Company Aims To Patent Security Patches

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."

Idiots

[Zeinfeld]

Not only is it certain that the fix would fail to meet the obviousness standard it will be five years before they have a patent issued.

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:Idiots

[richie2000]

I hope the EU sticks to its guns on software patents. . . . we still no have software patents, don't we?

If by "no" you mean in the range of 30-40 000 of them, sure, we have no software patents in the EU. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/untruths/mot her.html [nosoftwarepatents.com]

Intentionally or not, this is a joke

[Infonaut]

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 allowed to use in the US, because law firms are not allowed to obtain legal business from a client then perform marketing services for that same client. "You share in the profits" is also prohibited language, because it implies a guaranteed result, which is prohibited in legal advertising. Discussion of distribution of "profits" from legal activity is also prohibited in US legal advertising.

Combining the technical fix and the legal work under one marketing vehicle is also forbidden under US law. Also, if "Intellectual Weapons" is going to provide services in a variety of countries, where are they licensed? The list of gaping holes in this site goes on. This is a joke, even if it is actually intended to be serious.

Macrovision already does it

[Overzeetop]

Every time the come up with a DRM method, they also patent every circumvention method they can think of. That way, nobody can legally create a "decoder" for their wares. Sneaky, tehy are. It really adds weight to the idea of "produce in commercial quantities or default to statutory licensing set by the government."