Facebook Ordered To Turn Over Source Code 304
consonant writes "A Delaware District Court judge has ordered Facebook to turn over ALL its source code to Leader Technologies, who allege patent infringements by Facebook. The patent in question appears to be for 'associating a piece of data with multiple categories.'
Additionally, while the judge in question deems it fine to let Leader Technologies look at Facebook's source (for a patent, no less!) in its entirety for a single feature, it would be 'overboard to ask a patent holder to disclose all of their products that practice any claim of the patent-in-suit.'"
Prior Art? (Score:3, Informative)
Well... (Score:5, Informative)
TFA goes on to state:
So it isn't quite as outrageous as TFS makes it appear.
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:1, Informative)
Caterpillar and Mitsubishi? if you really want to get on their nerves, you'd pick Caterpillar vs John Deere or Caterpillar vs Komatsu //speaking as a kid who grew up in East Peoria (where Caterpillar's headquarters were when I was a kid -- and yes my dad just retired from Caterpillar)
FIRST CLAIM! (Score:4, Informative)
A computer-implemented network based system that facilitates management of data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network based system for capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user interaction of a user in a first context of the network based system, the context component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated with the user-defined data, the user defined data and metadata stored on a storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on the change, wherein the user access the data from the second context.
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how this got modded insightful. Defendants in business litigation typically have to hand over the source code and other sensitive information (like sales data). The court simply issues a "protective order" limiting who can view the source code. Usually the protective order designates source code as "attorneys eyes only" meaning that only the requester's (Leader Technology) outside attorneys can view the source. Plaintiffs and defendants squabble over these issues as a way to drive up the cost of litigation and not because there is any risk that source code might be leaked and duplicated.
Re:And you, slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Most OSes fall under the claims of this patent. (Score:5, Informative)
I do not understand why Facebook's legal team has not been able to invalidate this patent via the presentation of prior art.
This patent should have never been issued and should not be defensible.
-Todd
Interlocutory appeal or special master (Score:2, Informative)
Due to the extreme harm of allowing a potential competitor access to its family jewels, Facebook might try for an interlocutory appeal [wikipedia.org] or asking that a court appoint an independent special master to examine the source code and determine if there is any code that is potentially infringing, and only allowing Facebook access to that code.
Interlocutory appeals aren't easy, but a special master might be easier to get, especially if Facebook offered to foot the bill.
Even if that fails, Facebook can ask that those who see the code be under NDA and be prohibited from doing anything related to software development for the plaintiff for a period of time without court supervision.
Did ANYONE even read the patent? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm looking at the patent now, and while it's not rocket science, it's nowhere near as simple as "associating a piece of data with multiple categories". In fact, that quote is from the article, not the patent. The patent mentions nothing of the sort. The patent seems to be about maintaining metadata across multiple application contexts and updating the context appropriately. It seems pretty wishy-washy, and I think it is too broad for a patent. But it's nothing like the mirage that has got everyone here foaming at the mouth. It's NOT a patent for associating a piece of data with multiple categories. It's more like a patent for a web application API framework, if I understand the gobbledy gook at all...
LS
Re:How about patent reform? (Score:5, Informative)
Total health care spending is 17.6% of GDP. Nowhere near 200 times as much money could be involved in patents. :-)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
And, strictly speaking, isn't what the patent at issue claims; as is common in patent stories, what the claimed mechanism achieves is confused here with what is claimed. Patents don't cover results, they cover particular mechanisms for acheiving them.
Re:this patenting thing ... (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the Facebook source code issue needs the following to be said:
1. Discovery in the courts gets you access to anything unless it is protected by trade secrets laws or the like. I haven't read the order or anything, but it'd be outright insane if the judge didn't order that the source code not be used for anything but looking for patent violations. I have seen similar things done, with stiff penalties to the lawyers and to the parties for violating such an order.
2. You don't need to look at the source code of Facebook to see whether it implements the invention described by this patent. You only need to create a user account. The patent doesn't seem to describe any algorithms, but rather a high-level information organization scheme.
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how this got modded insightful.
Slashdot is peer-moderated, which implies that the moderator may not be an expert (or even well-informed!) about the topic of a comment they choose to mod "informative" or "insightful". Duh.
Re:Prior Art? (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite sure what all that means. My legalese isn't all that good, but I think it's actually a patent on something entirely different.
Re:Patent infringement x 2! (Score:4, Informative)
I can't disagree with you there. What the original poster didn't mention is that "Attorneys' eyes only" means what the protective order says "Attorneys' eyes only" means. You have to look to the protective order itself to see what exceptions exist to allow outside experts to view the material.
In this case, the exception is found in paragraph 9 of the protective order [uscourts.gov] (PACER access required; the cost for the document is $1.92 - goes to $0 if you don't download $10 worth of documents by the end of the year [uscourts.gov]):
9. For purposes of this Protective Order, a consultant or expert shall be defined as a person who is neither an employee, agent or representative of a party, nor anticipated to become an employee, agent or representative of a party in the near future, who is not involved in the application or prosecution of patents for the party, and who is retained or employed to assist in the preparation for trial in this litigation, whether full or part time, by or at the direction of counsel for a party. The procedure for having a consultant or expert approved for access to confidential material designated as CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order shalI be as follows:
a. Outside counsel for the receiving party shall (1) provide the consultant or expert with a copy of this Protective Order, (2) explain its terns, and (3) obtain the written agreement of the consultant or expert, in the form of Exhibit A hereto, to comply with and be bound by the terms of this Protective Order. Before providing information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE by a producing party pursuant to this Protective Order to a consultant or expert, the party seeking to disclose the information to a consultant or cxpert shall identify the consultant or expert to the producing party in writing and provide the producing party with (a) an executed Exhibit A, and (b) a written statement setting forth the consultant's or expert's residence address, business address, employer, job title, curriculum vitae, and past or present association with any party, as well as a list of litigation matters for which the consultant or expert has provided any professional services during the preceding five years;
b. Five (5) court days following the identification specified in the preceding subparagraph, the identifying party may disclose the information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order to the identified consultant or expert unless the party receives a written objection to the identification, served by facsimile or electronic mail, setting forth in detail the grounds on which it is based. Failure to object within five (5) days of the identification shall be deemed a waiver of the objection. If an identifying party receives such an objection within five (5) days of the identification, the consultant or expert shall be barred from access to any information designated CONFIDENTIAL, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY - SOURCE CODE under this Protective Order for fourteen (14) calendar days commencing with the receipt by the producing party of a copy of the executed Exhibit A and accompanying information required in subparagraph (a) above;
c. If within fourteen (14) calendar days, the parties are unable to resolve their differences and the opposing party moves for a further protective order preventing disclosure of information designated CONFIDENTIAL, H