Slashdot Log In
Company Aims To Patent Security Patches
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jun 08, 2007 07:15 AM
from the winner-of-the-race-to-the-bottom dept.
from the winner-of-the-race-to-the-bottom dept.
Jonas Maebe writes "Someone thought up another way to profiteer from the software patent system: when a security hole is discovered, they'll try to patent the fix in order to collect money when the affected vendors close the hole in their product. The company in question is not shy about its intentions: Intellectual Weapons will only consider vulnerabilities in high-profile products from vendors with deep pockets. Let's be thankful for yet another way software patents are used to promote science and the useful arts."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Stunning (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stunning (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the USPTO does, it won't matter:
"... the system takes, on average, seven years to churn out a new patent. The vendor has to have deep pockets so it can pay damages, and your solution has to be simple enough to be explained to a jury."
So,not to be TOO obvious, but ...
Isn't it funny how one of the biggest patent trolls [microsoft.com] sounds custom-made as the target.
Parent
KSR v Teleflex kills it (Score:3, Interesting)
This security bug scheme is borderline obvious under the old test. It is stunningly weak after KSR. Unless the applicant discovers the bug. Hmmmmm.... (whispers: hey f-secure, call me).
Funny, this scheme also encourages folks to reveal security holes
Idiots (Score:4, Informative)
Suing companies for five year old infringements is not going to work too well.
Moreover this type of behavior is exactly the type of action Congress might find sufficiently indefensible to act on patent law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Royalties (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From MS v. ATT (Score:3, Interesting)
"You can't patent on-off on-off code in the abstract, can you?"
-- Scalia
"I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?"
-- Breyer
The Supreme Court on the whole also seems leery of the idea that software is patentable, but they can't rule on it until they hear a case where patentability of software is disputed.
(IANAL)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OOh, THAT would be a happy day indeed.
These guys are weasels, through and through, but if it helps to bring down our Evil Patent Overlords...
Go scumbags, go scumbags, yaaaaaaaay SCUMBAGS!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't go out and patent "IE, but without these four buffer overflows". So 'patches' aren't at risk.
Further, the concept of boxing in a software vendor with patents on architectural security improvements implies that these guys can cover a sufficiently wide range of improved architectural security implementations - which is far trickier and more expensive than the summary makes it sound. Particularly when you're trying to pin large c
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, there is a well known precedent, when the icmp-tcp interaction and various windowing flaws in tcp implementations were discovered around 2001(IIRC) the fixes were brainstormed at IETF and a list of suggested fixes came out. And surprise, surprise it appeared that Cisco who had the worst list of flaws and w
Re: (Score:2)
Until a big corporation buys them. Ooops. Microsoft says - all your patches are belong to us.
A great idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A great idea (Score:5, Interesting)
User: I want it fixed, now!
Company: No can't do, sir. We are prohibited by law to do this.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
> without paying.
I don't think so. Companies will just change their EULA to say that if any bugs or security vulnerabilities are found, they should be reported to the originating company and not sold for profit. Then the Company can just say that any deal with Intellectual Weapons is a violation of the EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with "Let the courts work it out" is that it effectively stifles the "little guy," the small company or inventor without the significant financial resources to defend his inventions in court. Any given invention or innovation today might step on dozens of vague existing patents. This has the very real effect of stifling the very innovation and invention that the patent system was designed to PROTECT, and of restricting what innovation and invention there *is* to large mega-corps that can afford to defend against multiple patent lawsuits.
Don't believe it? Just take Linux as an example. MS can afford to essentially outlaw Linux if they wanted to (only the public backlash is holding them back). And, even if every one of their patent claims against Linux is bogus, who's going to step up to the plate and put up the millions of $ needed to defend it against an avalanche of MS patent lawsuits?
Parent
Re:A great idea aka ridiculouser and ridiculouser (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
tut. (Score:5, Interesting)
I kinda feel that this wouldn't really be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
UAC (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hereby patent (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, this reply is copyrighted.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Start Cheering Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
We looked on in horror when the thought of software patents came up, and we said that surely no one would be dumb enough (or greedy enough) to do it. We were wrong...
Then there was Bezo's one-click patent and we shielded our eyes saying: the fireworks are going to start any time now... Again, however, the sky was clear and there we no signs of change on the horizon.
Then you had all the spurrious patents from SCO, Microsoft and IBM, and we thought, well maybe this time! However, as was before, so was then...
Then Microsoft threatened Linux and we said "they are running scarred!" and "no one would be dumb enough to..." They were, and they are. Not only that, but mere weeks later, you have several major contributors signing licensing deals to patent infringements that were never released. My God, that costs the companies money and they do nothing but bend over...
Today we got word of Bezo's expansion of the one-click patent, and on top of that the willingness of the USPTO to accept the patent with little to no effort. The USPTO, after all, has employees they have to pay...
And now you have this, and again we here individuals decrying the "end times" for software patents. No, that isn't going to happen. They are here to stay, because the system is working for its citizens in a very efficient way. It is just that we think that we are the citizens. Much like TV viewers or magazine subscribers think that they are the clients of the company. They aren't, they are the product.
We are the product and the consumer, but not the client of the government. The government is there to protect the interests of its citizens, it's just that its citizens have trademarked names. We have gone form Micro to Macro folks.
