Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004

Boston Patent Research
53 Josephine Ave #2
Somerville, MA 02144
617-501-1893

FirstSearch Technology Report:
Social Networking Platforms & Technologies

Copyright © 2004 by Boston Patent Research. All Rights Reserved including the right of
reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
ISBN 0-9758991-0-4

FIRSTSEARCH TECHNOLOGY REPORT—SOCIAL NETWORKING PLATFORMS

Contents
Disclaimer ............................................................... 3
Executive Summary ................................................ 4
Preface..................................................................... 6
Social Networks .................................................... 10
Market Forces ....................................................... 17
Why Consider Intellectual Property? .................... 19
Survey Of Social Network Provider Portfolios .... 20
Social Network Analysis Tools ............................ 28
Search Results: Overall Statistics ......................... 30
ANALYTIC TOOLS AND CONVERGENT
TECHNOLOGIES ..........................................................31

The Keyword Searches ......................................... 38
USER PROFILES ...........................................................39
AFFILIATION................................................................57
SECURITY .....................................................................70

Supplemental Search Results ................................ 78
BULLETIN BOARD/ CHAT ROOM .............................78
MONITORING ...............................................................80
NAVIGATION ...............................................................82
NETWORKS ..................................................................84
PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS ......................................88
SEARCHING..................................................................90
SERVICES .....................................................................95
VISUALIZATION ..........................................................98

US6175831 ......................................................... 104
US6175831: TWO CITATION TREES ........................114

Litigation ............................................................. 117
A Look at Selected Development Teams............ 129
MICROSOFT SOCIAL COMPUTING ........................129
IBM SOCIAL COMPUTING .......................................133
AOL/ LYCOS/ YAHOO!..............................................136

Conclusion .......................................................... 141
Next Steps ........................................................... 142
About Boston Patent Research............................ 143
About the Author ................................................ 144

8 June 2004

Boston Patent Research ∙ www.bprs.net ∙ 617 501 1893

Page 2


Disclaimer
This report is provided by Boston Patent Research
Boston Patent Research [BPRS] is not a law firm and none of the assertions in this report
should be construed as legal opinions. In particular, any comments regarding patent
claims should not be construed, individually or in sum, as an argument for any particular
interpretation of a given claim. Further, no material in this report should be construed to
supply or even support a validity, enforceability or infringement opinion. Boston Patent
Research strongly encourages the reader to seek qualified legal counsel before making
any decisions based in whole or in part on the contents of this or any other report.
Boston Patent Research is not an investment firm and none of the assertions in this report
should be construed as investment opinions and/or recommendations.
This report has been written in its entirety by a BPRS analyst and reflects a level of
diligence normally associated with BPRS analyst work1. The assertions in this report
should not be given the weight of expert testimony.
The material used to assemble this report can be found entirely in the public domain.

1

BPRS consulting, in contrast, often uses industry experts.


Page 3

Executive Summary


Most of the smaller companies involved in social networking services have little
patent protection



While patents addressing multiple aspects of social networking do exist, they tend
to be held in the portfolios of major corporations, notably Microsoft and IBM.



A review of social networking patents held by IBM and Microsoft suggests that
IBM leans toward business-focused data mining services such as corporate
knowledge mapping while Microsoft focuses on consumer-oriented applications.



A review of the social networking patents held by Microsoft and IBM suggests
that both companies will see profit less in basic social network platforms and
more in applications and services attached to those platforms. Services can
include back end data mining and front end services including searching, privacy,
peer-to-peer support, user profile management, visualization and scheduling/
communications.



A review of the social networking patents held by Microsoft and IBM suggests
that Microsoft will benefit by providing software and services on top of the user
databases associated with present social networking companies while IBM is in a
position to develop its own full-fledged corporate social networking platform.



While social networking is commonly thought of as an outgrowth of bulletin
boards and chat rooms, we see at least two points of origin for social networks:
bulletin boards/chat rooms and employee data management/ collaborative
environments. Additional services, such as location-based social networks, may
emerge from the wireless/ cellular sector.



If AOL and Yahoo! can grow their own social networks fast enough, they may be
able to compete with Microsoft. The challenge, however, will lie in providing
add-on services to end-users, developing a path to profits by offering add-ons in
exchange for tiered subscriptions. Microsoft and IBM hold larger intellectual
property portfolios addressing such add-ons.


Page 4

Executive Summary Continued:


We did not find a cohesive intellectual property picture of a peer-to-peer social
network system. Sun Microsystems seems to be making strides forward in the
peer-to-peer setting. If social networks move toward peer-to-peer platforms, then
IBM and Sun may end up in closer competition.

 Presently, social network technology seems to be growing in piecemeal fashion.
Some developments (such as improved search routines and better affiliation
routines) may be best suited to ―basic‖ services that attract users while other
developments (such as improved user profiles, improved trust assessments, and
multi-platform communications support) are likely to be associated with upper
tier services that yield profits. Companies will require both of these to grow.

 Social network technologies seem to be fostered by a select subset of inventors
who seem to drive invention across multiple small teams with differing foci.
These teams/ inventors often contribute technical know-how back to several
divisions within the company. This suggests that small sets of prolific inventors
play a disproportionately large role as companies venture into convergent
technologies.


Page 5

Preface
This report attempts to survey issued US patents and associated US patent applications in
the field of Social Networking Platforms [SNP] and Social Networking Technologies
[SNT].
The introduction that follows, the overview of social networking platforms, and the
discussion of market forces are presented to frame the patent research that forms the core
of this report. We will try to identify, for example, patents that address effective user
profiles and affiliation routines—two factors highlighted in the overview for their role in
differentiating successful social networking platforms.
This report attempts to extract a set of social networking patents from a potential pool of
over 250,000 US patents published since 1985. We found it unreasonable for the
purposes of brevity to read each of the 250,000 patents, leading us to develop some
shortcuts to highly relevant patents. When we conducted the research behind this report
we prefaced cycles of patent reading with search cycles oriented toward identifying
highly relevant patents. These searches took several forms, including:
1. Searches for patents held by Social Networking Companies
2. Boolean keyword searches for text within patent claims
3. Searches for patents that cite/ are cited by important patents (backward and
forward citations) in the first two categories
4. Searches for litigated patents
5. Searches for patents that have appeared in news articles and other press
We note that the decision to mine the patent database for relevant intellectual
property may have led us to miss some of the relevant patents. At no point do we
represent our work here as exhaustive.
While we often consider citations when discerning important patents, this particular
report does not attempt to place a value on a patent as a function of the number of
forward citations that a patent enjoys. Of 210+ patents covered in this report, 67% have
fewer than 10 forward references. When we look at 16 highly relevant patents we find
that 10 out of the 16 have under 10 forward references as well. This leads us to believe
that, while it is possible to arrive at important patents by following citations chains, sheer
citation weight is not enough to determine importance in the Social Networking Space.
Instead of running citation analytics we:
1. Began by examining patents held in 127 Social Networking Companies
2. Constructed general keyword searches for user ―profile‖ and ―affiliation‖ within
patent claims
3. Sorted the resulting patent sets by assignee while accounting for different
assignee names
4. Read the abstracts of each patent held by the top 12-15 assignees


Page 6

5. Read the claims of those patents whose abstracts appear relevant to social
networking
6. Rated the patents whose claims appeared relevant to social networking
7. Examined patents cited by the top rated social networking patents
In this way, we started with US patent database queries which generated initial sets of
1500-3000 patents. Roughly 800-1200 of the patents in each set are held by the top 12-15
assignees.
In addition to examining relevant patents held by top assignees, we took a look at the top
100 patents returned in each search where ‗top 100‘ is measured by keyword score. These
scores are generated through the Delphion patent research service2. Given the general
nature of a user profile and the equally general nature of user security and user affiliation
we find that the keyword searches can be inaccurate, yielding only 18% to 20% accuracy
(18 to 20 relevant patents in the top 100 relevant patents). This implies an added search
burden that will be covered under subsequent searches for chat rooms, bulletin boards,
search algorithms & etc. Low keyword relevancy should also make us circumspect when
considering aggregate patent statistics.
While the aggregate results for these searches are presented separately under the section
headings ‗User Profile‘, and ‗Affiliation‘ we found that many of the patents appearing in
each search overlap. With this in mind, we sorted the patents as we read them, sending
some ‗affiliation‘ patents to ‗user profile‘ and security and vice versa. The patents listed
in each section, then, do not necessarily correspond to the search string that was used to
start each section.
In the end, we break the patents resulting from the keyword and citations searches into
the following categories:
User Profiles
Affiliation
Security
Bulletin Boards/ Chat Rooms
Monitoring
Navigation
Networks
Searching
Services
Visualization

49 Patents
36 Patents
22 Patents
7 Patents
5 Patents
7 Patents
22 Patents
28 Patents
13 Patents
21 Patents

Please note that the patent results above were returned as a result of searches in the
area of social networking. There are certainly more than 7 bulletin board/ chat room
patents and there are thousands of network and security patents. While we may choose to
provide FirstSearch reports in the areas of bulletin boards, chat rooms, and searching at a
later point, this report remains focused on social networking platforms.

