As for the idea of someone having been bribed, I imagine that’s possible, but I think it’s way more likely that the process is broken and the examiners are just not good enough. Of course, that still leaves the question of what “good enough” even means.

With US Patent # 7669123, as with many if not most software patents, I really think it’s so complex an issue that there’s not really a way to get enough people (if any) who ARE “good enough”. And that just feeds back to my original point: software patents are generally a bad idea.

Would you believe me if i told you that even though this patent was filed back in year 2006, Facebook was able to somehow make substantial changes to the original patent (the one filed in 2006)? This is illegal by the way, under the current patent law.

I think there is something very wrong with USPTO. I believe someone has been bribed to allow Facebook to make the changes to the original inventive concept….

Is it obvious that the idea of “sorting through a mountain of stuff to find something more useful” is almost intrinsic to life? Sure. Is HOW it’s done in this case obvious? I’d say not. So look; in one sentence I argued both sides.

Sure, lawyers will attempt to use the obvious argument on both sides of working through the resolution of the validity of US Patent # 7669123. But ultimately I believe whether 7669123 is upheld will hinge on two things: one is the “Unique” issue, and of course that will get argued both ways too. The other is the fact that what the patent describes doesn’t match what it claims to be for. As I said in the original post, that all by itself ought to be enough to make 7669123 go away.

Some have said that the invention is obvious therefore not patentable. Did anyone actually find any evidence to support that?

An article claims that Facebook probably intends to use the patent “defensively”. LMAO!!

People on different forums and blogs are trying to “guess” what the patented subject-matter is. Its obvious that nobody knows what the invention is really about. Is it a news feed? a forum? an automated subscription system or what???

How can a patent this vague and confusing be used to accomplish anything at all, let alone be used “defensively”??

I believe software patents should be enforceable in general but NOT this particular patent.

The teachings diclosed in this patent is not only obvious but its actually incorrect because it does not teach the claimed invention!

I think facebook just wants to look good by having some patents in their IP portfolio no matter how obvious & idiotic the patents may seem….

I’ve been really encouraged to see that since 7,669,123 was issued there has been quite a bit of discussion going on across the Internet about what qualifies as unique and the whole idea of software patents being essentially unenforceable.