Indeed (Score:2)
Excellent post. You are right, software patents aren't going anywhere. You will see more properties like this, where basic, everyday information is walled away from you. And as long as we allow congress to be bribed by lobbyists, this will continue to happen. Remember, what's good for GM is good for America. We have a long tradition of bending over for business interests.
Consider too, that many companies like Microsoft would love the chance to spend their research dollars on finding vital security hol
Re: (Score:2)
We can hope, anyway.
IT's everywhere (Score:3, Funny)
Shouldn't this fail for a number of reasons? (Score:2)
Contact Information (Score:5, Funny)
submit@intellectualweapons.com
apply@intellectualweapons.com
Now listen: do *NOT* post these e-mail addresses in public places, specially forums, you know how bad SPAM can get!
sue for damages? (Score:2)
Here is a Tin-Foil Tangent Thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
During the shift to urbanization, it was common for individuals to keep cattle, chickens, pigs and sheep in the city. The animals would be allowed to roam free and would then be captured and slaughter/sheered as was necessary. It was subsistence living in an urban environment where barter was VERY common.
However, as time went on, factories and other places of employment found that they couldn't get enough workers for the lower level jobs. Why would the poor go work there in a crappy environment, when they could breed their cattle and chickens for rent and food?
So these companies petitioned the government to disallow animals, citing disease and the cause (and to some degree, this was true, especially with large amounts of fecal matter in the city -- but then not everyone had plumbing either). This in turn caused people to starve and move to these companies to be paid in "money".
Now, however, we have patents. Patents force the little guy out of the market (let's face it, no individual can afford to beat MS, IBM, Monsanto, et al in a court where lawyers form 99.9% of your chances) Small companies are forced out of business and big companies get to take over. The small companies are the only real thorn in the side of the bigger ones as they might offer a product that revolutionizes the field, but ends up costing a major conglomerate billions to redevelop their products). So patents force them out of business, causing the owners to work for the mega-corp and thus give the mega-corp control.
Perhaps in a few years, everyone will be working for a mega-corp and that will define our identities. We are theirs after all...
Sorry, but... (Score:2)
Sorry again, I couldn't keep it...
Maybe (Score:2)
Better coding at last? (Score:2)
Hoax. (Score:3, Interesting)
Intentionally or not, this is a joke (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing indicates this "company" is anything more than a single guy putting up a website on a lark, either purely for Slashdot hits or to make a point about the patent system.
I agree. That there is no information about the people involved is the first tip off that this is either a gag or something put together by unscrupulous folks who are looking to obtain security vulnerabilities from nitwits. This is certainly not a legitimate law firm.
"We actively market the IP" is not language a law firm is allow
Microsoft claims.... (Score:2)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Expect to see more of this (Score:4, Insightful)
I frequently post about Intellectual Property in threads like this. Usually I get some responses saying that I'm full of it, and companies wouldn't slash our throats and bleed us dry. I have four words for you:
Are you convinced yet?
There are too many market pressures on monopolizing ideas. A monopoly on an idea gives you an excellent competitive advantage. For some goods, say a book, a copyright is neccessary for you to take a risk and publish the book. For others, it lets you invent things like a cotton gin and make money off of it while being a good citizen and showing the world how it works, and what new technologies you have invented. On the whole, these are to the public's advantage when used wisely.
But a monopoly is always a competitive advantage, even when it isn't in the public's advantage. And currently, business lobbies are pushing to allow more and more kinds of monopolies because they make business sense. Granted, plot patents, business patents, process patents, software patents, copyright on 3 note sequences, etc, etc, etc are not in the public's interest, as we don't carry massive IP portfolios to cross-license or lawyers to fight with. But they do allow large companies to create a massive barrier to entry that only certain industries or monopolies enjoyed before.
There is money to be made in massively expanding the definition of IP to include all ideas. There is more money in eternally owning ideas than in all of the property rights or mineral rights in the solar system. This fight will not be over in our lifetimes.
This is the reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally, anyone attempting to argue whether I practice my own patent may find themselves falling into a logical paradox, as my patent itself implies I cannot practice my patent.
I like it (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it, if this company gets away with it, either, big companies will improve the quality of their software so that they have fewer vulnerabilities in the first place, or they will start to push for weakening software patents. Either way, everybody wins.
This is a much better idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
Patents are a crappy way to lock up the fix for a vulnerability. 10 years from now, it's vanishingly unlikely that your discovery will still be relevant. If it is, you've got better things to do with it than sell it to bottom-feeders.
Here's a better idea: copyright law. Copyright is immediate.
Here's what you do:
Find a vulnerability --- anything; say, memory corruption in some OS service --- and devise a third-party patch for it.
Publish the patch. Only the patch.
But before you do, wrap the patch up in a DRM scheme. An in-kernel, interrupt-hooking virtual machine with an encrypted instruction set should do nicely. It's worth the work; you'll be doing this over and over again. You want people to sweat to figure out how your patch works.
Alert the world to your discovery. You're a hero! You can root any computer on the Internet!
Don't publish the details of the vulnerability. No, wait, don't even allow the details to be published. If anyone figures out how your patch works, sue them under the DMCA. Especially if it's the vendor.
The vendor will, of course, claim they have the right to reverse-engineer your "intellectual property" for security and interoperability purposes. Let the courts decide. In the mean time: nice of them to establish some precedent.
Points to anyone who can prove to me that this doesn't qualify as "responsible disclosure".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I patent a method for writing a patent on a method that can predict what the next patch will be required by any given software product
Macrovision already does it (Score:3, Informative)