2

www.delphion.com


Page 7

After we developed the set of patents, we extracted all of the inventors associated with
those patents. The inventor list was submitted against a database of US patent
applications in order to develop a list of associated applications. Please be warned that
patent application analysis is often far more inaccurate than patent analysis. Most
applications, for example, do not enjoy formal company assignment. Assignment is
instead deduced from the inventor identity3—an assumption that will not hold if the
inventor changes companies. At the same time, the applications provide valuable
indicators of relevant R&D spending and can occasionally indicate company direction
before products reach the marketplace.
After considering the patents and associated applications, we examined one particular
patent, US6175831: Method and apparatus for constructing a networking database and
system, which received a great deal of attention after Marc Pincus of Tribe.net and Reid
Hoffman of LinkedIn—a business services SNP— purchased it for roughly $700,000 in
November of 2003. As we examined this patent and the surrounding citation chains, we
identified 45 related patents that may contribute to a social networking portfolio. The
results of this particular search are drawn out in citation graphs reminiscent of the very
social networks studied in this report.
After examining US6175831, we conducted a quick survey of patents in litigation. The
patents, sorted into US patent classes 395, 705, 707 and 709 have enjoyed, at the very
least, a filed infringement complaint. We do not comment on the cases but note that
companies tend to litigate patents that they believe to be robust from the standpoint of
validity and enforceability. The fact that a company is willing to litigate can be
informative as well.
We follow the survey of patents in litigation with a focused look at the patent and
applications associated with the IBM Social Computing Group, the Microsoft Social
Computing Group, AOL, Lycos and Yahoo! In this section, we try to identify core
research teams at each of these companies. When such a team does not seem to exist, we
note researchers who seem to promote invention across other teams and departments.
The company survey, patent survey, and application survey combine with the look at
US6175831, the litigation landscape and the team overviews to give us a glimpse of the
Social Networking Technology landscape from the vantage point of intellectual property.
This, in turn, will allow us to draw the general conclusions listed above in the executive
summary.

3

We look for matches between inventors and co-inventors, inventor city matches, assigned PCT filings in
the patent family and, on occasion, matching attorneys & firms. We also pay attention to the subject of the
application.


Page 8

Introduction to Social Networking
Social networking technologies (SNTs) are convergent—a pastiche of older, more
established technologies from different hardware, software, and network sectors that have
been melded together to address established needs in a new way. Examples of such
combinations could include patents that cover both searching techniques and user profiles
and patents that address both collaborative environments and the rich site summary (RSS)
feeds used for continuous website updates. In some cases we will be able to identify
patents that cover several technologies at once. In other cases we will resort to identifying
promising patents in single component areas.
At first glance, this report may not seem relevant to current developments in social
networks. Intellectual property, after all, has yet to play a starring role in the social
network marketplace. We feel, however, that patents will play a larger role as profits
begin to appear and as established companies such as Yahoo!, Inc. and Microsoft begin to
providing their own social networking solutions. As we noted in the preface, two social
network providers, Tribe.net and LinkedIn, have already purchased US patent 6175831:
Method and apparatus for constructing a networking database and system for roughly
$700,000.
As the number of Social Network Platform (SNP) providers grows, patents may play
three important roles, first as an store of value prior to merger or acquisition, second as a
support for multi-peripheral (PDA, wireless phone, video and audio supported & etc.)
social network standards and last as a bar to market participation. We feel that patents
will play a role in the M&A cycle first, followed by a standards role and then as a bar to
market entry. There may be a few notable infringement suits along the way but few
current participants have a resource base that would attract million dollar lawsuits. This
cycle will take place over the next ten years.
This report begins with a brief overview of social network platforms, identifying basic
social networks components (user profiles, databases, affiliation routines, user security)
and differentiating them from add-ons (wireless support, scheduling applications,
visualization tools). We then attempt to identify trends and conflicts in the marketplace
such as the tension between server-based social networks and peer-to-peer networks that
rely on desktop applications. After identifying the components and conflicts we dive into
the US patent and patent application databases, first with a brief survey of 129 social
network technology providers and then with a keyword search in each of user profiles,
affiliation routines and user security. The report pauses to take a second look at some of
the important patents that emerge and then goes on to look at litigation. At the end of the
report, we summarize our findings and provide some predictions regarding new
developments in the sector.


Page 9

Social Networks
In the simplest sense, social networks are composed of chains of people who interact with
each other. Each link in such a chain is defined by two people and a particular type of
interaction. In the chain below, John is knows Sally who is friends with Bob who works
with Jeff. John, Sally, Bob, and Jeff constitute the set of people while ―knows,‖ ―friends,‖
and ―works‖ constitutes the types of interactions.
knows

Kevin

friends

works

Sally

Bob

Jeff

Notice that Kevin is not required to know, be friends with or work with Jeff. Jeff, in turn,
enjoys two degrees of freedom from Kevin.
The social networks that we address in this report tend to consist of multiple chains
which overlap at one or several points:
friends

knows

John

friends

friends

Jeff

works

knows

April

works

Bob

Sally
friends

Ralph

works

Karen

Jess

We provide, on the next page, a better view of such a network.


Page 10


A larger view of a social network may look like this (taken from the opensource econstellation site—this picture is based on an Orgnet 3.0 Inflow assessment of a user
network on Ryze created by Valdis Krebs, CEO of Orgnet/Inflow4 and posted online by
Ross Mayfield, CEO of SocialText5):

4
5

http://www.orgnet.com
http://www.socialtext.com


Page 11

A social network platform must provide in one form or another:
1. A set of users and;
2. A set of relationships between users
Notice that we do not require the set to be in a single location. One can visualize, for
example, a collection of distributed user sets on a peer-to-peer network. Each computer
would manage access rules according to relationship status. In the chain below, John may
trust Sally‘s evaluation of Bob enough to allow Bob to retrieve John‘s access code from
Sally‘s desktop. Bob can then access John‘s desktop, retrieve Jeff‘s access code and
move, in similar fashion, through the network.
friends

Jeff

friends

John

friends

Sally

Bob

Often these sets of users and relational tables are held on servers owned by social
network providers. In this case, the social network provider controls access and sets
limits on the use of John‘s information. Since John will be forced to upload this
information to the server cluster, it is unlikely that he will provide all of the information
that he could retrieve from his desktop.
The instance above provides an example of the balance between information quality,
control and security required by social network providers. A peer-to-peer network can
handle reams of information and provides the user with full control of this information
but also requires burdensome security routines that prevent easy navigation around the
network. On the other hand, navigation is easier on a server cluster, but the information
quality is lower; in part because the end user lacks complete control over his or her
information. Solutions involving both desktop software and servers may address this
particular balancing act.
Social network platforms like Friendster and Ryze are established on servers which store
a set of user profiles and a set of associative rules. While the rules exist independently of
the users, the values that inform those rules are set by each user. The end user
information is supplied over the internet. Changes in user data and permissions impact
not one but several (or several hundred) profiles at a time.
The following is a short list of features common to almost all social networking
platforms. These are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

User profiles,
Associative rules,
Security layers/ procedures
Visualization tools


5. Database management tools
6. Add-on Applications
7. Billing systems

Page 12

While the feature list is short, the list of features that strongly differentiate these services is
even shorter. The differentiating factors are:
1. The quality of the user profiles
2. The quality of the affiliation routines
3. The level of security
In

the case of Friendster, users join Friendster by invitation (a security measure), they
provide user profiles and photos over and internet connection (user profiles) and they
associate with other users by inviting them to become ―friends.‖ Here, the strongest
associative rules are very clear—they are developed through an exchange of permissions
whose results are laid out in a gallery of photographs.
A variety of add-ons are associated with this platform. The Friendster service, for example,
features three prominent add-ons: keyword enabled searching of affiliated profiles (to five
degrees of freedom), an email service, and a bulletin board.
This diagram lists some of the factors that can contribute to the core features:

•Digital encryption
•ID Verification
•Human User Verification
•Secure Sockets Layers
•Trust Ratings
•Password Management
•Access Management
•Transaction security
•Transaction Insurance
•Biometric Security
•Smart cards
•Firewalls
•Antivirus software
•End User license Agreements
•Collective Behavior Assessments

User
Information

Security

Affiliation

•Bulletin Boards
•Testimonial Boards
•Photos
•Location Information
•Log/ Diary Information
•Resume Information
•Personal Contact Information (v-cards)
•Preference Information
(internal ratings systems)
•Personality Test Statistics
(external ratings systems)
•Physical Specifications
•Event Information
•Trust Ratings
•Lists of other Contacts (Rolodex)

•Matching Engines
•Access Management
•Search Engines
•Relational Weighting Algorithms
•Relational Classification engines
•User Classification Engines
•Group Management

DIAGRAM 1-5: SOCIAL NETWORK FEATURES


Page 13

For the purposes of this report, we will focus on the three core areas in the above diagram.
In addition, we will mention new platforms such as cellular social networks (offered by
Dodgeball) and peer-to-peer social networks (offered by a Kazaa creation called Skype). At
the same time, we recognize that most of the network and security technology behind these
platforms is well-established. It does not—from the standpoint of inventiveness—matter
which brand of servers are supporting a particular service and, at most, a major intellectual
property dispute in the hardware arena will likely lead to a one-time cost as SNP providers
switch from one hardware framework to another. Users, on the other hand, will choose to
work with the SNP whose user base and affiliation routines allow them to provide the right
information to the right people without loss of privacy.
The User Profile
In general, information in a user profile comes from four sources: the user, monitoring
agents, other users, and derivatives from one or more of the preceding sources. Of the four,
information provided by the user and information provided by other users are the most
common and the most likely to contain false data. As an example, users can, upon setting
up a social network account, provide false information about age, name & etc. This can
obstruct the goal of predicting the outcome of a future interaction with a given user.
Presently, monitoring agents are used less in user profiles because of privacy concerns. Few
users, for example, would want to include an uncontrolled list of recently viewed websites.
Still fewer would want uncontrolled access to cellphone-based GPS information on present
location and uncontrolled access to credit histories. Recent articles on the practice of
exchanging Apple iPODs indicate some willingness to exchange uncontrolled information
(in this case data related to listening habits) in a tightly controlled setting. Even this data,
however, is subject to user interference. Outside the business systems which seek to
establish connections between employees and monitoring agents are often restricted to
relaying data regarding last login date, date of last profile change and number of times a
profile has been viewed by others.
Derivatives tend to be time-based and are limited in use. It is rare, for example, to find a
service that explores changes in user ratings (supplied by other users) over time even
though such information—like information related to sudden stock trading surges—may
indicate a range of notable behaviors.
Affiliation Rules
Present SNP affiliation rules are based overwhelmingly on user profiles and tend to affiliate
one or more profile features with features in other profiles. There are two types of
affiliations—controlled and uncontrolled. A controlled affiliation involves an exchange of
permissions between two users or between a user and a defined entity such as a group or a
room. An uncontrolled affiliation results from automatic clustering based on one or more
profile features. In the Tribe.net setting, a user can voluntarily associate with groups or with
friends. At the same time, the user is allowed to conduct keyword-based or category-based
searches that cluster other users into uncontrolled groups by keyword or user profile


