On Tuesday, Facebook was awarded a major patent for “Dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network”. This is a huge deal for a number of reasons, most significantly that it grants Facebook the opportunity to pursue other social networks which are infringing on their patent. Included in the patent are additional claims including feed filters, feed advertising, searching the feed, and more. (update We’ve been told that this is about the implicit feed stories. Will update when we have more info.)
Earlier this morning we reported on another patent which actually has not yet been approved but was simply published. This patent is confirmed published. The application was submitted back in 2006, before many other social networks integrated the feed as a major component. Twitter, for example, didn’t even launch prior to Facebook submitting this patent which could theoretically hold significant implications.
The inventors named on the patent are some of the company’s top executives, including the founder, Mark Zuckerberg: Mark Zuckerberg, Ruchi Sanghvi, Andrew Bosworth, Chris Cox, Aaron Sittig, Chris Hughes, Katie Geminder, and Dan Corson. What this patent means for the future of the social networking space is unknown, however this patent could be considered as significant as the original six degrees patent.
In contrast to the patent that we wrote about this morning, the news feed patent is much more general, which means it could be interpreted a lot of ways. For example, below is the news feed generation process as described by the patent:
Essentially it includes the generation of feed stories followed by the limiting of viewers of those stories. As many avid followers of the social networking space know, the feed (also called the “stream”) has become one of the central components of online social activity. The entire Twitter product, for example, is a feed.
Whether or not Twitter should be concerned about this new patent award is unknown, however this could be considered one of the most significant social web patent since Jan. 16, 2001, the day the six degrees patent was first published.
Update
It appears that this patent surrounds implicit actions. This means status updates, which is what Twitter is based on, are not part of this patent. Instead, this is about stories about the actions of a user’s friends. While still significant, the implications for competing social networks may be less substantial.
Facebook now has the full power of the dark side.
Go. To. Hell. FB.
Evolve fast please, Buzz.
I’d be more impressed if i thought this would lead to job creation.
Surely a prior art exists out there? Please.
Now I know the world is pulling its self apart
This is a FAIL for the USPTO.
This is probably mostly going to affect ’social network in a box’ sites such as Ning, Kickapps and even open source products like BuddyPress… Plus any niche vertical social networks. The activity stream is a really important aspect.
Really? You think that making the delivery of updates about implicit actions from contacts the technology of one company alone doesn’t have such big implications? How about LinkedIn updates. I could go on.
How did this possibly *not* have prior examples?
Correct about Twitter. Now, if Twitter sent a message to all your followers that you started following X, then there might be cause for concern.
i suppose i’d think this was a big deal if there weren’t already news feeds of this sort from before their patent date. doesn’t the patent office take that sort of thing into account? i don’t know much about patents but i should think they wouldn’t allow a patent for something that’s already in use by other sites.
This is weird news. I run a small local social community and also use some kind of newsfeed system. Yet the earliest version of my newsfeed dates from 2003, way before facebook’s feed. If they wanted to, they could easily crush me with this patent as I dont have the juridical knowledge and financial power to enter a legal battle with facebook. The could close me down, although everyone would know that it’s only because they have this patent, not because I copied the newsfeed from them.
Facebook will probably never discover that my site excist, its so small and local, but still … should I worry ?
504 is interesting.
Attaching informational links could indicate FB’s movement towards Semantic Web. FB could end up providing content for Google, Bing and other search engines. It can also get into Ad as a service space.
508 - Limiting number of users. LIMITING??? Could be sharing - everyone, friends etc. Does that also mean limiting views of content posted by app developers? Possible, as this could open up a revenue channel for them.
512 - Displaying News items. Are you guys reading what I am reading??? Hint hint…
Shoot, I’ll patent “friendship”. Maybe “meeting”. Or something ridiculous like this - http://www.techwankers.com/2010/02/25/breaking-news-techwankers-patent-porn/
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US?
Look Facebook Jerks. Friendster inventing Social Networking not you. Stop trying to screw everyone else over.
This is so OBVIOUS. The legal term OBVIOUS and not patentable.
What is special here?
If you have 200 friends updating there profiles obvious you want a SUMMARY of it.
They have INVENTED nothing !
I am disgusted Facebook.
If you have 200 friends updating there profiles obviously you want a SUMMARY of it in 1 list.
Facebook has INVENTED nothing !
This is “OBVIOUS” and thus NOT patentable.
Some BIG COMPANY should challenge it in court and facebook will lose
More likely to contribute to the collapse of the patenting system, rather than the collapse of ‘competing’ social networks.
Huge for Facebook? I honestly don’t see Facebook starting patent infringement lawsuits all over the web. Just imagine the backlash Facebook could get if they decided to sue Twitter/LinkedIn/etc for example. The patent does give Facebook a very strong negotiating tool.
Screw patents on logic.
Well needless to say 80% of the population on the planet would never be at risk of infringement suits because most people tend to lack this ability.
The rest of us, most computer techies and programmers would be at risk just for doing our job.
These “redundant” patents can only harm progress in the longrun IMHO
It’s all based in greed and hype.
I forgot to say, most importantly.
What NEWS… They feed USER INFORMATION.
Good, then pay me a blimey Royalty Fee before you start selling information about me to begin with.
Timdc —
You’re story is interesting. And, maybe FB should be concerned about you rather than vice versa.
If your 2003 implementation preceded FB’s patent of 2006, your implementation can’t infringe their patent. In fact, if yours is a faithful interpretation of the patent, your implementation would be considered “prior art” and could possibly invalidate their patent.
This seems a little silly. Websites that provide updates about the actions of other users have been around since the start of the Internet. How can this possibly stand up to scrutiny? I can only hope that this would only apply to the very specific sequence of events described, but even so this highlights the absurdity of software patents as these processes can usually be derived generically via plain common sense and obviousness, not through unique invention - e.g. you may as well patent the action of requiring a username and password for authentication, because that’s not obvious at all duh…
I think I’ll patent walking your dog, that way, anyone who wants to walk their dog would have to pay me. I’ll patent running with your dog too, and make the license free. Run you bastards, or pay me.
I’d patent the wheel, but some guy in Australia already did that.
Hey, what about LinkedIn? They have a very similar feature and they’ve had it for eons!
I think if anyone uses the concept after the patent have been registered by FB, FB will have the full power and rights to pursue rights over the implementation and disable it or just to require royalties over it.
That’s a genius move, not registering the implementation, but only the idea, so whenever an implementation is done, you can take over -> cheap development
I really thought that if something like this was patented, it should have been awarded to Twitter because it is sompletely focussed on News Feed of a person unlike Facebook which specialiazes in other areas too.
this is just so strange.but this patents only applies in america right?
The thing to look out for is, for a patent to remain valid you must defend it. That means that facebook must search out violators and take them to court or the patent becomes null and void. Watch out for a ton of court actions coming soon.
I just hope it goes “open source” on this.
Omit a few links in this chain or construct components differently then good luck trying to press for infringement! FB has finally ceased being a community for the community and is now just another corporate Myspace waiting for a crash and fall.
Unenforceable because many already exist and have done for a number of years - ergo cannot be claimed by a FB
In any case they could be accused of taking others ideas in this area for their own site. In which case how can you legitimately patent theft of other peoples ideas
Complete nonsense which only discredits the patent process and the office issuing has clearly failed to investigate the matter
So what’s the problem here? Facebook gets a patent for a process and this is evil?? Shame on previous innovators for not acting prudently enough to patent it themselves! Bravo to FB for doing what any reasonable business person would do.
can’t blame facebook for this. in the current corporate culture, they would be remiss not to try to patent every innovation (novel or not) that they come up with, and see what gets through. the system is broken, and in the wise words of someone: “don’t hate the player, hate the game”.
This is a full employment windfall for IP attorneys who stand to earn small fortunes while the big sites fight over it. By the time it’s resolved it will be obsolete.
Disgusting..
Look people, learn what patents are or please be quiet.
Here is what the invention covers: “1. A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising: monitoring a plurality of activities in a social network environment; storing the plurality of activities in a database; generating a plurality of news items regarding one or more of the activities, wherein one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user; attaching a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the plurality of news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user; limiting access to the plurality of news items to a set of viewing users; and displaying a news feed comprising two or more of the plurality of news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users.”
