5 ms·

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 th

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.
- EGreg 12y ago
  Good. I was about to write that this parent is unenforceable.
  - pwg 12y ago
    Note that the owner still has a chance to respond to the rejection. So the process has not yet terminated for good. It is just beginning the process.
- TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
  It's not permanently rejected. It has received what is called an office action. Trust me, Facebook eventually wins almost all office actions after some trivial claim modification and/or clarification. Worse patents than this get through the USPTO. The people with the expertise to reject such patents don't work at the USPTO.
  - danudey 12y ago
    > The people with the expertise to reject such patents don't work at the USPTO. It's true, but they can always visit Ask Patents[1] and contribute that way. [1]http://patents.stackexchange.com http://patents.stackexchange.com
rakoo 12y ago
"invention" ? This is basically how wiki markup languages work. I don't see anything new here.

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.
EGreg 12y ago
Good. I was about to write that this parent is unenforceable.
- pwg 12y ago
  Note that the owner still has a chance to respond to the rejection. So the process has not yet terminated for good. It is just beginning the process.
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
It's not permanently rejected. It has received what is called an office action. Trust me, Facebook eventually wins almost all office actions after some trivial claim modification and/or clarification. Worse patents than this get through the USPTO. The people with the expertise to reject such patents don't work at the USPTO.
- danudey 12y ago
  > The people with the expertise to reject such patents don't work at the USPTO. It's true, but they can always visit Ask Patents[1] and contribute that way. [1]http://patents.stackexchange.com http://patents.stackexchange.com

rakoo 12y ago

"invention" ? This is basically how wiki markup languages work. I don't see anything new here.