Page 14

criteria. Normally, users sift through one or more uncontrolled groups in order to locate the
best candidates for a more labor-intensive controlled affiliation.
Keyword-based and category-based searches are very rudimentary by the standards of
search technology. In part, better searches depend on more input from the user. In the world
of online dating and employment recruiting services, matching agents can provide better
results through personality profile, skills and physical attraction tests. These tests have not
hit platforms devoted more directly to networking instead of dating but we expect the two
areas to converge within the next year. Tests and routines will appear as we search through
patents devoted to user affiliation methods.
Security
Web-platforms promote anonymity, and anonymity both attracts users and presents the
most prevalent transaction risk in an online environment. The tension between
independence and risk seems to drive demand for tiered disclosure and verification,
promoting pre-transaction anonymity and in-transaction disclosure. This demand takes
several forms, including:
1. The demand for privacy
2. The demand for secure transactions, from email transactions to financial
transactions
3. The need to avoid computer worms, viruses, and worse
4. The need to verify the identities of all parties in a transaction
5. The need to verify the honesty of all parties in a transaction
Of the five, the first may present the biggest bar to the generation of information that can be
resold on the back end of a service. No user wants all personal information to be made
available to uncontrolled third parties. Reports of embarrassing emails have achieved urban
legend status while most competent internet users engage in a number of stratagems
(including, for example, the creation of a second, unused email box in order to provide an
email address when required by third party sites) to prevent the spam that often results from
basic transactions. It is apparent that increased requests for user information will need to be
matched by robust methods allowing users to control dissemination of that information.
Security concerns over credit information have also provided a traditional bar to popular
adoption of web-based financial transactions. For the purposes of this report, we will
assume that secure transaction services will be provided by third parties just as they are
provided today. We will further assume that IP regarding financial transaction security is
reasonably well-established and that new secure transaction routines (socket layer security,
secure channel communication & etc.) will not emerge from the desks of current social
network providers. This is true as well of network security providers specializing in
computer worms, viruses, and worse.
This leaves us with the need to verify the identities of all parties in a transaction and the
need to verify the honesty of all parties in a transaction. Presently many SNP providers are


Page 15

concerned with the creation of fake profiles on the platform. These profiles, malign or not,
do not become a problem until two parties enter into a controlled transaction that requires
the disclosure of additional information above and beyond the scope of the standard user
information available to all participants in the network. Once this occurs, however, risks
increase for the party disclosing personal information. As risk increases, participants in a
platform trust the platform less, increasing migration to more secure platforms. Presently
end user license agreements do not seem to provide enough of a bar toward this behavior.
It may be that identity verification can be obtained by requiring additional user
information—a demand that may need to balanced against the perceived security of such
information.
If user identity verification is an important means of increasing platform trust, user behavior
(honesty) verification is equally important. Online auction and reseller operations such as
eBay, Amazon.com (the reseller portion) and Half.com all use a rating system in order to
encourage integrity on the part of the seller. These operations do less well on the part of
buyer-side integrity, preventing, for example, buyers from issuing consistently low ratings
to sellers, thus injuring their trust rating6. While such differences matter less where
transaction systems such as Paypal and credit systems reduce monetary risk for both parties,
such systems may matter more in an environment that encourages social transactions.
Presently, the need for trust systems seems to be addressed through personal data (including
writing samples), testimonials and the ability to survey bulletin board postings. These
systems are not robust enough for high risk transactions such as hiring, blind dating, or
sales transactions.
It is worth noting that we do not directly cover the following in security:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Firewalls
Encryption methods
Secure Network Layers such as SSL
PKI and related encryption
Hard personal identification such as ID cards (credit and other firms have provided
a wealth of patents regarding such cards. Lemelson also enjoys patents in this area.)

Some or all of these items may be covered in future FirstSearch reports.

6

Ebay auto now rates all parties in a given transaction


Page 16

Market Forces
From a business development standpoint, convergent technologies—particularly those in
the communications hardware arena—offer several challenges. Systems components such
as servers and high bandwidth service are inexpensive, creating a low barrier to market
entry. The low barrier to entry encourages competition for end users, increasing the need
for easy-to-use interfaces. End users, in turn, invest less in a particular interface and enjoy a
low associated cost when switching from one service to another. In November of last year,
a rumor that Friendster might begin charging fees swept that particular community7,
accompanied by new site recommendations from Tribe.net to Ryze.com. Friendster
quashed these rumors, did not charge fees and remains one of the largest online social
networking platforms today. It is not clear when, if ever, Friendster will be able to charge
fees.
Presently, Friendster‘s only end-user demand driver is the sheer number of end-users and
the extensive networks (clusters after cluster of friends in different topologies) that the end
users have formed. This, in itself, might not provide a sufficient bar to switching. Napster
similarly enjoyed extensive use due to the size of its user base but this did not prevent a
migration to Kazaa and gnutella when it appeared that Napster would be forced to charge
download fees.
To extend this comparison between social network platforms and music downloading
services, it is worth noting that Apple is enjoying relative success with its iTUNES service
because it has correctly balanced the cost to the user (low) with specific improvements over
peer to peer networks (consistent download quality) while maintaining a large library with a
great deal of popular music—something made possible only through Apple‘s ability to risk
capital establishing the service. Music sharing, however, dealt with a specific traded
commodity—songs, enabling Apple to broker an improved version of that commodity at a
price. At this point, many Social Networking platforms are in the nascent, Napster stage, in
possession of only a few nonexclusive assets such as extremely popular user profiles8 and
struggling to grow through momentum (rate of end user base growth) alone. What similar,
well-defined commodity is being offered through social networking platforms? What
improvements can be made that will allow platform providers to charge a fee for service?
Static user lists do not in themselves generate money. We suggest instead that revenue can
be generated through two sources: the user at the front end of the service and the company
seeking user data (aggregated or singular) at the back end. There are two drivers for front
end revenue, the size of the network and the ability to connect the right users together. Of
the two, it seems that the latter will drive more revenue than the former since the cost of
migration from one system to another is relatively low.
On the back end, the quality of the user data is directly related to the quality of data
imported into the system either at sign-up or through ongoing use. It may be that the best in
class social network platform will manage a virtuous cycle where increased user input
7
8

Anectdotal: based on firsthand accounts from Friendster users.
Typically actors and actresses. User profiles involving famous people also seem prone to falsification


Page 17

rewards the user with better associations (connecting with the right people for a given
transaction), coaxing the user base to grow despite the raised information bar. At the same
time, a combination of large user base and increased user information will allow the
creation of datasets that enjoy greater demand on the back end. Further, it may be that many
platform providers will concentrate on building and managing the user base (in effect
become customer service providers) while the user interface and data mining features will
be handled by third parties. Eventually, we may see additional revenue from user demand
for trust verification services and fee-based management of proprietary data such as highly
qualified sales prospects or exclusive address books of highly trusted network members.
Now, if there was only some way to protect these enterprises, few of which have, at this
point in the description, created anything completely new.


Page 18


Why Consider Intellectual Property?
A collection of companies without revenue, whose sole assets are user databases might
appear to provide a poor choice for an intellectual property survey. The very nature of a
convergent technology based on established hardware platforms and familiar database
management techniques leads us to suggest the following:
1. that the current noise surrounding this emerging technology obscures the presently
limited scope of original material in this field and;
2. that the core intellectual property that will protect growth in this field may be held
elsewhere.
With respect to Intellectual Property, convergent technologies present many practical
problems. Patent examiners, for example, are implicitly required to have expertise in more
than one field. Novelty and obviousness may be harder to establish and, once established,
more subject to argument. No longer is it sufficient to look within a narrow set of industry
publications when exploring the presence or absence of prior art and no longer can
companies blithely trust that their own patent portfolios will provide solid protection from
infringement.
As a result, the responsibility for patent portfolio management should be company-wide
rather than the sole provenance of corporate counsel. While many of the issues surrounding
intellectual property are best handled by legal specialists9, corporate counsel will likely be
more dependent on and should be more aware of activities both in the engineering
department and in marketing/ product development. In the first case, counsel may want to
advise on features that can safely be added to a SNP while, in the latter case, the marketing
and product development departments may have important insights into competing
technologies that emerge on a regular basis.

