Slashdot Log In
Prior Art In Barracuda-Trend Micro Lawsuit
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jun 23, 2008 07:19 PM
from the who-you-callin-a-gateway dept.
from the who-you-callin-a-gateway dept.
Joe Barr writes "Bruce Byfield reports at Linux.com that a Swedish developer, Goran Fransson, has 'given a deposition in the Barracuda-Trend Micro case that appears to seriously undermine Trend Micro's patent on gateway virus scanning.' Gransson has resurrected a product (still in its shrinkwrap) sold by Ten Four, the company he worked for at the time, to prove that it provided gateway virus scanning in January 1995. Trend Micro's patent application was filed in September of that year. If you were — or worked for — a Ten Four customer during 1995, you might be able to help Barracuda prove that Trend Micro's patent omits prior art." We discussed this important patent case when it was filed in January. (Slashdot and Linux.com share a corporate overlord.)
Related Stories
[+]
Trend Micro Sues Barracuda Over Open Source Anti-Virus 200 comments
Anti-virus firm Trend Micro is suing Barracuda Networks over their use of the open source anti-virus product ClamAV. The issue is Trend Micro's patent on 'anti-virus detection on an SMTP or FTP gateway'. Companies like Symantec and McAfee are already paying licensing fees to Trend Micro. Groklaw carries the word from Barracuda that they intend to fight this case, and are seeking information on prior art to bring to trial. Commentary on the O'Reilly site notes (in strident terms) the strange reality of patents gone bad, while a post to the C|Net site explores the potential ramifications for open source security projects. "Barracuda has been able to leverage open source to bring down the cost of security. Early on Barracuda was blocking spam and viruses at roughly 1/10 the price of the nearest proprietary competitor (that was only selling an antivirus solution). Barracuda has helped to bring down prices across the board, and it has been able to do so because of open source. More open source equals less spam and more security. Trend Micro is effectively trying to raise the price of security." Slashdot and Linux.com are both owned by SourceForge.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Gransson... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
did you see the byline? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Why it's important for customers to come forward (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who didn't RTFA:
Fransson's deposition may be enough in itself to torpedo Trend Micro's case and patent. However, he suggests that the next move is to find the remnants of TenFour's American customers.
"I could give general information about how the product was used," he says, "But the details I can't recall. I can't say that this customer used it in this way in 1995. I remember some of the customers I was talking to, but I can't place those phone calls to a specific date or anything like that."
The problem, as he says, is that many of those companies no longer exist, and that many of his contacts have probably moved on in the past 13 years. Still, he remains optimistic. "Anybody who bought the product from the first of January 1995 to September 26th, 1995, and started using the product then -- those are the ones we're interested in getting a hold of."
His testimony alone might well be enough to kill this patent, but it would really be helpful for people who actually used the software to come forward. I'm just not sure there's much incentive for people, so hopefully someone will see the buzz about this case and come forward on principle to stop what Trend Micro has been trying to pull.
Posting to Slashdot was certainly a good way to get attention though. I never used the product, but hopefully one of you out there did!
Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:5, Insightful)
What the article means is that even if the software was suited to do gateway virus scaning, since there is no proof that no one used it that way, then it doesn't count as prior art??
That's like someone using a car to demolish houses by smashing it at high speed against them and claiming that you have patented it as a new device, and since no one used it that way, you have a legit patent.
(complimentary car analogy included for the ease of understanding, i had a better one with a hammer used as a new "masage" device, but you know, cars are so much better)
Parent
Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAPL (I Am Not A Patent Lawyer) so someone else might be able to answer you specifically. I just would like to see as much testimony as possible because I don't necessarily trust the courts to make informed decisions in these cases, as we've seen so many times. Basically, the more the merrier! It doesn't hurt to provide a huge preponderance of evidence.
Parent
Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be the case that "obvious" was considered to mean "somebody did it or talked about it already" instead of meaning, well, "obvious". Before this was corrected (fairly recently, I believe there were a couple of articles here), what you're saying would have been correct. Now, they can argue about obviousness and probably win. But there's a second requirement where you can't patent something that someone else invented long enough previously. Determining this is much more clear-cut that determining wh
Patents are broken (Score:2)
In other words - if you want to encourage innovation by giving monopolies, you should only give monopolies for really hard/nonobvious stuff, stuff that other people would have taken many more years to come up with. If you
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, if you really want to encourage innovation, patents should only be granted if you can be certain that if the invention was kept secret nobody else is likely to come up with it in the next X years where X is say half the length (10 years?) of the patent monopoly (20+ years?).
Some of the best ideas in history have been simple ones which, as soon as you hear them, you think "Now why didn't I think of that?".
Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Because most people are stupid (or not innovative). And all these stupid people apply for patents which are approved by equally stupid patent examiners.