That’s basically it. If someone is not doing everything in that claim, they’re not infringing the patent.
Is they’re prior art? It only matters if it was available before they filed in 2006 (that’s a slight oversimplification, but we’ll start there). If you’re concerned that the PTO didn’t know about the prior art, please go read the hundred+ patents and patent applications that are mentioned at the top of the published patent and THEN start bitching with specifics.
Ye those jerkish patents are valid only in America, because rest of the world has brain to actually ignore them for their stupidity lol. In intelligent world you can’t patent something what is being used for decade by multiple companies and developers. So no fear here.
p.s. This is so annoying you made me misspell “there”.
It is a myth patents foster innovation. A patent grants a monopoly to an entity to prevent competition.
Feel free to read http://mises.org/story/3631 (The Fallacy of Intellectual Property)
or download the book “Against Intellectual Property” at http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
Another useless tech patent!
If you have prior art, then there’s nothing to worry about. Also, if you read the patent document, this patent is much narrower than just a “social feed”.
You can’t blame a company for patenting something if it’s patentable under law. If you don’t like the patent, then I suggest you blame Congress, not Facebook (or Apple or Google or Microsoft).
Facebook isn’t the first site to use news feeds and it won’t be the last. It wasn’t smart for Facebook to apply for this patent. They have a huge percentage of “market share” for this kind of thing. This only makes them look like tyrants of the social networking world… It also makes them look scared…
Hey, has any one patented the if-else-endif process yet?
Facebook will start to do evil. I hope they are successful at hammering the infringers, which will a new breed of innovators.
You know, there’s a patent for a method of swinging on a swing. Go ahead and google it. This kind of thing reminds me of “blue laws” in a way. In other words, ridiculous.
Shame on USPTO. If Facebook try to enforce it I will sure stop to use their service and spread the news. If you can get a patent for what they came up with, I could get a dozens of patents myself (as any other programmer, etc), it makes no sense.
It’s supposed to be that you can only patent something that is basically new, unique, useful, and a non-obvious extension of prior art. I find it hard to believe that a newsfeed process passes the criteria, unless the claims are narrow to specific areas.
This is stupid. How can you patent a form of syndication.
You can get this patent if, in 2006, you were the first to think up doing ALL of the following steps (paraphrasing claim 1):
- monitor several activities in a social network environment;
- store them in a database;
- generate several news items regarding one or more of the activities,
- where one or more of the news items is for presentation to one or more viewing users and relates to an activity that was performed by another user;
- attach a link associated with at least one of the activities of another user to at least one of the news items where the link enables a viewing user to participate in the same activity as the another user;
- limit access to the news items to a set of viewing users;
- and display a news feed comprising two or more of the news items to at least one viewing user of the predetermined set of viewing users
@Nathan Dierks:
You don’t seem to understand the idea behind patents or the requirements to get them. An invention must be “new and non-ovious” (among other things) for a patent to be granted. Putting aside the debate about whether an algorithm meets the definition of an invention (instead of a discovery), the Facebok news feed doesn’t meet the basic requirements.
The news feed is a glorified news ticker; like the one in Times Square or on any cable news network that has had them for a decade. Is it new? That may be debateable. Is it non-obvious? As others above have pointed out: not so much.
And as others have also pointed out, a good argument could be made that there is “prior art” which violates another requirement of obtaining a patent (there can’t be any to be awarded a patent). However, taking your assumption that this could still be patented after that fact (tehcnically it can’t), then any one of us could obtain a patent for something as mundane as a screw driver.
While it may seem like a wise business move in the short-term, it really isn’t a good idea anyway. It lessens the need for Facebook to improve upon and, at the least, slows innovation.
It isn’t necessarily that people think it’s evil that Facebook applied for this patent (short-sighted, yes). The problem lies with the USPTO actually GRANTING the patent.
@e:
That is not new and non-obvious (even in 2006).
Big deal - its hardly is if the ‘patent’ works correctly is it? The whole site is shafted, the news feed and its associated actions is one of the most embarrassing things about the website. An honest debate on how to cut the crap out of Facebook would be welcome, and to stop it looking like a vamped up SharePoint site - it really is not very nice at all. It reminds me of our DMS at work……
Dr Gibbons
Even if facebook invented the idea it doesn’t change the fact that this stifles innovation, and not just from competitors. If no site other than FB can publish an implicit news feed derived from site activities, then the technique can’t be applied in new contexts. No domain- or topic-specific sites can implement the feature, which means those sites aren’t allowed to have a social flavor beyond what we already see in discussion forums. FB is impeding the evolution of the web far beyond their direct competitors.
just another example of why software needs to not be patentable; hopefully facebook helps to forward that movement, as this is a little rediculous.
Amazon tried this with a patent with their shopping cart technology specifically one click technology and that didn’t fly. Basically they have set up a fight between Twitter, Google Buzz and all the smaller newer niche community sites. Can you say Class Action suit? Facebook has not exactly endeared themselves to their followers by doing this. How much of the market do you want Facebook? Sounds like you are not happy until you have 100% and that is simply not acceptable. It flies in the face of many different laws including unfair business practices and becoming a monopoly. I’m sure they did this thinking it would advance Facebook but I fully expect it to blow up in their face with massive class action suits and a demand for a review of the patent if not the patent process itself.
I for one am outraged that they think they can be the only community based site out there that has news feeds from it’s members.
This is a huge FAIL. Did the patent office not understand what they were granting?
I have to admin that I am disappointed with Facebook for doing this.
To be honest though, these kinds of patents are not worth the paper they are written on.
Didn’t flickr have their fed before? Isn’t there enough prior art to get this tossed?
For a patent to be valid (enforceable), it needs to be a NEW invention (prior art) and not obvious.It does not need to be in connection with social networks, as the use you put in is irrelevant. I doubt that there is no prior art, and if there is none, I suppose it is obvious, even for 2006.
BTW If they used this method before filing the patent, then they created their own prior art!
Not a lot inventions are really enforceable…a lot of junk patents out. But still they can be used to threaten other companies…and to make money if your target is rich!
Would someone please tell me what did Facebook do so especial to get a patent. a user adding picture to their profile and Facebook automatically posting it on the wall should not be awarded a patent no technological break-through at all.
Wow it’s going to be a battle of the giants hahaha
Another baloney patent by a tech company? What a shock!
Seriously, the Patent Office needs to hire people who understand technology. The Internet is based on open standards. Patents based on it are inherently senseless.
You might want to get an attorney to really understand the claims. They seem to be narrower than you article implies.
Someone needs to start a facebook group along the lines of “patents prevent innovation. shame on you facebook for doing that.”
If it’s correct that FB, in order to keep the patent valid, must fight in court against other companies that *illegally* use the same tool without having the legal right to do so, then FB will be forced to sue someone. Perhaps it will never be a potential strategic partner.
There is plenty of prior art here. Perhaps they should inspect the patents for Telescript, back when General Magic was the next big things. One of the first simple demo apps to show the power of telescript was an application to send and read automated status updates of a user and his agent’s actions. Way cool. Oh and this was 1992, prior art indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic for reference.
The only reason this has any news value whatsoever is because we’re talking about Facebook. This is a defensive patent for the company — it merely ensures they can continue doing what they do without concern over challenges from competitors and patent trolls. It’s called covering your ***.
This patent is altogether unusable as an offensive tool — a mountain of prior art exists in the feeds arena and there is zero chance Facebook’s new patent would survive IP litigation. Zero.
Didn’t they submit patents for email, instant messaging and the internet? I wonder when those are going to be approved.
Either way, this is a douche move by FB. This along with “no stupid farmville apps” are the 2 best reasons to give it up.
Let’s just wait and see what FB will do with this patent.
I DO NOT like the idea of FB patenting this kind of stuff… who knows what other patents are in the process… Tagging a photo with a link to the user’s profile …. maybe?
I really hope FB is just trying to satisfy its ego and not trying to crush every social network out there.
It is true that the way they implement their news feed is awesome and there are a lot of developers learning from it.
Or maybe this is a good thing, so we can find another way to accomplish the same objectives as a news feed…. dunno how…. any ideas?, don’t worry we wont patent them
hehe
It could also be a defensive move, the company I code for is looking get a few software patents in case we get sued. Patents also add value to an IPO. Personally I think they’re a joke; it just makes lawyers rich and can slow down or stifle development.
US patents are a joke, nobody outside US borders takes them seriously,they patent grain!
Next step, get it before the appeals court and present prior art that concerns news feed systems requiring limitation of patent coverage at the least. Remember that every news agency from AP to UPI has in operation news feed systems since the Mayflower.
I hate reading patents. Leave it up to the attorneys to sort this one out. Anyway, I doubt that Facebook will actually ever sue other social networks of their patent claims. We are living in a connected world now, with social sites feeding each other and even search engines. Everybody benefits from these feeds.
Only in America… seriously. Elsewhere on the planet you cannot (officially) patent software, the premise being it is too generic a product, proof of prior art can be difficult (just look how hard DRM is to manage), and so on. What is especially distasteful here is that the patent was awarded. It suggests that the issuing office wasn’t very active in the process.
Yet another case of a frivolous patent based on the new 1996 timeline (relaxation of software patentability) that everything before 1996 that was was patentable in the first place, is now patentable from a ‘filing’ standpoint.
For all intent and purposes, this patent is making a claim SQL statements are patentable. That how you look up data is patentabe. A good lawyer (with funding) will be able to argue the case this is trivia and obvious, and more importantly use Markus Analysis to show you can not prevent pre-existing systems with the information already available or possible to obtain from naturally evolving to use this information.
The only protection FaceBook with this patent is their deep pockets to keep accused infringers in lawsuits.
Mark was an enthical thief (usually the ones who profit the most) in the first place taking an assigned project as a hired web programmer but saw “Ah Ha, I think I will do this myself” and silently walked away from the project - the result - a 600? million settlement when he was sued.
Now he wants to stop others from using SQL statements to display different of collected user privay information - which he should be criminally charged anyway violating US EPCA laws in the first place!
Go figure! Good look in enforcing this patent MARK!!
Tony, you can patent a batch file today!! In the (US) legal circles, 1996 is viewed as the “new calendar” or turning point which all prior art of ideas, which most were not patentable in the first place due the strict patent rules, were thrown out and since then you can patent practically ANYTHING that describes a series a steps. Worst, prior art was required to be reference and if you didn’t, it was an immediate violation and patent filing rejection and could be seriously fined! That changed where you don’t really need to do any research and just want to see if someone issues a complaint and then you are allowed to update the patent with the prior art reference.
Its (USPTO patent process) really a serious problem today because it nows the burden on people who never had the opporunity with preexisting operations (steps) to file patents, and never even considered it, but now has to deal with frivolous patents that were only possible because of the changes to allow “series of steps” to be patentable with no real new non-obvious technology invention requirement.
Real sad.
Website functionality SHOULD NOT be eligible for patents. Where does it end?
I can’t imagine this patent holding up in court. News feeds, filtering technology etc etc existed in public production environments prior to the patent filing. A patent can not be issued for anything that is already in use by others. They can copyright their specific coding solutions but thats it.
Since the wholly owned supreme court has recently permitted patens for genes and the corporations that hold the patents are suing wildly, I’d say the whole system is going to crash, soon.
@Toby
You can patent software elsewhere. It just requires different wording of the claims. To pick some random examples, see http://www.europatentbox.com/applicants/MICROSOFT-CORP/7105.html.
Everyone: Take a look at the ~hundred pieces of prior art cited in the patent before you comment on whether or not the Examiner did a good.
I hate this - this is not a thing to patent- this is obvious thing- it reminds me amazon oneclick order -
I guess someone will soon be granted the patent for creating human beings, or for taking a bath for that matter!
Im patenting use of internet and so you all are soon going to pay me. And FB is patenting new slogan - LETS DO EVIL:)
Facebook copied MySpace! The hell with Facebook, bunch of whinning Ivy league brats. The accidental billionaire is a must read about where this culture came from. The connect platform will fail and advertisers are realizing that Facebook Fans are fickle and worthless.
Prior art is being collected on the talk page of the Wikipedia facebook article. Here is a link. http://bit.ly/csQdsG
Buzz will never go anywhere, it just can’t work without being a bizzaro clone of facebook which according to this patent FB now has the power to vaporize instantly… and another thing, stop fighting facebook gosh darn it… I can’t stand having to sign up for one million different social networking services just to be able to connect with all my friends. Plus with apps like market place, i’m depending on facebook to capture everything. YOU GO F.B. you rock!
P.S.
Also the speed/reliability/intuitiveness/spamlessness of fb mail cannot be beat by anyone
Facebook news feed is obviously different from every other news feed….EVER… do you find yourself reading the news updates list on your (hurl) tagged account (hurl). FB put the news feed in your face and that’s a big part of their success with the new prosumer generation. And that … my friends… is patentable
I cannot believe the courts awarded a patent for this. Do you hear that? That’s the sound of internet freedom being stripped away.
Dont you just love the way technology and intellectual property work together to bring about mass fear, uncertainty and doubt..
FB’s strength lies in the hundreds of millions who TRUST it - many of whom are users of other “infringing” social networking tools.
For this reason, FB will probably tread carefully, dwell peacefully and remain nice to its neighbors - Twitter, Ning, Google, Apple, Linkedin…
I highly appreciate all the improvements. they say, movement is a development. nowadays one should take particular care to be up-to-date. I was especially pleased with the opportunity to save stories that you enjoyed or want to come back to. you don’t always have enough time to observe everything, but in such a way there is always a chance to get what you need later. thanks for implementing this!:)
I’m actually sorry I’m leaving this comment so many HOURS after first reading this article. It seems the entire world *is* paying attention and has decided they DON’T LIKE FACEBOOK.
While there are dozens of valid points and consideration being made in the comments here, I did not see any which reflect my supposition regarding this ridiculous patent.
Personally, I think Facebook’s spending the money on this patent is no different than you or I buying a “beware of dog” sign and hanging on the unlocked gate into the backyard of our unlocked house, where there is no dog at all.
While some of the bean counters might like to believe they have something to protect, many of them know they do not, however a weakly written patent, with narrow claims that are easy to get approved is still a “beware of dog” sign. It scares away people who might otherwise take a risk and built a competing technology.
Likewise, they’ll spend their money on worthless lawsuits to provide the same scare. They bankrupt innocent people and possibly even pay off corrupt officials, which will be like recorded sounds of a big dog barking in the empty yard.
I don’t believe there is anything enforceable about the patent (and it’s written in as one of the risks in a business plan I’m writing, as is a cease and desist notice I recieved from Facebook for using the name ‘xxxxxbook’ for a competing niche market.) In other words, Facebook is attempting to stop DOZENS of other businesses from using the suffix ‘-book’ in their names.
Well thanks Facebook for popularizing the word so that my customers will have a fair idea of what they’ll be getting if they sign up and pay for my site, but let’s face it, you’re name is derived from YEARBOOK and so is mine. If you succeed at stopping others from using ‘book’ in their name, then we will all know that your money is paying corrupt people for favors. You have no more BROAD claim to the word ‘book’ than you have ant BROAD claims in your patent.
Good luck with all that!
I highly appreciate all the improvements. they say, movement is a development. nowadays one should take particular care to be up-to-date. I was especially pleased with the opportunity to save stories that you enjoyed or want to come back to. you don’t always have enough time to observe everything, but in such a way there is always a chance to get what you need later. thanks for implementing this!:)
I think that website functionality can not be patented. This is totally worng and they should closed down the USPTO for this. F***** Facebook !!!!!
Facebook news feed is obviously different from every other news feed….EVER… do you find yourself reading the news updates list on your (hurl) tagged account (hurl). FB put the news feed in your face and that’s a big part of their success with the new prosumer generation. And that … my friends… is patentable
I think that Facebook’s news feed should not be patented, that’s a big mistake by USPTO.
This patents only applies in america ? Are you sure ?