9

Patent filing, patent prosecution, document management and litigation come to mind


Page 19

Survey Of Social Network Provider Portfolios
The following list reaches outside the domain of pure social network providers to include
some dating services and job hunting services—both of which are concerned with the
essential problem of developing low risk personal matches despite extracting limited user
data from a large population. An additional table takes a look at several social network
visualization companies.
8minuteDating10
Affinity Engines11
Backwash12
BuddyBridge13
BuddyZoo14
Buzznet15
Chia Friend16
Church Of Fools17
Classmates.com18
Clever Cactus19
Community Zero20
Company of Friends21
Contact Network22
Corporate Alumni23
Delphi Forums24
Dodgeball25
Dogster26
Dude Check This Out!27
Easeek28
Ecademy29

No Assigned Patents Discovered
Formally, Classmates Online, Inc. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Clever Cactus is a desktop P2P applications that restricts access to other users
who are Friends. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Owned by the Ramius Corporation, a Canadian company, No Assigned Patents
Discovered
Part of Fast Company, a subsidiary of Gruner + Jar, No Assigned Patents
Discovered
Delphi was owned by Blue Frogg and is now owned by Prospero Technologies,
owner of Talk City. None of these parties seem to enjoy patent assignment.

10

http://www.8minutedating.com
http://www.affinityengines.com
12
http://www.backwash.com/magazine.php
13
http://www.buddybridge.com
14
http://buddyzoo.com/
15
http://www.buzznet.com/
16
http://www.chiafriend.com/
17
http://www.shipoffools.com/church/
18
http://www.classmates.com
19
http://www.clevercactus.com/share/login.process
20
http://www.communityzero.com/
21
http://www.fastcompany.com/cof/
22
http://www.contactnetworkcorp.com
23
http://www.corporatealumni.com/
24
http://www.delphiforums.com/
25
http://www.dodgeball.com/social/
26
http://www.dogster.com/
27
http://www.dudecheckthisout.com/
28
http://www.easeek.com/
29
http://www.ecademy.com
11


Page 20

eConozco.com
eFriendsnet30
Eliyon31

enCentra32
EntreMate33
Eurekster!34

Everyones
Connected35
Evite36
First Tuesday37
Friend Surfer38
FriendFan.com39
FriendFinder40
Friendity41
FriendsofFriends42
Friends Reunited43
Friendster44
Friendzy45
Funchain/ Neuracom
FunHi
Genuosity46
Globe Alive47
GoingProfessional48

Owned by Grupo Galenicom. Neither seems to enjoy assigned patents
27 patents and patent applications including 1 US patent, 5 US applications, 7
Australian patents and 14 PCT filings. The US patent (US6618717: Computer
method and apparatus for determining content owner of a website) discloses a
method of determining ownership of content on a web page
The technology behind Eurekster was developed in part by the people at
RealNetworks and in part by the people at S.L.I. Systems. RealNetworks now
has partial (at least) ownership of the SixDegrees Patent. S.L.I. has one US
patent and two US applications and was formed from GlobalBrain, a search
engine developer with four foreign patents. The S.L.I. patent (US6421675:
Search engine) specifies a search engine whose database can be updated with a
list of user selections from a previous results set.
Evite is a subsidiary of InteractiveCorp. Neither Evite nor IACI seem to hold
any patents
Friendsurfer seems to be owned by Cashsurfer, Inc. Neither have any assigned
patents.
Apparent subsidiary of RedDate LLC. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Owned by Happy Group Limited. Neither Friends Reunited nor HappyGroup
seem to hold any patents
FunHi is a Mikusoft product. No assigned patents for either party.
Genuosity has developed both HummingBoard and order Generator. No
Assigned Patents Discovered

30

http://www.efriendsnet.com/
http://www.eliyon.com/PublicSite/public/default.asp
32
http://www.encentra.com/
33
http://www.entremate.com/
34
http://eurekster.com/
35
http://www.everyonesconnected.com/Login/
36
http://www.evite.com/pages/homepage/index.jsp
37
http://firsttuesday.com/
38
http://www.friendsurfer.com/
39
http://www.friendfan.com/
40
http://friendfinderinc.com
41
http://friendity.de/index.jsp
42
http://www.friendsoffriends.com/
43
http://www.friendsreunited.com/
44
http://www.friendster.com
45
http://www.friendzy.com/
46
http://www.genuosity.com/
47
http://www.globealive.com/
31


Page 21

Growth Company49
Gruuve50
HeiYou51
HelloWorld52
hi553
hipstir54
Hotto Link55

Huminity56
I‘m Not From Here57
Impersonals58
InterAction59
Istandfor60
ItsNotWhatYouKnow61
KnowMates62
Lavalife63
LianQu64
Linkedin65
LiveJournal66

Living Directory67
Love.com68

Owned by VM direct. HelloWorld was created by the founders of
HelloNetwork, Inc. Neither VM Direct nor the Hello companies seem to enjoy
any patent assignment.
Koki Uchiyama, the founder of Hotto Link, Inc, may be the listed inventor on
one US application (US20020065802A1: Distributed monitoring system
providing knowledge services), six foreign counterparts and one additional
foreign filing.
Huminity is a freeware software application from GlobalShareware available for
download to the desktop. Neither Huminity nor Global Shareware seem to enjoy
patent assignment.
Part of Interface Software. Neither Interface nor InterAction appear to enjoy
patent assignment.
Linkedin now enjoys partial ownership of US6175831: Method and apparatus
for constructing a networking database and system. US6175831 patent is
covered later in this report.
No Assigned Patents Discovered. Anatoly Vorobey, one of the LiveJournal
Developers, may be the named inventor of the following Mudtek systems patent:
US6282701: System and method for monitoring and analyzing the execution of
computer programs. This patent is not directly relevant to Social Networking.
Love.com is owned by America Online. A survey of the AOL patents includes a

48

http://www.goingprofessional.com/
http://www.growingco.com/
50
http://www.gruuve.com/
51
http://www.heiyou.com/
52
http://www.helloworld.com/
53
http://www.hi5.com/friend/displayHome.do
54
http://www.hipstir.com/
55
http://www.hottolink.com/ds/index.asp
56
http://www.huminity.com/default.php?screen=0&international=1
57
http://www.imnotfromhere.com/DesktopDefault.aspx
58
http://www.impersonals.com/
59
http://www.interfacesoftware.com/products/interaction/ia_summary.cfm
60
http://www.istandfor.com
61
http://www.itsnotwhatyouknow.com/
62
http://www.knowmates.com/
63
http://www.lavalife.com
64
http://lianqu.com.cn/index.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fhome.aspx
65
https://www.linkedin.com
66
http://www.livejournal.com
67
http://www.livingdirectory.org
68
http://love.com/
49


Page 22


Lycos Social Networking

Match.com69

survey of patents assigned to Time Warner and subsidiaries (including AOL
Acquisition Corp, Netscape Communications Corp And Time Warner
Interactive Grp Inc.). This totals roughly 324 US patents and 574 patents/ patent
applications worldwide. Some of patents will be reviewed later in the report.
Lycos is owned by Terra Networks, part of Telefonica (neither of which seem to
hold relevant patents). Lycos has 21 patents/ associated patent applications
including US6308175 Integrated collaborative/content-based filter structure
employing selectively shared, content-based profile data to evaluate information
entities in a massive information network. Lycos will be reviewed along with
AOL and Yahoo! later in the report.
Match.com is owned by Interactive Corp, parent company to Citysearch
Expedia, Home Shopping Network, Hotels.com, Hotwire, LendingTree, and
Ticketmaster. Expedia enjoys 10 Foreign filings and 1 US application. Lending
Tree has one Australian patent. None of the published patents seem relevant to
social networks.
The Match.com personality testing engines are supplied by a company called
WeAttract70. Neither WeAttract nor the listed management team members seem
to be associated with any patents. At the same time, a 2001 press release on the
site states the following: ―…weAttract.com, a company that uses science and
technology to enhance human relationships, announced today that it has been
granted a three provisional patents by the U.S. Patent Office for its personality
assessment technology.‖ These applications do not seem to have been published.

Matcheroo72
Mediabistro73
MeetUp74
MixerMixer75
Monster Networking76

mrNeighborhood77
MyEMatch78
MySpace

NetDiva
NetFriendships79

The Match.com platform (in particular the wireless application) seems to be
powered through Soulmates71 Technology, also an InerActiveCorp subsidiary.
Soulmates does not seem to enjoy any assigned patents.
Monster Networking is part of Monster.com, which is a subsidiary of TMP
worldwide (now Monster Worldwide). TMP holds 1 US and 3 foreign patents.
The US Patent, US5832497 Electronic automated information exchange and
management system does not seem relevant enough for inclusion.
MySpace may be related to the security company MySpace, Inc. which is a
subsidiary of MySpace AB in Sweden. If this is the case then MySpace AB has
one data security patent , US6618809: Method and security system for
processing a security critical activity. It is possible, however, that MySpace is a
part of e-universe, which does not seem to hold any US patents.
NetDiva has not been characterized. No Assigned Patents Discovered

69

http://match.com/
http://www.weattract.com
71
http://www.soulmatestechnology.com/who_we_are.htm
72
http://www.matcheroo.com
73
http://mediabistro.com/
74
http://www.meetup.com/
75
http://www.mixermixer.com/
76
http://network.monster.com/NewEntry.aspx?mode=one
77
http://www.mrneighborhood.com/
78
http://www.myematch.com/
70


Page 23

Netmodular Community80

Netparty81
Netplaya Burning Man
Community82
Neurona83
Networking For
Professionals84
Open Business Club85
Orkut86

thePalace.com87
PalJunction88
Passion.com89
Peeps Nation90
PeopleStream91

Plaxo92

Netmodular is a division of Object Enterprises, Inc. Object Enterprises indicates
that it has built its platforms using three resources: Apple‘s WebObjects
software coupled with Apple‘s Darwin Opensource OSX Core (…‖a version of
the BSD UNIX operating system that offers advanced networking, services such
as the Apache web server, and support for both Macintosh and UNIX file
systems. It was originally released in March 1999‖) in combination with Sun
Microsystems Java2 Platform. Neither netModular nor Object Enterprises
appear to enjoy patent assignment.
One of the NetModular Modules. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Related to InfoJobs.net. Neither Neurona nor InfoJobs seems to hold any
assigned patents.
Orkut is a Google, Inc. creation. Google is currently assigned to 5 US patents
and four applications with no apparent foreign holdings. Of the 10 Google
patents/ applications, US6725259: Ranking search results by reranking the
results based on local inter-connectivity and US6526440: Ranking search
results by reranking the results based on local inter-connectivity may be the
most relevant to social networks. This patent discloses a method of relating two
documents by the number of mutual references from other documents. The
inventor, Krishna Bharat, has worked for a number of other firms including
AltaVista and HP.
ThePalace.com is a virtual chat ‗world‘ employing avatars. No Assigned Patents
Discovered.
No Assigned Patents Discovered.
A Friendfinder subsidiary. No Assigned Patents Discovered.
A subsidiary of Trilibis. Neither Peeps Nation nor Trilibis seem to enjoy patent
assignment.
PeopleStream does not seem to enjoy direct patent assignment but the company
principals are listed as inventors on relevant patents. 4/5 of the management
team, for example, are listed as inventors on EP1269293A2: Exchanging
Information Over A Trusted Network Of People— assigned to HighTech
Ventures. Ed Takacs, CEO and Founder (and one of the inventors on the
previous patent), is affiliated through past employment with several companies
that could make inroads in this area. In particular, he is associated with Firefly,
the assignee on a potentially important social networking patent now held
through acquisition by Microsoft.

79

http://www.netfriendships.com/
http://www.netmodular.com/
81
http://www.netparty.com/
82
http://www.netplaya.com/
83
http://www.neurona.com
84
http://www.networkingforprofessionals.com/
85
http://www.openbc.com/
86
http://www.orkut.com
87
http://www.thepalace.com
88
http://www.paljunction.com/
89
http://passion.com/
90
http://www.peepsnation.com/
91
http://www.peoplestream.com
80


Page 24

PowerMingle93
Qpengyou94
RateOrDate95

RealContacts Ltd96

RedDate.com97
ReferNet98
RepCheck99
Ringo100
Ryze101

Salesforce.com102
Seattle Networking Guide
Silicon Valley Pipeline103
Skype104
Small World Project105

Social Circles106
SocialGrid107

Subsidiary of Wonkankan. Patent pending notice on website. No Assigned
Patents Discovered.
In January of 2004, the creators and owners of RateOrDate.com, listed their
website http://www.rateordate.com/ for sale on eBay. The owner and CEO of
InterMedia Inc., Jay Gould, created a sister company called SocialTree.com Inc.,
focused on social networking. Intermedia may have patents.
Realcontacts has one PCT application, WO03030051A1: Connection Service,
which addresses ―a system providing one or more users with a private personal
network formed from contacts with one or more entities known directly or
indirectly to the user and allows a user to apply a selective interaction with the
entities for a predetermined activity by controlling the entities to be included
according to their degree of separation from the user‖. This application may
become useful as it is issued in patent form in one or more countries.
Ringo is part of Tickle, Inc. which was founded in 1999 as eMode. None of
these parties seem to enjoy patent assignment.
Adrian Scott, the founder of Ryze, is a listed inventor on a current application
(US20020049760A1: Technique for accessing information in a peer-to-peer
network) assigned to Flycode, Inc., a company that Mr. Scott founded. Ryze
does not seem to enjoy patent assignment.
No Assigned Patents Discovered. Only limited information available. May be a
subsidiary of I.L.S. Communications. I.L.S. does not seem to enjoy patent
assignment.
Skype is in internet telephony portal developed by the creators of Kazaa. It
works on a P2P platform and allows the user to make calls to other members of
the P2P social network. No Assigned Patents Discovered.
The Small World Project is a project out of Columbia University. The
experiment is geared toward gaining a better picture of the ―N degrees of
separation‖ between any two people. 4000+ people participated in the
experiment. No Assigned Patents Discovered.
Associated with ConnectMe. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Associated with Aluran. No Assigned Patents of Patent Applications discovered.
Chau Vuong, CEO of Social Grid, does not seem to be listed as a published

92

http://www.plaxo.com
http://www.powermingle.com/home.asp
94
http://www.qpengyou.com/
95
http://www.rateordate.com/
96
http://www.realcontacts.com
97
http://www.reddate.com/
98
http://www.refernet.net/
99
http://www.repcheck.com/
100
http://connect.tickle.com/
101
http://www.ryze.com
102
http://www.salesforce.com
103
http://www.siliconvalleypipeline.com/
104
http://www.skype.com/
105
http://smallworld.columbia.edu/
106
http://www.socialcircles.com/
107
http://www.socialgrid.com/
93


Page 25


SocialText108

SocialTree109
Sona110
Spoke111

Squiby112
StumbleUpon113
Sullivan Executive
Networking Community114
Talk City115
TENG116

inventor on any published US or Foreign patents or patent applications. An
intellectual property statement (not in the ―Terms and Conditions‖ section)
states: ―SocialGrid has retained one of the top intellectual property law firms in
America. Everything on this site is copyrighted and trademarked, including our
search and coding system. Our patent application claims coverage on searches
for all complex objects using Internet search engines. Our goal is to ensure a
search system that will be free to our members and keep individuals and
corporations from profiting by charging for searches. We will marginalize every
profit margin. There is no money to be made in creating another ID coding
system. The world needs only one system. If necessary, we will give SocialGrid
and the patent to Google to insure one standardized coding system. Any
copycats and clones will have to answer to Google. Please be advised that any
copyright, trademark, and patent infringement will result in legal action.‖
No Assigned Patents Discovered. Peter Kaminski, SocialText‘s CTO, is listed as
the inventor on two patents held by Yipes Communications, Inc. but neither of
these patents (US6359882 Method and apparatus for transmitting data and
US6282172 Generating acknowledgement signals in a data communication
system) seem close enough to social network platforms to be included in this
report.
Owned by Intermedia, Inc. Intermedia may have patents but this has not been
fully determined. (see Rate or Date above)
Now hi5 (see above)
Adam Slovik, Spoke‘s SVP of products, is the listed inventor on 2 US patents
with nine foreign counterparts. These patents are assigned to Tenfold
Corporation, a company that he co-founded in 1993. Andy Halliday, VP of
Business development, previously served as president and CEO of Contact
Networks, a company with 12 foreign filings, all oriented toward synchronizing
user information over multiple networks. Contact Networks has recently filed an
application for a US patent addressing the same technology. Andy Rosenbaum,
Chief Architect for Spoke, was—prior to a stint with Yahoo!—the Chief
Architect at e-centives, a company with 27 patents, including one US patent
addressing name normalization across different databases. Each member of the
management team has held additional positions in larger companies from
Yahoo! to Oracle Corp and Sun Microsystems. In September 2003, several
articles appeared indicating that Spoke Software had 15 technology patents filed
with the US patent office. Either these patents are filed under the names of
presently undisclosed inventors or Spoke has placed a number of provisional
patent applications on file. We cannot determine the disposition of the patents or
the final nature of the issues claims in any such patents at this time.
Part of Squiby Omnimedia. No Assigned Patents Discovered
No Assigned Patents Discovered. Sullivan is associated with NetModular, the
Object Enterprises company listed earlier in the table.
Part of Delphi Forums. No Assigned Patents Discovered
The Technology Executives Networking Group, sponsored by Bruner

108

http://www.socialtext.com/
http://www.socialtree.com
110
http://www.hi5.com/friend/displayHome.do
111
http://www.spoke.com
112
http://www.squiby.com
113
http://www.stumbleupon.com
114
http://www.sullivanexecutive.com/community.html
115
http://www.talkcity.com/
116
http://teng.scottopia.com/
109


Page 26


The Conneck
The Lunch Club NYC117
The Opinion Exchange118
Tickle by Emode
Tribe119
uDate.com120
UserPlane121
UUFriends122
Visible Path123
Wallop124

Whiz Spark125
WiW126
WorldShine127
Yafro128
Yahoo!129

YeeYoo130
YOYO131
Zdarmanet / Zdarma Co.
Zerendipity132

ZeroDegrees133

Consulting Associates, Inc. No Assigned Patents Discovered
No available website. No Assigned Patents Discovered
See Ringo, above. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Tribe now enjoys partial ownership of US6175831: Method and apparatus for
constructing a networking database and system. US6175831 patent is covered
later in this report.
Part of Kiss.com which is part of Match.com. See Match.com entry, above. No
Assigned Patents Discovered
A subsidiary of UUZone Interactive. No Assigned Patents Discovered
Wallop is a project run by the Social Computing Group at Microsoft Research.
Microsoft is listed as the assignee on roughly 8,300 patents and patent
applications worldwide. We will need to take a more careful look in order to
discern those patents that may be applicable to Social Networking.
Yahoo! Inc. owns Overture, Inc, which has one important social networking
patent under the former name of GoTo.com. Yahoo! also owns Altavista
(through Overture) and part of Fast Search and Transfer (again, through
Overture). We will take a closer look at Yahoo! patents at the end of this report.
No Assigned Patents Discovered. In his biography, Andrew Jones—
Zerendipity‘s Chairman and CEO—refers to a patent granted while at
Broadcom. This is likely EP1306757A2: Transferring data along with code for
program overlays. If this is the case, then Mr. Jones is likely the named inventor
on US20040015923A1: Apparatus and method to reduce memory footprints in
processor architectures—currently unassigned but likely held by Broadcom.
Neither of these patents seem closely relevant to Social Networking.
No Assigned Patents Discovered. Sid Conklin, the CTO, lists two patents in his
bio. These are likely US6282522: Internet payment system using smart card

117

http://thelunchclub.net/clubhouse/
https://www.opinion-exchange.com/
119
http://www.tribe.net
120
http://www.udate.com
121
http:// www.kiss.com
122
http://www.uufriends.com/
123
http://www.visiblepath.com
124
http://mywallop.com/
125
http://www.whizspark.com/
126
http://www.wiw.hu/hu/index.php
127
http://www.worldshine.com/
128
http://www.yafro.com
129
http://personals.yahoo.com/
130
http://www.yeeyoo.com/
131
http://www.yoyonet.cn/index.jsp
132
http://www.zerendipity.com/
133
http://www.zerodegrees.com/
118


Page 27

and US6105008 Internet loading system using smart card, neither of which are
close enough to social network platforms to be included in this report.

