First:

[snip]
it would probably be worthwhile for Flickr to clarify that they do not intend to claim patent for user based algorithms but rather their narrow and specific mixture of user activity that they use in their specific algorithm.
[/snip]

A:
You’re kidding, right? Last time you bought a car did you inform the salesperson at the beginning of the negotiation what your final price would be? Of course not, you started from a more favorable position and negotiated toward the center.

The Web is lovely, but it’s still part of the real world. Welcome.

B:
The section of the patent you cite simply defines terms. I believe you’ll find a generic and voluminous section like that in each and every patent app.

C:
“Worthwhile”? Worth who’s while?

Second:

If it violates prior art like you say, then what’s the problem? If it will be tossed, then Y!Flickr’s just wasting time and that may be the edge you need.

Third:

[snip]
as evidenced by the Boing Boing and Slashdot posts
[/snip]

That’s horribly faulty logic on your part. That those smart but sensationalist audiences hold a position does not make the position true. I can’t believe I’m even taking the time to type that out.

Fourth:

[snip]
…we would be at risk for being sued.
[/snip]

Either you believe there’s prior art or you don’t.

Thanks.

PS: I’m of the camp that believes the patent system need reform. However, even from that position I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons.

PPS: I’m rooting for Zooomr and hope all the excellent competition benefits me as a user.

But if you take a moment and read what the patent is asking for it goes much, much futher than this. Yahoo is not trying to patent a specific algorithm (like Google’s PageRank), they are trying to patent the whole concept of using user generated activity to rank photos. This is far too broad, violates prior art, and would prevent other communities from using *their* user’s social input for promoting interesting photos.

From the patent: ” * The quantity of user-entered metadata concerning the media object,
* The number of users who have assigned metadata to the media object,
* An access pattern related to the media object,
* A lapse of time related to the media object, and/or;
* On the relevance of metadata to the media object.
* Whether the media contains undesirable content such as obscene imagery or promotions of a competitor’s product.”

They are not patenting a specific algorithm (like PageRank) but rather a vague concept of an algorithm based on things like metadata, activity, etc. And *this* I have a problem with.

Certainly I and Zooomr have a bias here. I am certainly not suggesting we don’t. I’ve made a point of disclosing my affiliation with Zooomr.

But, we too would like to show our community interesting photos based on our user’s activity. We have developed our own algorithm (Flickr’s is secret) based on the inputs that we think will produce the most interesting photos for promotion on our site.

If, however, the entire concept of using not a *specific algorithm* but *any* algorithm based on user activity is patented by Yahoo! we would be at risk for being sued. This would not be good for any non Yahoo community.

Big fan of your photography, but feel that you’re making something out of nothing in this case. Worse, it feels like you’re doing it for personal gain, and without adding anything constructive. Hopefully you can help me see it differently.

Google’s “PageRank” is an algorithm for measuring the social popularity of a web page. Flickr’s “Interestingness” is an algorithm for measuring the social popularity of a photo.

PageRank’s algorithm is patented, but the concept is not. I think it would be hard to argue that their patented /algorithm/, which gave rise to a new technolgy direction for all, has been bad for the industry.

I would imagine that Interestingness, as a concept, will be excellent for the photo and media space.

How is this case different than Google’s patent? Do you begrudge Google’s patent and feel it has stifled innovation?

If so, well, make the case.

If not, stop crying foul and instead beat them at their own game. I want lowercase-”i”-interesting photos — an outstanding feature I love and am addicted to — and hope you and yours has what it takes to deliver them to me.

I don’t disagree with those that think patent reform is an area of worthy investigation, but through all your self-serving spin it’s hard to believe that is your sole point.

Best wishes for your success.

Obviously, the idea or concept of “interestingness” by itself cannot be patented. The specific process used for determining “interestingness” certainly can and that’s what the patent is about.

Personally, I think software patent reform is badly overdue. But given the current legal environment, I don’t see anything out of line with this one.

I had blogged on it here before I saw your post, but I think we need Protection from Patent Proliferation