They seem to be oversimplifying "US Patent 7406501 System and method for instant messaging using an e-mail protocol". It's not "just" instant messaging: the actual useful bit is the "reply to email to send instant message internally" functionality that FB notification emails have.
Still not patent-worthy, of course, since any coder will instantly come up with same implementation (unique tracking token) the moment they hear that problem description.
Their write-up just irks me because it's misrepresenting the patent (silly as it may still be).
I wonder if Facebook would consider offering rewards for prior art in order to crowdsource a defense. I think that's a fascinating way to locate the needle in the haystack. Article One is building a startup around this.
Another solution is MSFT, which has a patent sharing agreement in place with Yahoo and a vested interest in Facebook's success. They could certainly lend FB some much needed IP muscle.
The problem with patents is that litigation is extraordinarily expensive.
Yahoo are apparently borrowing from IBM's playbook. "We found these ten patents your product/business is infringing, and it would be horrible if something were to happen to it". Note that for the second time, Yahoo are confronting a company immediately prior to going public, during its quiet period.
If the ten patents turn out to be of poor quality, a proof which will cost $1-5 million of court and lawyer time, Yahoo will dip into its portfolio and pull out another 10 patents.
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Eventually (depending on the depth of the portfolio), paying $20-$100 million for the problem to go away begins to make a lot of economic sense. IBM has the largest portfolio of any company (for a time it had a target of $1b in annual licensing revenue, though as I understand it's pulled back somewhat from this objective), and can play the game very effectively.
Even if the patents themselves are bullshit.
What's curious here is Yahoo's positioning. They're not making themselves any friends, and are possibly hurting themselves in front of at least two potentially interested parties (FB & MSFT). I see implosion in the cards.
Yahoo's reputation is really going to take a hit over this one, and that's a huge shame for the developers that work there. From YQL to Yahoo Maps to YUI, there are obviously a really, really talented bunch of people in there somewhere. It might be time for them to find a new home.
No. But I would argue that Apple is a very different company. The Yahoo services I mentioned are very developer-centric, and their reputation amongst the developer community is important. I'll think twice about using Yahoo Maps now, for example. Apple doesn't really have anything like that. We use XCode because there are no alternatives.
What I'm curious about is Microsoft's position in all this. They are well known investors in Facebook and Yahoo search and Bing have been intertwined for some time now - must suck to be in the middle of this.
As I said below, MSFT could be of great use to FB in this matter. But I think they may be sitting this one out. Remember Yahoo brought a patent suit against Google back in 2004 and that only settled 10 DAYS before the IPO. Things may get down to the wire before MSFT decides which way to go.
It already is. There are numerous rules of the patent system that were specifically put in there to prevent people from patenting vague, broad, obvious inventions. Sadly, no one upholds that part.
I'm thinking there's a distinct lack of computer-knowledgeable people (coders, hackers, engineers) approving the patents at USPTO. So many of these patents are of the type where any two-bit code monkey would think of the exact same solution given the circumstances.
These patents just reek of an ignorant bureaucratic type rubber-stamping the patents without doing any research.
Still not patent-worthy, of course, since any coder will instantly come up with same implementation (unique tracking token) the moment they hear that problem description.
Their write-up just irks me because it's misrepresenting the patent (silly as it may still be).