Social Network Analysis Tools
Orgnet-Inflow134
WisdomBuilder135

UCINet136
IKnow137
Loom138

NetMiner139

Wisdom Builder is ―A fully integrated information gathering, data visualization,
information analysis and reporting tool….‖ Rather than a social network platform. It is
supported by one US patent (US6327586 System method and computer program product
to automate the management and analysis of heterogeneous data), 1 US application and
two foreign filings. The patent contains the following claim (Claim 31): A method for
displaying a visual representation depicting relationships between objects stored in a
database, said method comprising the steps of:
 creating a database having a plurality of records, wherein each said record
represents a relationship between two objects;
 selecting two objects for determining the relationships therebetween;
 determining relationships between said two objects, wherein said relationships
include direct and indirect relationships; and
 displaying the visual representation, wherein the visual representation is
adjustable by a user according to a desired degree of separation between said
two objects.
This is a project out of the University of Illinois. None of the principals seem to hold any
patents.
Loom is a visualization tool for Usenet developed through MIT‘s Sociable Media Group.
A search of SMG members and alumni reveals—with one exception—only one patent
application US20030079218A1: Remote collaborative control and direction, co-invented
by several members of the Sociable Computing Group. The exception, Rebecca Xiong, is
listed as an inventor on US6594673 Visualizations for collaborative information
(assigned to Microsoft), US6480194 Computer-related method, system, and program
product for controlling data visualization in external dimension(s) (assigned to Silicon
Graphics) and US20030030634A1 Computer-related method, system, and program
product for controlling data visualization in external dimension(s). Ms. Xiong developed
the first patent with Steven Drucker, an important Microsoft inventor who appears later
in this report.
Netminer is a visualization tool rather than a Social Networking platform. No Assigned
Patents Discovered

134

http://www.orgnet.com/
http://www.wisdombuilder.com/
136
http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet.htm
137
http://www.spcomm.uiuc.edu/Projects/TECLAB/IKNOW/index.html
138
http://web.media.mit.edu/~kkarahal/loom/
139
http://www.netminer.com
135


Page 28


RepTools140

Cakehouse
Antology141
Vizster142
NetVis143

Produced by Practical Gatherings, a division of Social Solutions, Inc. Patricia Sachs, the
founder of Practical Gatherings, is a named inventor on two patents assigned to Institute for
Research on Learning, which is associated with Bell Labs. The first of these patents,
US5745113: Representing work practices, has an interesting claim (Claim 25) which
specifies a relationship editor which ―simultaneously displays in response to a user request
two relationship diagrams of different kinds selected from organization chart, kinship
diagram, set diagram, or social network, as overlays one over the other‖ The other patent,
US6216098: Simulating work behavior, is an interesting patent that attempts to model
interactions between user beliefs and objective facts. It seems that many of the claims are
limited by the phrase ―provide them in the form of assistance or teaching to the user.‖
Otherwise the modeling could possibly be used for user identification.
Neither Jefferey Heer nor Marti Hearst—the two developers--- seem to enjoy any patents.
Both work in the computer science department at the University of California which has
roughly 385 computer/ network patents.

140

http://www.practicalgatherings.com/workplace_anthro/rep_tools/RepTools.html
http://www.cakehouse.co.uk/home.asp
142
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jheer/infovis/final/
143
http://www.netvis.org/resources.php
141


Page 29

Search Results: Overall Statistics
The search strategy used in this report generated three sets of results. The first set, on the
preceding page, resulted from a search by assignee and inventor for companies and
management staff involved with social network technologies. The last search in the report
will focus on inventors associated with selected companies. The middle search begins with
multiple keyword searches followed by identification of robust patents and an examination
of cited intellectual property in the space around the robust patents. In the course of this
step, we note the 19 patents below for their relevance to social networking:
Publication Title
Number

Assignee/Applicant Publication Number of Report Section
Name
Date
Forward
References
Microsoft
11/21/2000 2
User Profile
Corporation

US6151585 Methods and apparatus for
determining or inferring
influential rumormongers from
resource usage data
US5987415 Modeling a user's emotion and Microsoft
11/16/1999
personality in a computer user
Corporation
interface
US6144964 Methods and apparatus for tuning Microsoft
11/7/2000
a match between entities having Corporation
attributes
US6345264 Methods and apparatus, using
Microsoft
2/5/2002
expansion attributes having
Corporation
default, values, for matching
entities and predicting an
attribute of an entity
US6735568 Method and system for
Eharmony.com
5/11/2004
identifying people who are likely
to have a successful relationship
US6272467 System for data collection and
Spark Network
8/7/2001
matching compatible profiles
Services, Inc.
US5594910 Interactive computer network and IBM Corp.
1/14/1997
method of operation
US6466917 Method and apparatus for
eBay Inc.
10/15/2002
verifying the identity of a
participant within an on-line
auction environment
US6119135 Method for passively browsing AT&T Corporation 9/12/2000
the internet using images
extracted from web pages
US5754939 System for generation of user
HERZ;
5/19/1998
profiles for a system for
FREDERICK S.
customized electronic
M.|EISNER; JASON
identification of desirable objects M. et al
US6327586 System method and computer
WisdomBuilder,
12/4/2001
program product to automate the L.L.C.
management and analysis of
heterogeneous data
US5872850 System for enabling information Microsoft
2/16/1999
marketplace
Corporation


18

User Profile

7

Affiliation

1

Affiliation

0

Affiliation

8

Affiliation

86

Network

0

Security

10

Navigation

180

User Profile

1

Visualization

25

Network

Page 30


US6516349 System for updating a set of
instantiated content providers
based on changes in content
provider directory without
interruption of a network
information services
US6034681 Dynamic data link interface in a
graphic user interface
US5442778 Scatter-gather: a cluster-based
method and apparatus for
browsing large document
collections
US6064666 Cross service common user
image association

Sun Microsystems, 2/4/2003
Inc.

1

International
3/7/2000 2
Business Machines
Corp.
Xerox Corporation 8/15/1995 68

International
5/16/2000 7
Business Machines
Corporation
US6581096 Scalable computing system for Microsoft
6/17/2003 0
managing dynamic communities Corporation
in multiple tier computing system
US6049805 Dynamic event mechanism for Microsoft
4/11/2000 5
objects with associational
Corporation
relationships
US6286104 Authentication and authorization Oracle Corporation 9/4/2001 2
in a multi-tier relational database
management system

User Profile

Visualization

Navigation

User Profile

Network

Network

Security

The patents above tend to enjoy at least one broad claim while disclosing methods, systems
or apparatus that are highly relevant to social networking. If to does not seem reasonable to
read all of the patents mentioned in this report, it may still be worthwhile to review the
patents above patents separately. Each of these patents will be discussed later in the context
of the keyword search results.
It is worth noting that, while Microsoft dominates the selection above, the patents are not
held solely by large companies. One of the patents, US5754939, remains unassigned and
seems to be held by its inventors, Mssrs. Herz, Eisner and Ungar. When we consider the
number of forward citations, we see that 13 of the 19 patents have received fewer than 10
forward citations, a surprising result given the spread of issuance dates between 1995 and
2004 (we should not be surprised that the 2004 patent is uncited).
In addition, the reader may want to consider Microsoft‘s relative dominance in the table
above, holding 7 patents to IBM‘s 3 even though IBM manages holds 50 of the 210 patents
in the larger set, to Microsoft‘s 26. We will try to address this incongruity when we look at
the Microsoft and IBM Social Computing Groups at the end of the report.
ANALYTIC TOOLS AND CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES

Before leaping into the keyword-based patent investigation, we should pause for a moment
and consider whether aggregate patent statistics will offer valuable insights into this
particular field. An affirmative answer may point to opportunities for future work through
the application of patent analysis software.

