Myspace - Facebook patent laws, how come they are not sued?
To sue, you have to own a valid property right in the issued patent that is actually infringed in a country where the patent is issued. Let's take, for example, the USA. Look up the patents owned by "myspace" in the USPTO database. Look at what the descriptions of what they "invented". See if anything, I mean, ANYTHING, relates to "social media" in any sense of the word. Then read each and every claim in each and every patent and tell us which, if any, describes anything being done by Facebook. Hint: There aren't any; don't waste your time. 1 8,321,454 Double map reduce distributed computing framework 2 8,286,069 System and method for editing web-based video 3 8,218,830 Image editing system and method 4 8,180,792 Method of processing song claims involving songs including, but not limited to musical works, compositions, etc 5 7,986,867 Video downloading and scrubbing system and method 6 7,290,284 System for data processing a security critical activity 7 7,212,098 Portable security container 8 6,996,840 Method for executing a security critical activity 9 6,618,809 Method and security system for processing a security critical activity
Is it still possible to beat Facebook like how Friendster lost to Facebook?
Nope, too late. The key is the “network effect”: every user added to Facebook makes Facebook more valuable for every other user. To beat Facebook directly, you'd need to accumulate about 2 billion users just to pull even with them. Not going to happen. Facebook beat Friendster when both companies had relatively few users and a tiny fraction of all internet users. You'd also need data centers to serve that many users, which means there are only a few companies that could even try. Google did, several times, and it didn't work out.The way companies like Facebook lose is to paradigm shifts that make them irrelevant (The Innovator's Dilemma) and to weak management after the founder leaves. Facebook has aggressively acquired companies that threaten paradigm shifts and invested internally in technology that could represent such a shift. They have Sheryl Sandberg waiting to take over if Zuckerberg leaves, and she has all the hallmarks of a good second CEO: she's been with the company since it was small, she is respected by employees, she has been in the C-suite for a long time so she knows what the job entails, and she's the obvious successor so there won't be hurt feelings and departures when she's named CEO. These criteria are from Built to Last, from memory.
I would like to open a new social network website like Facebook or Twitter. What are all things I need to take care of?
Don't jump on the patents and copyrights.The first thing you need to take care of is your users - How to get them to use your social network or How to make them keep using it ?First issue is rather easier, you can post it over other networks, may get a recommendation from some huge News site which may fetch you some thousand users but then they might register and then never come back.Give them something which they didn't find anywhere else."A startup has much bigger problems, and secrecy won't fix them. Sooner or later, a successful startup will face competition from fast followers." - Eric Ries.Go form a team if you haven't done this by now. Share the Ideas with interested people. Don't worry they can create a website based on your Idea but they won't have that zeal to do everything to make it a success.
Did Zuckerberg really steal the concept of Facebook from his classmates at harvard?
No.First of all, you can’t steal “concepts”.A concept is barely an idea. An idea is worth nothing without execution. The Vinklevoss brothers had no means by themselves to execute. They didn’t have a patent. They didn’t have a prototype. They had nothing but an idea which was not even 100% solid.Plus, as it was well stated, the concept of a social network already existed. The only thing the Vinklevoss had was “let’s make one of those, but exclusively for Harvard”.That idea could have come from anywhere. It’s too vague. It’s not a product. Sure, you can patent an idea, but they didn’t (and I seriously doubt it can be patented). If it’s no patented, then anyone can use it. You can be in the cafeteria in the table next to them, hear it and use it.Mark Zuckerberg executed the idea. And made it a product. And made it evolve. And ran with it. And we need to remember something: Would the idea remained as the Vinklevoss brothers conceived, it would have gone nowhere.Facebook is not what the Vinklevoss had in mind. The wanted to create a “cyber-elite”, an exclusive online club, where only Harvard grads could be members.Do you want to know about a similar thing, well less publicized? The Relational Database.The relational database was an IBM idea. They published a paper and it got in the open. The had no product, no patent, nothing. Just the idea.Larry Ellison read about it, loved the idea, and build the first relational database, which is what we know today as Oracle. He did not steal code, nor talent, nor anything. He got a concept, and ran with it. IBM never took action. They had nothing back then. And that is, because they knew better.So, no, Zuckerberg didn’t steal a thing.Just for the record, I’m not a huge fan of Zuckerberg or Facebook. But right is right, and he did not steal a thing.
What would the world be like now if Facebook had not existed?
Possibilities:We would all be using WorldConnect which would have originated from the successful HarvardConnection (ConnectU wouldn't exist)MySpace would have gotten a remake and mastered the social network worldGoogle would develop the ideas of facebook on Google+ (they cant now because of patents)I would have made FacebookAdam D'Angelo wouldn't have worked at Facebook, and might not have had the experience and knowledge learnt there so he wouldn't have made Quora and you wouldn't had made this question and i wouldn't be answering right now. And you would have asked at Yahoo Answers: "What would the world be like now if WorldConnection/MySpace/Google+ had not existed?" And as i don't use YA anymore i wouldn't be answering the question anyway....We would be blog postingBut, to really answer your question:It would still have a surface area of 510 million km2Have a volume of 1×10(pwrd12) km3Be mostly composed of Nitrogen and OxygenAnd have a Capitalist predominant Homo sapiens species of the Animalia Kingdom populating it
Did Mark Zuckerberg steal the idea for Facebook from the Winklevoss twins, considering they did get $65 million from a settlement last year? How legitimate is their claim?
I was the attorney of Howard Winklevoss, the father of the Winklevoss twins. I was identified in The Social Network as the attorney who sent Mark the cease and desist letter that commenced the legal action and preserved the twins' copyright claim. I was the one (with the help of my son, whom I hired as my legal assistant) who collected and organized the email stream that formed the basis for laying out, later in the film, the allegations of the relationship that had been formed between Mark and the twins.I was compensated by the twins from my work, and they are protected by the attorney client privilege with respect to my efforts on their behalf. I believe I can say, ethically, that the case did involve allegations that Mark "stole the idea for Facebook from the Winklevoss twins," but, if one is talking merely about "ideas," such an allegation would rarely be actionable in a court of law. The case was more about whether a contract or other legal relationship had been formed between Mark and the Winklevoss brothers, which led to allegations of related claims.The case was settled before trial, and there is no use attempting to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. Both sides can make legitimate claims regarding that.I think it can fairly be said that Mark ended up being good for Facebook and that the Twins received compensation for their efforts. As to the adequacy of the compensation, I would leave that up to the twins and to Mark to decide.
How could the Winklevoss twins sue Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)?
The lawsuits had nothing do with patents, as there were no issued patents at the time for the respective websites. Rather, some causes of action included breach of contract, copyright violations, fraud, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Lawsuits are generally public information. With a little legal research, you can probably find the original lawsuit complaints to get more detail as to the specific causes of action. See the link below for a brief introduction into the issues of the lawsuits. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/7... Keep in mind that a patent can take up to three years or more to issue. Because website content changes so rapidly, patents are usually not be the best avenue of intellectual property protection with respect to websites. That is, by the time you receive a patent that can be enforced against your competitors, your website (and other websites) may have moved to newer and better technology. Also, "I do not have any programming experience to implement it enough to claim a patent on it" is not a correct statement of patent law. In the U.S., patent law does not require that you have implemented the invention (also known as actual reduction to practice). Rather, it is sufficient that you describe the invention adequately to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the invention (also known as constructive reduction to practice).