Justin came over last night and showed me something I never could have imagined online: a patent for online social networks filed by Friendster.
Take a look on Google’s Patent Search, “System, method and apparatus for connecting users in an online computer system based on their relationships within social networks”.
Jonathan Abrams (link to a Wired interview about his new startup, Socializr) was the man behind this patent and also the man behind Friendster.
Here’s the abstract:
A method and apparatus for calculating, displaying and acting upon relationships in a social network is described. A computer system collects descriptive data about various individuals and allows those individuals to indicate other individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. The descriptive data and the relationship data are integrated and processed to reveal the series of social relationships connecting any two individuals within a social network. The pathways connecting any two individuals can be displayed. Further, the social network itself can be displayed to any number of degrees of separation. A user of the system can determine the optimal relationship path (i.e., contact pathway) to reach desired individuals. A communications tool allows individuals in the system to be introduced (or introduce themselves) and initiate direct communication.
First, I can’t believe there’s a US patent for “online social networks.” I actually laughed when Justin showed this to me. Looking at this abstract and later, the detailed information as to how a user interacts with profile features, message settings, etc makes me wonder: should fundamental communication and information architecture theories be protected? In essence, this is what Abrams filed on June 16, 2003. All of my research and ideas stem from what I learned in academia and the business world, which, according to the patent, means I’m under “lock and key.” Huh? That can’t be right, right?
It’s almost as if he (and others who file patents similar to this/other Web communication tools) completely knocked the wind out of every potential competitor in the marketplace. Luckily this wasn’t the case for other social networks after the bubble, which brings me to my second point: the wonders of the US patent application process. It took three years for the patent to get approved. During this time, MySpace started with a few eUniverse employees who were avid users of Friendster (and who, coincidentally, also understood the tremendous value of a social network). By the time Abram’s patent received approval on June 27, 2006, MySpace was on steroids in terms of traffic and engagement compared to Friendster.
So what? Time kills all, from ideas (Abrams: “Hey! Let’s file a patent!”) to execution (Abrams: “Hey! Let’s develop detailed diagrams and claims for a patent!”).* Sure, I understand why Friendster wanted to file something and in turn, defend “their” intellectual property, but seriously, give me a break. If you have a good idea, the right people, the necessary knowledge and acumen for adaptation, you’re golden.
Think about it: What if Abrams never filed the patent? What happens if Friendster’s time/energy wasn’t wasted during the drafting phase? Could they have become MySpace? Could they have had their moment in the light?
*Having these components is necessary but sometimes not relevant for what’s in front you at the time being.
April 14, 2008, 4:46pm