Page 31


In the course of the keyword searches, we generated several sets of patents, the most
important of which were our starting and ending sets. Our starting sets were generated from
the initial keyword searches in the spirit of the ones provided below:




(((profile) AND (user OR subscriber) AND (system OR network OR email)) <in> CLAIMS)
(((((user* OR participant*) <near/10> (relate OR affiliate OR associate OR association OR similarity
OR match OR relation OR affiliation OR relationship) AND (measure OR determine OR detect OR
express) AND network)) <in> CLAIMS))

This general search for terms relating to ―user‖ and ―profile‖ in the claims section of
published US patents and patent applications resulted in roughly 1,782 patents and 2,646
applications. Similarly, the general search for terms relating to ―user‖ and ―affiliation‖ in
the claims section of published US patents and patent applications resulted in roughly 1,213
patents and 2,883 applications. After adding in the results of a few additional searches, we
generate a total starting set of 4,627 patents.
From this set we carved out a restricted subset of 80-100 published US patents. This set was
then enlarged by following citation trails through the US Patent database. These trails
included both forward and backward citations and often involved following multiple
backward citation tiers only to move forward in a different direction. We did this until we
began seeing the same patents on a regular basis, marking out co-citation clusters and using
different clusters to assist in the identification of highly relevant patents. In the end, this led
to our set of 210 patents.
We can discern the relevance of aggregate techniques by comparing some simple
aggregated data in the larger set with parallel aggregated data in the hand-selected focus set.
To begin, let‘s look at the aggregate results for the larger set.
Even after discounting single inventors, the published patents remain widely distributed
among roughly 409 different assignees. Roughly 46% of these assignees enjoy only one
patent, while those enjoying 2-10 patents comprise another 42% of the assignees while the
last 14% of assignees hold over 10 patents apiece.
Published Patents
200
150
# of
100
Assignees
50
0
10+
Patents

3 OR 4
Patents

1
Patent

# of Patents


Page 32


Patent holders with more than 10 patents include IBM (333 patents), followed by Microsoft
(101), AT&T (82), Eriksson (77), Lucent (70), Motorola (59), Hitachi (58), and Xerox (22).
Most of these patents (29.5%) were filed in 1998 and 1999.
When we consider our smaller, focused patent set, we see that the overall distribution is
only slightly more polarized in favor of single patent companies.
Similarly, top patent holders
include IBM (50 patents), followed
by Microsoft (24). However,
Microsoft is now followed by Intel
(11), Tacit Knowledge Systems (9),
Xerox (8), Nortel (8) and Sun (7).
Again, most of these patents
(36.7%) were filed in 1998 and
1999.

Published Patents
60
50
40
# of
30
Assignees 20
10
0
10+
Patents

3 or 4
Patents

1
Patent

Portfolio Size

Determining assignment is more
difficult in the context of
applications. Few companies normally assume assignment during the application process,
restricting ownership information to the inventor. In this case, of the 5,398 applications
recovered through our initial search, a maximum of 1,499 enjoy an assignee. Of these, the
top assignees include IBM (215 applications), Philips (49 applications), Microsoft (31
applications), Metrologic (27 applications), and Alcatel (24 applications). Assignment
diverges in our focus subset, led again by IBM (528 Applications), followed by Philips (182
applications), Microsoft (73 applications), Sun (73 applications), Xerox (65 applications),
and Yahoo! (37 applications).
One notable shift occurs when we examine assigned application distributions across the
each set. In the larger application set, we see that single application holders dominate the
larger set:

Assigned Applications
600
400
# of
Applications 200
0
10+
Apps

3 or 4
Apps

1
App

# of Companies


Page 33


However, when we look at the applications associated with inventors listed in our focus set,
we find that the application distribution has evened out, with a plurality of companies filing
over 10 applications:

Patent Applications
The application
distribution tells us
something about the nature
20
of the technology at hand.
15
# of
In the larger set, we pulled
10
Assignees
numerous applications
5
from a wide variety of
0
10+
3 or 4
1 Appl
technologies, some of
Appl
Appl
which are converging
toward social networking.
Portfolio Size
Many of these
technologies are well
established and, to generalize, the companies holding these technologies may refrain from
filing additional applications in an established and well-patented field. The focus subset is
changing more rapidly, leading first to a better ratio between patents and applications (210
patents to 1237 applications versus 4,600 patents to 5,300 applications) and to a better
application distribution, spurred by heavy R&D investment in a new technology. Please be
warned that differences between methods used to derive applications in the larger set
(repeat of keyword searches in the US application database) and methods used to derive
applications associated with smaller set (additive searches for specific inventors in the US
patent database) restrict the quality of our results in this matter, reducing a potentially
useful observation to a mere generalization.
In summary, aggregate patent data is only mildly useful in the domain of social networking
technology. Had we used the data for the large set alone, we would have developed a good
picture of the initial patent distribution but would have misidentified many of the important
companies after IBM and Microsoft. We further would have seen an application
distribution that would lead us to believe that the established companies are slowing their
R&D work proportionally to the rest of the market, allowing numerous small players to
pursue one or two patents apiece where a better picture might involve a much more even
struggle in the R&D space.
Anecdotally, we found high error rates (roughly 20 non-relevant patents for every relevant
patent) when conducting the partial searches (searches by top assignee) that allowed us to
develop the core subset of 80-100 patents144. Many of the patents in the total set dealt very
well with component technologies but failed to bring two or more component technologies
together (such as searching and user profiles) to address technologies that could inform new
social networking platform services.
144

This is the set that grew to 210 after cited patents were investigated


Page 34

The following is a more complete, alphabetical list of the companies in the focus subset and
set of associated applications. Notice that no company with more than one patent has failed
to file at least one additional application.
Company/ # Patents / # Applications
Accenture Llp
3
Adheris, Inc.
1
Agent Arts, Inc.
1
Alza Corporation
1
Andersen Consulting Properties
1
Bv
At&T Bell Laboratories
2
At&T Corp.
2
Banyan Systems, Inc.
1
Be Free, Inc.
1
Bell & Howell Mail And
Messaging Technologies
1
Company
Bellsouth Corporation
1
British Telecommunications
1
Public Limited Company
Burning Glass Technologies, Llc 1
Casio Computer Co., Ltd.
1
Charisma Colors, Inc.
1
Clear Direction, Inc.
1
Client Dy*mics, Inc.
1
Computer X, Inc.
1
Cybergold, Inc.
1
Cyva Research Corporation
1
Digital Equipment Corporation
1
EBay Inc.
1
Eharmony.Com
1
Electronic Data Systems
2
Corporation
Entrust Technologies
1
Expanse Network, Inc.
1
Expanse Networks, Inc.
1
First Data Corporation
1
France Telecom
1
Fujitsu Limited
4
Google Inc.
3
Hewlett-Packard Co.
3
Hitachi, Ltd.
3
HRL Laboratories, LLC
1
IBM Corp.
50
Image, Inc.
1
Image Data, Llc
1
Installation Software
1
Technologies, Inc.

15
1
1
*
2
6
3
1
*
1
*
3
1
*
*
*
2
10
*
6
1
16
2
9
3
17
*
*
*
31
11
8
4
6
528
1
3

Intel Corporation
Juno Online Services, L.P.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics
N.V.
Lawyershomepagenetwork, Inc.
Lucent Technologies
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd.
MCI
Microsoft Corporation
Movo Media, Inc.
Mpath Interactive, Inc.
Neonics, Inc.
Netspan Corporation
New York University
Nortel Networks Corporation
Pinpoint [Hertz]
Proleamers, Llc
Purpleyogi.Com Inc.
Regents Of The University Of
Minnesota
Sharp Laboratories Of America,
Inc.
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
Singles Advantage
Spark Network Services, Inc.
Spherion Assessment, Inc.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Tacit Knowledge System, Inc.
Telcontar
Telefo*ktiebolaget Lm Ericsson
Tele-Publishing, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Tumbleweed Software
Corporation
Wertheim; Gary D.
Wisdombuilder, L.L.C.
Xerox Corporation
Xoucin, Inc.
Yahoo! Inc.
Youpowered, Inc.

11
1

26
13

2

182

1
4

*
7

2

9

2
24
1
1
1
1
1
8
2
1
1

2
75
*
2
3
*
*
23
8
1
1

1

3

1

6

1
1
1
1
7
9
4
1
1
1

*
*
4
2
73
5
13
4
3
3

1

8

1
1
8
2
1
1

*
1
65
6
37
*

*

On the next two pages, we present, in table form, some data concerning the filing year and
patent classes associated with the focus patents and associated applications. In addition, we
present some data regarding forward citations, separated by technology area.


Page 35

Filing Year
Filing Year
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985

# of Patents
1
2
13
29
34
43
29
22
11
6
8
1
4
1
2
1
2
*
1

# of Applications
96
364
608
94
37
55
9
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
1
2
*
3

It is interesting that the number of patent
applications dropped in 2003. This could indicate
that the top inventors may have slowed
publication as new researchers enter the scene at
the major companies. In general, patent
applications seem to run along the 20/80 rule
where 20% of the inventors in an R&D
department will be responsible for 80% of the
filings. Given our research methods, a shift in
this 20% could result in a perceived filing drop.

The Top 20 US Patent/ Application Classes

Please note that class 345 has been abolished
by the USPTO.


U.S. Patent
Class- 3 digit

Item
Count
707
709
345
705
395
715
706
364
379
713
455
380
704
725
370
434
001
700
273
340

101
71
44
43
37
23
22
15
13
12
10
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3

U.S.
Item
Application
Count
Class- 3 digit
709 247
705 235
707 202
345 89
455 63
725 58
715 52
340 43
713 43
717 43
348 40
370 40
382 39
379 37
706 20
714 19
701 18
434 15
702 15
704 15

Page 36

A Look at Forward Citations by Category. Reading the top line of the chart, 67 patents have
0 forward references—12 of these are affiliation patents, 2 are bulletin & etc.
# Fwd
Ref
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
29
34
39
41
47
48
49
50
59
61
64
68
69
71
74
78
86
88
98
102
108
109
110
111
121
163
169
180
186
325

Bulletin
Affiliation Chat
12
8
1
2
1

2
3
1
1

1

1

1

1

1

User
Grand
Monitoring Navigation Network Searching Security Services Profile Visualization Total
2
2
2
6
8
10
4
17
4
67
1
1
1
1
7
3
22
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
12
1
1
1
2
2
1
10
1
2
1
5
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
5
1
3
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
5
1
1
1
3
6
1
1
3
2
1
2
5
1
1
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1


Page 37


The Keyword Searches
We begin by examining relevant issued patents held by top companies in this area. As we
discern better patents with broader claims that address features unique to social networking
platforms, we may add to our list of relevant companies. We will stop periodically to
summarize our findings and take a look at the larger landscape.
We provide the results in the Keyword search section in a particular format, accompanied
by two numbers. We use the Accenture/ Andersen patent (also featured on the next page) as
an example:
Patent
Number
US6697824
Published
2004
Priority
1999

Patent Title
Relationship
management in an Ecommerce application
framework

Technology Focus / Notable
Claim
User Profile/ Information—
Provides a method for collecting
user information, building a
profile, matching that profile to
different content modules and
then allowing the user to arrange
the selected contents. (Claim 1)

Possible SNP Embodiment/
Relevance (1-10 scale)
Could be relevant in situations
where larger social networking
platforms wish to suggest group
membership to users and then
allow the users to arrange those
selections on screen. (4)

The claim number in the third column relates to the claim that we found to be the most
interesting in the patent, reflecting a subjective call on our part. While this feature may not
be helpful in cases where the first claim seems most interesting, there are cases where a
broad claim is placed farther in the claims text. Where appropriate, we attempt to point out
this claim. Please note that some patents do not have an associated claim number. These
patents may still possess broad claims and should still be reviewed by counsel. At the same
time, the mention of one or several claim numbers should not be construed as an indirect
comment on any quality of the other claims in the patent—all of which should still be
reviewed for breadth and support. Please note as well that we offer no comment (even on
the numbered claims) regarding support from specifications. A broad, unsupported claim
may still be in trouble.
The parenthetical number in the fourth column reflects our sense (on a 1-10 scale, 10
highest) of the relevance that the patent bears to social networking. When looking at this
number, we ask that you keep the following points in mind:





Patents included in this report all have some relevance to social networking
We favor patents that cross over a number of different technology areas. To this
end, a patent that has a low number may still be highly relevant to a single social
networking technology. In addition, a patent with a low number may be highly
relevant to products and services outside of the domain of social networking
technology.
The number is a comment on the technology disclosed by the patent, not a comment
on the quality and/ or breadth of the claims. This is why we are separating the
claims and technology in different columns.


Page 38

USER PROFILES

Many of the relevant user profile patents concerned a connection between a user profile and
a search engine. Here, the user profile is intended to inform the selection of a results subset
based on interests & etc disclosed in the profile itself. It is important to note that many of
the patents attempting to cover user profile-based searching seem to overlap with each
other, differentiating themselves in the claims language through the use of odd terms
ranging from ―info-bits‖ to ―clue streams‖. This implies that proper evaluation of these
patents will depend in part on careful examination of the specifications—something that
goes beyond the scope of this report.
Accenture/ Andersen
Accenture‘s patents tend to address user profiles that enable other parties to provide lowrisk services to the user. These ‗inbound-service‘ profiles typically attempt to run searches
according to specifications in the user profile, returning lists of goods or services that the
user is likely to want. Current social network matching, on the other hand, can match two
inbound service profiles, assuming that the first user may provide a service to the second
user and vice-versa. Future platforms may shift away from inbound service toward
outbound service, providing better indicators of a user‘s ability to provide high quality
services and/or reduce risk for other parties that may enter a transaction.
US6697824
Published
2004

Relationship
management in an Ecommerce application
framework

User Profile/ Information—
Provides a method for collecting
user information, building a
profile, matching that profile to
different content modules and
then allowing the user to arrange
the selected contents. (Claim 1)

Could be relevant in situations
where larger social networking
platforms wish to suggest group
membership to users and then
allow the users to arrange those
selections on screen. (4)

System, method and
article of manufacture
for a tuned user
application experience

User Profiles/ Searching—Begin
with a user profile, use it to
retrieve content, filter and parse
content, make sure that the
filtered, parsed content matches
the profile and add text
explaining the match to the user.
(Claim 1)

Possibly supports better
integration of search results.
Seems closely connected in style
to US6697824 (3)

Priority
1999
US6195651

The Accenture inventors are associated with 15 additional patent applications. Michel
Bowman-Amuah, inventor on the ‗824 patent, is associated with 52 published US patents.
Many of these patents concern higher-level problems such as delivering multiple services
across multiple interfaces.


Page 39

AT&T
US6546005

Active user registry

User Profiles—A registry
actively tracks users
communications preferences and
provides contact channels
according to user preferences
upon subscriber query. (Claim 1)

Could support multi-peripheral
social networks. This patent is
really closer to a unified
messaging patent (4)

David Berkley, Richard Rabiner and Eric Sumner are associated with separate patent
application (US20020131573A1), also called Active User Registry.
Be Free
Be Free and Commission Junction merged in March of 2004. Commission junction is an
online advertising/ affiliate marketing firm.
US5991735

Computer program
apparatus for
determining
behavioral profile of a
computer user

User Profiles—A general patent
that records user interaction with
―agate‖- material (such as stock
quotes) that is not read in a linear
fashion. And develops a profile
based on these interactions.
(Claim 15)

Could cover profiling based on
interactions with other user
profiles to the extent that a user
profile reflects ―time-sensitive,
reference information that is not
read linearly‖ To this end, it
provides some basic claims in
the area of derivative profiling.
(9)

Thomas Gerace, the listed inventor on the ‗735 patent, is listed as inventor on a similar
patent, US5848396: Method and apparatus for determining behavioral profile of a
computer user, assigned to Freedom of Information, Inc. In Cambridge, MA.
Bell & Howell Mail and Messaging Technologies Company
US6701315
Issued: 2004
Priority:
1997

Systems, methods,
and computer
program products for
delivering information
in a preferred medium

User Profiles—An extremely
broad unified messaging patent.
Specifies the delivery of
information media in a format
specified by the user profile.
(Claims 1,44,53)

This may be most applicable to
social networks and user
profiles. Important to the extent
that unified messaging will be an
important hardware feature in
several SNPs (9)

This is an odd patent, given the mature of the rest of the Bell & Howell portfolio, most of
which concerns sheet feeders and collectors.


Page 40

eBay
While eBay does not seem to have any patents relevant to user profiles, they do have one
application, US20030088566A1: Generic attribute database system, which suggests a way
to store multiple items across multiple categories in a database using attribute values and a
method of reconciling the attribute values table associated with one category and a values
table associated with a second category. Such a design may support social networks whose
members be seen through different attribute ―filters.‖
Fujitsu
Additional searches for applications assigned to the Fujitsu inventors resulted in a set of 31
published applications. Like the patent below, most of these applications are indirectly
relevant to chat rooms and bulletin boards. Relevant applications include
US20040049418A1, a ―Polling method that encourages freely opinionated replies and
makes for extensive collection of diverse replies.‖ Fujitsu has worked with chat rooms
since (at least) 1999, when researchers at the Autonomous Systems Laboratory developed a
small, interactive chat room robot.
US6205478

System for
exchanging user
information among
users

User Profiles—a system for
broadcasting updates on
information on one terminal to
other terminals. Also handles
updating user information on a
server (Claims 26,34)

A potentially important patent
that addresses uploading user
information and then
broadcasting an alert or indicator
regarding these changes to other
members in the network. May be
relevant to chat room and realtime presence services (9)

In addition to the Chat room applications, Fujitsu has several applications devoted to
advertising including US20020026355A1 Advertising method and awareness server and
US20020046190A1 Performance value determination system and method. This latter
application relates to measuring the performance of a purchased good over time—
something that could be useful in a social networking context where users take the place of
a good and user metrics are measured. Note that one Fujitsu patent application,
US20010005859A1 Text messaging system and method, enjoys a 1998 priority date.


Page 41

Hewlett Packard
In addition to the patent below, Hewlett Packard lends one visualization patent to this
report. Most of the associated applications deal with Visualization and graphics, clearly an
HP strong point. These applications will be mentioned in the Visualization section.
US6684217

System and method
for generating a
profile from which a
publication may be
created

User Profile—A fairly broad
business method patent that asks
a user to select a role model and
then affiliates the role model
with a user profile. At this point,
the user may be allowed to buy
content associated with the role
Model or the user may be
exposed to items of interest to
the role model. (Claim 6)

Right now, fan sites should be
aware of this patent.(5)

IBM
Of the 12 IBM patents that follow, five concern the creation of user profiles, two focus on
managing a single user profile on different platforms, two concern tracking and monitoring,
two concern profile classification and one may allow users to receive service upgrades
based on user profile information. On the application side, it seems that the IBM inventors
responsible for the patents below are now concentrating on other technologies, yielding a
smaller than expected subset of IBM‘s 528 associated applications.
The first patent in this list, US6064666, is associated with no fewer than 11 inventors, two
of whom dominate the 66 associated applications. These two— Edith Stern (40
applications) and Barry Willner (39 applications)—have worked together on 82 patents and
patent applications which are spread across 29 separate 3-digit patent classes. Neither Mr.
Willner nor Ms. Stern appear to adopt a particularly high profile in IBM company literature
but they, like Philip Yu (another inventor), may be in the select group of prolific, crossdiscipline inventors who drive or mentor a great deal of productive R&D at companies
fortunate enough to employ them. On the application side, Ms. Stern and Mr. Willner are
associated with a wide range of applications. Those that may be relevant to social
networking include: US20030130862A1 Method and apparatus for establishing a
distribution network, and US20030104820A1 Location-specific messaging system, a
patent that again points toward the importance of proximity awareness in social devices.
US6064666
Issued: 2000

Cross service
common user image
association

User Profiles—Describes a
database containing a set of
standard user profiles that can be
imported into various platforms.

Could provide important support
for a ―single-profile-multipleplatforms‖ approach to social
networking. (10)

Priority:
1996
Expires:
2016


Page 42

Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004

Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004

Ähnlich wie Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Intellectual Property in the Social Networking Space, 2004