I'm asking for clarification. For example, one possible valid response is "I helped write this patent because I believe it isn't actually harmful and serves my personal interests." However, if the authors were aware of the image inlining features in other products before writing the patent, it does strike me as dishonest to then pretend to the USPTO that they didn't exist. I can't claim to know what the authors were or were not aware of, so I can't make any judgements on that issue.
    - danudey 12y ago
      To clarify: the patent authors are lawyers, and were almost definitely not aware of any of what the patent covers. They would have spoken to the inventors to get a very specific set of answers that they were looking for, specifically not including 'is this super obvious with lots of prior art that would make it invalid?' Or, for a cynical view: for companies churning out tons of patents, it's optimal to churn out as many patents as possible. The more patents the USPTO has to deal with, the less effective they are at their jobs. The less effective they are, the more mistakes they make; the false positives (i.e. rejected applications) can be clarified to be non-infringing, and the false negatives… well, now that's one more patent in the war chest.
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
Everything wrong about software patents is summed up in this patent. 1) A guy was just randomly writing some code, and some lawyers found it interesting, so they made him file a patent. He didn't need the encouragement of the patent to write the software ... it was going to happen anyway. This wasn't even some dedicated Facebook research. It was a random Easter Egg. Why do people need a 20 year monopoly for a random Easter Egg? 2) The author probably doesn't even know what this patent says. Its a lot wider scope than his embedded image idea. He probably has no idea how it will be used to sue other programmers like him in a few years. 3) No insult to the author, but this "invention" is kind of BS, and not the "complicated" stuff laymen probably think requires a software patent. If people actually knew the trivialities that are being patented and used as roadblocks against their competitors, they would be shocked.
- pwg 12y ago
  > Everything wrong about software patents is summed up in this patent. The cited document is a "patent application". It is not yet a patent. The application was rejected on 2014-03-24 (look up the publication number [20130093828] here: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair then click the "Image file wrapper" tab to open up the document that rejects the application.
  - axman6 12y ago
    Don't let the truth get in the way of the HN anti-patent circlejerk! It's in Facebook's best interests to file patents for anything that may be inventive; their shareholders would definitely expect that of them. If they've got the cash to fund a useless application, then by all means, go for it; it just makes it easier to find prior art for obvious things in the future for more idiotic, uninventive applications. The total result of this application is that it discloses what they've done, giving others a resource to work from (not that this particular case needed it). the public has benefitted from this, Facebook has not, and yet people still complain. Also a rejection doesn't mean the application is dead, but from reading the claims it's pretgty clear this will die; even Facebook aren't percistent enough to try to follow through with this nonsense.
  - 12y ago
spullara 12y ago
You should lobby [[zuck]] to use the Innovators Patent Agreement developed by Twitter legal found here: https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement

by aristus 12y ago

oh_sigh 12y ago

Can you tell me how this is significantly different from what instant messaging systems have been doing for decades, whether its through image embedding, or smiley faces that turn into images? Is it because you put the word "social graph" in there?

aristus 12y ago
It was not my decision to pursue this patent application, so you're asking the wrong person.
- rootlocus 12y ago
  You were the one to "invent" the "technology" and you don't even know if it's different than the smileys used in every forum around the internet? Was there someone else who formulated your application? Have you even read it?
dguaraglia 12y ago
I'd imagine this is Facebook's lawyers trying to guarantee they don't leave a door open for patent trolls if they ever decide to use this as a feature. I very much doubt they'd enforce it at all.

mitchty 12y ago

I have to admit, seeing a troll face in patent images makes me laugh. At least you made the best of it.

scoot 12y ago

I won't pretend to understand how patents work, or comment on the general absurdity of the claim overall, but it did strike me as peculiar that Facebook would attempt to claim ownership of the invention of (this embodiment of) a 'composite image' that can (with evidence you kindly provided) be attribute to members of reddit. Also, I can only assume Facebook's patent lawyers charge by the word!

