I just checked the calendar to make sure it's not April Fool's Day. Between Rembrandt and Fish, something was beautifully fishy.
Not to mention the first sentence. Read it again. It says that features of the site have joined the suit and are suing Facebook, if you read it real fast. At least, that's how I read it. I thought that the like feature was suing Facebook. Maybe I should go get some sleep.
Facebook is a social networking site. One of the most basic elements of social interaction is to either "like" something, or "dislike" it (of which disliking something can be passively assumed by the lack of liking it).
Creating a social site that's based off rudimentary social interactions and not offering the ability to make others aware that one "likes" their friends content would make the website incomplete, and this functionality is implied by the nature of the site.
If facebook wasn't synonymous with "likes" then I'd say this is BS, but since it MAKES MONEY off the number of "likes" and people sell "likes" there may be something to this, considering he files a patent years earlier before the patent system was changed from "first to create" to "first to file"
Everyone seems to be missing the point. It is not the 'thumb' that is patented but the software behind what it does. If Facebook has 'borrowed' that software then they are liable. It does seem as though they are as the article refers to them quoting the original patent in their own filing and therefore, acknowledging its existence.