"Even if you put that to one side, how the devil do you demonstrate that your specific innovation is unlikely to be thought up independently by anyone else at some point in the next 10 years?"
As I said, that's why prizes are
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I think patents as they stand are OK, I just think there's a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no proof that no one used it that way, then it doesn't count as prior art??
I am confused by your wording a little, but assuming I understand correctly, my answer is no, if the product existed prior, then we don't need proof that anyone used it. There are tons of patents of things people haven't or will ever use, so I think it's safe to say usage is not a factor.
I think the problem though is in determining the exact date, and if they have issues proving the date of their invention (missing documents, lack of evidence), then maybe they are resorting to finding those who purchased t
Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:2)
I didn't know it was necessary to prove usage in a particular way to kill a patent. The logic seems off to me, if he can prove he has a certain product that did a specific thing before 1995 (and I'm certain he can resurrect a few 1995-era computer boxes and operating systems (Windows 95 or NT 3.5, DR-DOS 7, Novell Netware 4)).
If you really have to prove usage, the patent system would be really off (well it already is, but further than you can imagine) since to get a patent and file a lawsuit you only need t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that it is necessary to prove usage. However the filing date is not the same thing as the priority date. The filing date is a 'default' value for the priority date; if the inventor kept a good notebook on when his idea occurred it may well be possible to establish a priority date early enough to eliminate this prior art candidate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
also, international laws differ, but i believe in the US you have 1 year from the da
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when I was actively patenting things I used keep such a notebook. But my understanding is that it is not the actual notebook that is important, but rather the existence of corroborating evidence outside the inventor's own testimony. The notebook is simply a means of establishing this evidence as a routine process that companies frequently inflict on their technical people.
So if Trend has evidence prior to the filing, such as a lawyer's record of starting the application process it should not be hard t
Re:Why it's important for customers to come forwar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine the bastards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Obviously bogus" is a standard legal test. Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not. At least, you haven't given any indication of knowing. If by "nonsensical" you mean predated by prior art, it would seem hard to prove that they should/did know of the prior art's existence.
Fact is, litegation between two parties who care reduces the cost of patent appro
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not.
Yes he does if he is an expert in the field. In fact this is the only group which can say whether a patent is obvious, despite what self-serving patent parasites might like to claim.
A large part of the patent problem are completely unproductive patent lawyers and bureaucrats claiming to act as gatekeepers for all of technology. Parasitic middlemen in other words. I'd like to use stronger language.
---
A neurotic is the
patents and obviousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact is, you have no way of knowning if it is a nonsensical patent claim or not.
Yes he does if he is an expert in the field. In fact this is the only group which can say whether a patent is obvious
Having experts review patents would help, the problem with this though is the costs. An expert in the field would make more money working in the field than they would as an examiner. Patent application fees could be raised but this could have the adverse effect of preventing people from patenting. There is a solution though. First disallow software patents, software is already protected by copyright. Secondly have patents terms last only a short tyme, say 5 to 7 years. After that if the patent holder wants to keep the patent then require them to pay a royalty, the first five year extension would cost say 5% of the average of revenue the product had generated the first five years. For a second five year extension they'd have to pay say a 15% royalty. Patent holders can then decide whether it's worthwhile to keep a patent or release it.
Another way to reform the patent system is to require patent holders to release a product utilizing the patents within a couple of years of the issue of them. They could either release the product themselves or license the patent to someone else who has released a product. If within 2 years if a product is not released the patent is released to the public, ie put in the public domain.
Notice when talking about keeping a patent I said a royalty on the revenue the product made not on the profit. By using revenue instead of profit, they couldn't use Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org]. Then with a product needing to be released you avoid patent trolls.
FalconParent
Re: (Score:2)
But this system still won't help to sink patent trolls, moreso it would actually give an incentive to patent trolls:
File or buy Patent A, but then don't have any revenue on it, because this is taxed. Better wait for another one to get successful with an infringing product and then demand $$$ for infringment. Taxes on patents related to revenue are a boon to submarine patents.
(On the other hand taxes which aren't related to revenue are a problem for small companies with minimal revenue because they wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
An expert in the field would make more money working in the field than they would as an examiner.
Yes, it's generally a more productive use of an expert's time to create something rather than assess/control some other expert's something, hence they're paid more.
First disallow software patents, software is already protected by copyright.
I'd take it further. Disallow patents (ie. interference by the government in the citizen's business) for all areas where it cannot be scientifically justified that p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, that'd fix the patent system.
So if I come up with something in my shed at home, apply for a patent and succeed, then "Big $ Patent Trolls R Us" find some prior art in their extensive portfolio, they could sue me into oblivion, tear down my workshop, spit in my breakfast cereal and have me locked up for failure to pay punitive damages. I would of course feel that to be entirely justified bec
Re: (Score:2)
There are a variety of patent fraud statutes already.
software patents (Score:2)
Know what would stop these nonsensical patent claims? Massive punitive damages.
A better way to stop them is to bar software patents.
FalconRe: (Score:2, Insightful)
A virus is a virus. Scanning for one happens on a computer of sorts. What does it matter if I scan my files, your files, or files I have yet to send to you?
It doesn't deserve a patent because it's like patenting "X... on a computer", "X... on the internet", or "Virus Scanning... on a gateway".
The idea that anyone thinks this is patentable, in any form, is such a major joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a patentable idea right now: A device which tracks fitness performance via estimated calories burned, on the Internet. Rig an exercise bike, treadmill, or pedometer to a Web application. Nevermind we have tools for this in the real world (i.e. the software in said equipment), and methods for aggregating all of it together (balance sheet).
Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't blame the patent examiner on this one there is only between 8 hrs (most experienced) to 16 hrs (least experienced) to find prior art and then reject all the claims (time is not adjusted for extra claims). The largest source of prior art for an examiner is prior patents which for software/business methods it is lacking. The secondary source is non-patent literature or anything else you can find and I doubt there is barely even a trace of the program existing on the internet today. In fact based on the issue date (1997) the patent examiner may have only had old patents available in filing cabinets and whatever books he had! I mean 1997 I was still in HS logging onto the internet on 28.8, and surfing the web through lynx and there was no google.
Think of examiners as gate-keepers. Some things may slip through, but the bad patents will get mowed down by companies that can hire 5 people to search for 5 weeks.
Re:Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps if software patents were immediately outlawed, we'd solve this particular problem. Because the US and some other countries have so stupidly decided to allow the patenting of this sort of thing, we have absurd cases like this.
As it stands, I knew a number of BBSs back in the late 1980s and early 1990s who were doing virus scans on files uploaded. Pretty much had to do. The only difference was that the transport protocol was X, Y, or Zmodem or Kermit. For all intents and purposes, TCP/IP is not really all that different than Zmodem, so there we have it, a gateway to a private network with virus scanning, probably at least four or five years prior to this.
I'll even go further and say that Trend Micro likely knew this, unless their software engineers were mental retards, so the company should be fined a few million bucks and banned for a decade from even calling the US Patent Office. They're intentionally trying to claim a patent on a concept that was years older than their crappy software.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I was still in HS logging onto the internet on 28.8, and surfing the web through lynx and there was no google.
In 1997, I was in college, had a Cable Modem and surfed the Web using a graphical browser which had already been the norm for quite a couple of years (I remember being on the net in 95 with Trumpet Winsock, Windows 3.1 and Netscape 2.XX). I used Yahoo or Altavista as a search engine and while there were others (hotbot comes to mind), those were the principal ones.
You make it sound as if there barely was an Internet at that time while the Internet was already a very rich network by 1997.
Re:Please don't blame the patent examiner (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If poor college undergrads constantly call you on the phone just to sell you crap you wouldn't blame them? They're just doing their job.
The system is broken at every level. Blaming everyone involved in it at every level is a good first step to getting it shut down entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't blame the patent examiner on this one
Why not? He's taking home a paycheck on what is basically a fraudulent activity, claiming to assess prior art when it's humanly impossible with the resources he has at his disposal.
His negligence has directly created a multi-million (?) dollar lawsuit. At the very least he should be fired. With a rational legal system it would've been possible to sue him for damages as well so that he does not have a perverse incentive to abuse the system.
The whole idea of
Usenet Announcement Post 15 Feb 1995 (Score:4, Informative)
Usenet Tue, 25 Oct 1994 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Where's the 'art'? (Score:2)
I'm just curious... Where is the 'art'? Maybe there is a form of 'art' that I am unaware of, or maybe the term is being loosely applied for convenience. Whats the definition and what the hell are we talking about here?
Re:This is absurd. BBS anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the way prior art works. Patents cover methods, not ideas. So a method that applies an old idea to a new situation can indeed be patentable. If you work for IBM, or some other company that has a bonus scheme for patent filing, one way to come up with shit to get patented is simply to make a list of all the new technologies out there and figure out how to apply old ideas using them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to the broken patent system.
Why do you think so many things have clocks in them?
Re:other prior art... (Score:5, Informative)
They do publish source [barracudanetworks.com]. On that page, I found a link to the complete source [barracuda.com] of their Linux distribution.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I would suspect Barracuda want someone give evidence that the product did in fact implement a technique similar enough to the claimed patent and also to show that there was a real shipped product associated with the box.
I guess there are just too many vapourware products out there!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically speaking, that's like a monkey speaking French. It's pure frivolity to even suggest.
Unless it's a cheese-eating surrender-monkey, of course.