scoot 12y ago
(And bravo on the troll-face image! The irony will not be lost should this patent be granted and FB attempt to assert it...)
DSMan195276 12y ago
To be fair, they didn't attempt to claim to invent the 'composite image'. While there is a picture of a composite image and it is mentioned in the description, nothing about composite images is in the claims. The claims themselves seem to be specifically about using a text identifier on a social-network messaging system to display in-line images. The composite image figure is simply an example of multiple in-line images used together in a single message. This is also just an application, so there's no guarantee the claims will stay the same before it is accepted (If it ever is) That said, I'm not a patent lawyer so take that with as much salt as you want.

stevejohnson 12y ago

> My employment contract said I was to make reasonable effort to assist in the creation of patent applications that resulted from my work. While this is true, you must also be aware of the damage that software patents are doing to the industry, and by extension, your professional peers. How do you reconcile that morally? Is your current job and standing in your company worth the damage you've done by assisting in the creation of this [seemingly] obvious patent that [seemingly] ignores prior art[1] and could be used to stifle innovation? [1] The Textual IRC client, for example, has been inlining images and other URLs since at least as far back as 2011. I'd guess Hipchat has been doing it for longer. (I hope this is the right tone to take for this kind of comment. Please advise if not.) Edit: It's pretty rare that you get a software patent author answering questions in an HN thread. I don't currently know anyone who's written patents, that I'm aware of. I'm actually interested in the answers to these questions, and I'm not just taking jabs to bring someone down.

jfb 12y ago
Don't assume that everybody shares your opinions, even if those opinions are popular. The OP could be a fan of robust intellectual property regimes, including software.
- stevejohnson 12y ago
  Clearly he/she has a different opinion. I'm asking for clarification. For example, one possible valid response is "I helped write this patent because I believe it isn't actually harmful and serves my personal interests." However, if the authors were aware of the image inlining features in other products before writing the patent, it does strike me as dishonest to then pretend to the USPTO that they didn't exist. I can't claim to know what the authors were or were not aware of, so I can't make any judgements on that issue.
  - danudey 12y ago
    To clarify: the patent authors are lawyers, and were almost definitely not aware of any of what the patent covers. They would have spoken to the inventors to get a very specific set of answers that they were looking for, specifically not including 'is this super obvious with lots of prior art that would make it invalid?' Or, for a cynical view: for companies churning out tons of patents, it's optimal to churn out as many patents as possible. The more patents the USPTO has to deal with, the less effective they are at their jobs. The less effective they are, the more mistakes they make; the false positives (i.e. rejected applications) can be clarified to be non-infringing, and the false negatives… well, now that's one more patent in the war chest.

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago

Everything wrong about software patents is summed up in this patent. 1) A guy was just randomly writing some code, and some lawyers found it interesting, so they made him file a patent. He didn't need the encouragement of the patent to write the software ... it was going to happen anyway. This wasn't even some dedicated Facebook research. It was a random Easter Egg. Why do people need a 20 year monopoly for a random Easter Egg? 2) The author probably doesn't even know what this patent says. Its a lot wider scope than his embedded image idea. He probably has no idea how it will be used to sue other programmers like him in a few years. 3) No insult to the author, but this "invention" is kind of BS, and not the "complicated" stuff laymen probably think requires a software patent. If people actually knew the trivialities that are being patented and used as roadblocks against their competitors, they would be shocked.

pwg 12y ago
> Everything wrong about software patents is summed up in this patent. The cited document is a "patent application". It is not yet a patent. The application was rejected on 2014-03-24 (look up the publication number [20130093828] here: http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair then click the "Image file wrapper" tab to open up the document that rejects the application.
- axman6 12y ago
  Don't let the truth get in the way of the HN anti-patent circlejerk! It's in Facebook's best interests to file patents for anything that may be inventive; their shareholders would definitely expect that of them. If they've got the cash to fund a useless application, then by all means, go for it; it just makes it easier to find prior art for obvious things in the future for more idiotic, uninventive applications. The total result of this application is that it discloses what they've done, giving others a resource to work from (not that this particular case needed it). the public has benefitted from this, Facebook has not, and yet people still complain. Also a rejection doesn't mean the application is dead, but from reading the claims it's pretgty clear this will die; even Facebook aren't percistent enough to try to follow through with this nonsense.
- 12y ago

spullara 12y ago

You should lobby [[zuck]] to use the Innovators Patent Agreement developed by Twitter legal found here: https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement