RSS
Facebook Wants To Own Idea Of Crowdsourced Translations
from the some-prior-art? dept
Apparently Facebook is trying to patent the idea of crowdsourced translations of its service. The actual patent application was filed in December of 2008, but the real priority date (I believe) is December of 2007 (when I think the company filed a provisional patent).
This one caught my attention for a few reasons -- with a major one being that way back in March of 2006, some friends of mine were working on a startup called Gabbly, which did online chat, and they had amazing success with crowdsourcing translations. Now, the Facebook patent is a little more advanced, because beyond just asking people to translate, it includes a voting mechanism. But, still, the evolution of crowdsourced translations shows the total silliness of even trying to throw patents in the middle. Almost immediately after Gabbly started doing crowdsourced translations, another online chat provider, Meebo, did the same. Gabbly used a forum. Meebo tried a wiki. Others picked up on the idea and did slightly different variations, and everyone kept innovating, and no one felt the need to own the concept of crowdsourced translations or to prohibit others from doing it.
But now, suddenly, there needs to be a patent on the concept?
I'm confused how anyone could think this meets the criteria of "promoting the progress." After all, plenty of others had figured out how to do crowdsourced translations earlier, and each one improved on the process a bit as they went. It's pretty obvious that including little voting mechanisms is an obvious next step (they were already popular on sites like Digg). So what benefit does the patent provider here other than to slow down innovation? It's difficult to believe that this "innovation" would not have occurred but for the patent system -- or even that it would have taken longer to happen but for the patent system.
Hopefully, the USPTO quickly dumps this, but just the fact that Facebook and its lawyers felt this was worth patenting shows you something about the ridiculous state of the patent system today.
This one caught my attention for a few reasons -- with a major one being that way back in March of 2006, some friends of mine were working on a startup called Gabbly, which did online chat, and they had amazing success with crowdsourcing translations. Now, the Facebook patent is a little more advanced, because beyond just asking people to translate, it includes a voting mechanism. But, still, the evolution of crowdsourced translations shows the total silliness of even trying to throw patents in the middle. Almost immediately after Gabbly started doing crowdsourced translations, another online chat provider, Meebo, did the same. Gabbly used a forum. Meebo tried a wiki. Others picked up on the idea and did slightly different variations, and everyone kept innovating, and no one felt the need to own the concept of crowdsourced translations or to prohibit others from doing it.
But now, suddenly, there needs to be a patent on the concept?
I'm confused how anyone could think this meets the criteria of "promoting the progress." After all, plenty of others had figured out how to do crowdsourced translations earlier, and each one improved on the process a bit as they went. It's pretty obvious that including little voting mechanisms is an obvious next step (they were already popular on sites like Digg). So what benefit does the patent provider here other than to slow down innovation? It's difficult to believe that this "innovation" would not have occurred but for the patent system -- or even that it would have taken longer to happen but for the patent system.
Hopefully, the USPTO quickly dumps this, but just the fact that Facebook and its lawyers felt this was worth patenting shows you something about the ridiculous state of the patent system today.
I’m looking for policy...
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
I have an app...
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
How My First Game Made $28,623
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Geography Of The App Economy
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Then Crowdsource the patent litigation
The phrase "my hovercraft is full of eels" springs to mind.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Then Crowdsource the patent litigation
Yet another example of how progress works just fine until patents get in the way.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
And I'm there were community sourced translations in the open source world before launchpad even existed...
Go screw yourself facebook.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Then Crowdsource the patent litigation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Patenting an idea
I mean, is it possible to patent the idea of "crowdsourced translations"? Is it not just the overall system? In this case, someone might change the inside mechanics of the voting system and distribute it (and eventually put a patent on it ;) )
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Buddy?
You out there buddy? I miss your awesomeness...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Buddy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Buddy?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Buddy?
Hell yeah they are. Though I suspect I would be considered a "conspiracy loon". Which I'm okay with.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No way is that new
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patenting an idea
Well, that's the way it *should* work, yes.
They way these things are actually done is, you submit a patent application describing your specific implementation - then you add a long list of Claims which amount to claiming that every other possible implementation is also covered by your patent.
Then your typical Patent Examiner rubber-stamps it and waves it through with barely a glance because he has a Quota to fill... (OK, I don't actually *know* that last bit is true, but that's the way it seems sometimes :-)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patenting an idea
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
stop the shilling!!!
Finally, you admit it!!!!! Write about things you know something about, like....well, I don't know. Surely you must know something??
Patent reform is a fraud on America...
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment