Engineer Loses SSL Patent Case against RSA and VeriSign 152
MeanMF writes "eWeek reports that a jury has ruled in favor of the defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by an electrical engineer who clamed rights to a technology used in the SSL protocol. Not only did he lose the case, but next week the jury will rule on whether his patents are valid at all."
Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:3, Insightful)
-----
Stambler filed his suit in February 2001 in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in Wilmington. RSA and VeriSign were not the only defendants; Stambler also sued Openwave Systems Inc., First Data Corp, Omnisky Corp., and later, Certicom Corp. Omnisky later went bankrupt, and the three other companies each settled with Stambler.
-----
Looks like some random "genius" decided he'd make a quick buck on old technology. I'm so sick of this behavior. Anyone remember the Pocket PC fiasco? The guy claimed that MS infringed on his "Pocket PC" which was just a casino style chip that you flip to make decisions. If you don't remember you can read more at http://news.com.com/2100-1023-805115.html?legacy=c net&tag=lthd
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, a Slashbot happy that a patent was upheld?
I'd write more but I want to go look at the pig floating outside my window...
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:1)
Wait, a Slashbot making some lame end-of-world joke involving flying pigs or frozen devils?
Surely you jest!
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
IE can't view MNG (Score:3, Informative)
GIF possibly patented? Well, now we have .png, which is also a superior format.
It's not superior if nobody can view it. Among popular web browsers [libpng.org], only KHTML-based (Konqueror; Safari) and Gecko-based (Mozilla; Netscape) browsers can display the MNG format. The most popular web browser [microsoft.com] supports GIF animations but not PNG animations [libpng.org] out of the box. Thus, to reach the largest audiences, web sites will still serve animated advertisement banners as GIF instead of MNG.
Re:IE can't view MNG (Score:2, Interesting)
So... you're arguing for dropping GIF support, right?
Brilliant! even more effective than Junkbuster.
what animation format do you suggest? (Score:1)
So... you're arguing for dropping GIF support, right?
No, I'm asking what's the best way to deliver small animated images to a web browser without all the overhead of Flash or the patent problems of GIF.
Decompressing LZW data is apparently not covered under the LZW patent. If you remove support for reading GIF images from a web browser you develop, you'll get endless tech support calls from people who claim that "the damn intarweb's busted."
Re:what animation format do you suggest? (Score:2, Informative)
Cher (Score:1)
Not if this bill [kuro5hin.org] passes.
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:3, Insightful)
FYI, you don't need to prove that there isn't prior art out there to get a patent, it's the defendant accused of infringing on the patent that must prove the existence of prior art to get off the hook. This is one of the things that is totally backwards with the patent system, it's the accused one who has to prove his innocence, making it belong more in the dark ages than an enlightened society.
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:1)
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:1)
Re:OGG VORBIS (Score:1)
Re:OGG VORBIS (Score:1)
not for long (Score:2)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:1)
The patents [uspto.gov] (I believe)
Pocket PC trademark (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't a patent issue. The guy was simply claiming that MS was infringing on his trademark rights.
http://www.pdabuzz.com/News/viewnews.cgi?newsid101 0641863,9371, [pdabuzz.com]
Re:Oh boy, not this again.... (Score:2, Informative)
And again, it's Delaware... (Score:2, Funny)
The big question is, when will Delaware clean up its act? Not content to merely keep quiet and maintain a not-unprofitible existence as screen door manufacturer [superiorscreen.com] for the world, Delaware has lately been attempting to hijack the limelight for itself in a series of staged "coincidences" which I believe are too well-planned to have been anything but a massive attempt to gain prestige amongst the other 49 states. Consider, if you will:
Engineer has "patents" which would invalidate the security of the Internet. Where does he go? Delaware.
Marvel Comics, home of Spider-Man, the X-Men, and many other lovable good guys, files for bankruptcy [lubbockonline.com]. Where are they forced to do it? Delaware.
The movie Fight Club. Where's it take place? Delaware.
In an episode of the Cosby Show, Vanessa's car is stolen. In Delaware.
Look, I'm a pretty average guy, not some conspiracy nut. But the evidence speaks for itself: Delaware wants to rule the world. And something must be done. Thank you.
Re:And again, it's Delaware... (Score:1)
Gives a nice twist to the domination theory
Riiiite (Score:1, Insightful)
some big companies. Perhaps he was just trying to make a name for
himself and get noticed for his work.
Re:Riiiite (Score:1)
Now, I know that you are going to say that all of those are because of his case (although the first result is from a different suit...), which proves your point, yadda yadda. Thus, I point you to this Usenet post [google.com], which predates the court case by almost a year.
What is this? (Score:1, Funny)
1: Write free software.
2: ?
3: Read article in eWeek.
4: Profit!
Meanwhile, Jeff Besoz.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, Jeff Besoz.. (Score:1, Flamebait)
and B&N benefits... (Score:2)
I always make sure I let the B&N people know that their "patent behavior", relative to Amazon, is a deciding factor in my chosing to patronize them instead of their competition. Usually, it's some clerk who wouldn't know a patent if they infringed upon one who says, "that's nice", but on occasion a more senior B&N staffer has asked me to elaborate and take note of my input.
Do my lowly few hundred dollars of purchases a year make that much of a difference in B&N's policy? Not bloody likely. But, it costs me nothing to make my position clear, and there is always the slightest chance it might get others (store personel, managers, other customers) to pause and think.
Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
This, I thought was illegal. Owners of patents have an obligation to tell people that they are using licensed technology, and that they have a right to charge a fee.
Re:Patents (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Patents (Score:5, Informative)
Look at Intergraph... CNet news claims (got this from the last posting [com.com] about SCO vs. IBM): "In 2002, Intergraph's income from operations was $10 million, but its net income including legal settlements was $378 million."
Nasty stuff. Anyways, IIRC, Intergraph sued Intel and some other companies because of some kind of architecture design the Pentium used, specifically the system bus. Not sure if that's accurate, but try here [com.com] and here [com.com].
Makes me want to get an arts degree, frankly.
Re:Patents (Score:1)
Re:Patents (Score:4, Informative)
found here [cornell.edu] at section 154.
Cher Patent Extension Act (Score:1)
Be glad it's not like this [kuro5hin.org]:
Re:Cher Patent Extension Act (Score:1)
Re:Patents (Score:2)
It's worth noting that you have to keep paying periodically to keep a patent in effect. Check out the PTO's fee schedule [uspto.gov]...you can lose a patent after as little as 3.5 years if you don't keep forking over the money.
I had a gadget idea (related to the production of homebrew) for which it was recommended that I obtain a patent, but I'm not sure that I could recover the nearly $3500 it'd take to keep a patent in force for 20 years...and that's before you add in attorney fees and other expenses associated with obtaining a patent.
Laches (Score:3, Informative)
You have to defend trademarks, not patents or copyrights. You can sit and let a patent stagnate for 10 years and then sue the balls off everyone later.
If an alleged infringer convinces a U.S. court that a patent holder has harmed competitors by delaying legal action relating to a patent, the court may impose "laches" on him. Laches would mean that he cannot collect damages for infringements that had occurred before the patent holder brought legal action. Precedent states that a delay of at least six years is presumed harmful to competitors.
Re:Laches (Score:2)
Re:Laches (Score:2)
Re:Patents (Score:2)
Nice thought, but no (Score:5, Informative)
There is the doctrine of laches [converium.com], which allow a judge to hold that a patent holder, having allowed a use of their patent to go on without notice, cannot collect damages for use of their patent prior to filing suit, but this in no way invalidates their patent nor does it prevent them from collecting damages if the same defendant should happen to infringe on their patent in the future. (Laches is basically a way of wedging the reasonable "but I didn't know it was a problem" defense into patent law)
And no, IANAL, but I do know how to use Google [google.com] (TM).
Re:Nice thought, but no (Score:1)
IANAL, but I think that in common law, this (using the "I didn't know" defense) works better than in systems based on the Napoleonic code.
Software Simliarities (Score:1)
What probably happened.... (Score:2)
I consider it duress, but what do I know?
Gary
Patent Process... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Patent Process... (Score:2, Funny)
And *then* they decide if the patent is valid?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And *then* they decide if the patent is valid?! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a much higher burden of proof involved to invalidate a patent than there is to show non-infringement. No matter how obvious or stupid a patent is, it is assumed that it had a valid basis for being granted, and it requires very compelling evidence to overturn it.
Re:And *then* they decide if the patent is valid?! (Score:1)
Have you watched The Jerry Springer show lately?
why did the other 3 settle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps patents are becoming the scare factors that derivatives used to be (and still are), where even professionals working in the field can claim in court that they don't understand what's going on and get away with it...
Re:why did the other 3 settle? (Score:1, Informative)
Defending the suit cost RSA and VeriSign over $2 million EACH. That does not include the cost of employee's time.
This is not the first time Stambler has done this type of thing.
No technical person familliar with SSL who has read the document can see how it is covered.
Re:why did the other 3 settle? (Score:1)
This dude can be seen as a modern day Robin Hood, fighting da powe with its own tools. Perhaps if more frivolous lawsuits such as this one would be brought against big firms, corporate America might take notice, laws would be re-written (or simply the existing ones better applied) and stupid patents would stop being awarded.
Re:why did the other 3 settle? (Score:2)
Interesting goof... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Isn't Netscape part of AOL now?
Re:Interesting goof... (Score:2)
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ohhh, ohhh, I've got this really good idea, but rather than do something with it (that involves risk!) I'll just patent it and sit around until some big company does something close enough that I can sue them.
Our legal and "intellectual property" (poverty?) system supports this - that's the news and that's the thing we should work to change.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does that mean successfully market? Have someone pay to use it? Actively market it? Continue development?
See what I mean? A hard term of X years is not subjective and is easy to define and enforce. Your terminology brings a whole new issue to patent enforcement. Plaintiffs would need to prove that they weren't "squatting" on their ideas.
I think a lot of you anti-intellectual property rights people don't really understand how important IP rights are to capitalistic societies. To me, it is anti-property rights and that is scary.
If an idea is too abstract to be owned by a man because truth is "owned" by the universe, then couldn't you make the leap that land cannot be owned by man because land is "owned" by the earth. It's a slippery slope that I don't want any part of.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
No doubt people said something similar when the printing press was invented.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll venture a more serious reply.
Switching gears to a different argument. Being against patent abuse does not mean one is against intellectual property. Being against patent abuse, being in favor of patent reform does not make one against proprietary rights or against property.
Nonetheless, I still think we should really examine just what 'intellectual property' really is.
A patent needs 3 things to qualify. (1) novelty -- it is new and novel, (2) non-obviousness, it is not some idea that anyone would have thought of such as 1 click shopping, (3) I have forgotten the third requirement. Rigtht now an idea no matter how stupid can get patented in spite of the requirements. Maybe a requirement should be added that the idea is NOT a trivial improvement to something already existing.
your sig (Score:1)
Re:your sig (Score:1)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no, I understand your point exactly. Admittedly, what I posted was much more reaction than it was a full exploration of my thoughts on the subject of IP and your very pertinent question.
What is acceptable as "development of a patent" in order to ensure the holder's retention of said patent's rights? That's a very tricky question, but I think it is that question that we should be debating, rather then playing whack a mole with squatter cases and cases in which prior art clearly exists but was not brouht to light at the time of issuance.
Clearly, I do not perceive myself as an IP socialist; I place great value on the importance of intellectual property in our information driven society. Unlike others, I think we need to make changes to existing patent law and practice in order to fine tune for the times.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Good. (Score:2)
In imperfectly-settled systems of land tenure, people will invest substantial amounts of time and money into improving a tract of land, only to have the fruits of their labors taken by previously unknown (and sometimes unknowable) claimants to ownership of the land. This is quite unfair, and acts as a disincentive to progress.
Similarly, the granting of patents on obvious and non-novel 'inventions', and the prevalence of 'submarine' patents (patents granted after years of secrecy) all tend to retard progress by instilling the fear that some patentee will pop out of nowhere and steal the rewards due to real innovators, as opposed to those skilled in paper shuffling.
In essence, the opposition to bogus patents is an affirmation of property rights. The worker should enjoy the fruits of his labor, and not have it stolen from him by the arcane processes of a fusty, hidebound bureaucracy.
Big difference (Score:2)
Now for idea this is dfar more complicated. Many person can posses the same idea, the first person to come with do not loose the idea. it isn't like a physical object, inmformation and idea can be copied at will. Now where the problem comes is that since 100,150 years to ensure developpement and research the various govt saw fit to give a small advantage to the discoverer. And one can argue that this small advantage was enough, but by lobbying and pressuring the industry wants to transform this advantage into a incredible pressure and monopolysation machine. Therein lies the problem with all the IP stuff, what people contest : It should be a balance but it ceased recently to be.
Nevertheless to comes back to your post, NO IP is not like meatspace. Truth cannot be owned for the simple reason that as soon as you spread it you share its apropriation. The only way to "protect" truth and really own it in the litteral science is either 1) abvoid saying it (protection by secrecy) 2) introduce artigfical barrier to spreading like IP law. But both are not natural for social animals like human.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
It seems to better match the constitutional grant for "limited times" than the 20 currently in use.
Can you really tell me you think giving a monopoly for 20 years betters science? How about copyright for 90 years past the death of the author (I think that is what it just got extended to)?
Good Grief, how about something informative? (Score:3, Informative)
Looks more like evidence that the Patent office is owned by money and does not serve individual inventors. How are this man's patents any different from any other BS work protected by that office? Are they even valid? Most importantly, what makes you think he did not do anything with those patents or even needed to?
You don't need to do anything other than put a good faith effort. I could have an idea that would take billions of dollars to implement, it's still mine and the patent office would still grant me protection of that idea for being good enough to share it through them. If the only companies in the world with the kinds of resources to work that patent decided to sit for seventeen years the world is just that much worse off.
Re:Good Grief, how about something informative? (Score:2)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:Good. Tell Macrovision (Score:1)
Tell Macrovision, who patented every way they could think of for breaking their video copy protection system just to be able to keep anyone else from using it.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
So If some genius inventor invents some process for making a new gee-whiz alloy/ceramic/whatever which would say increase the safety while also decreasing weight and production costs of cars significantly - enough to say save car companies a few billion dollars a year. However, in order to move the thing off the lab top and into real production would require a few billion dollars of investment and would also infringe on a few patents held by car manufacturers.
Would the car companies:
A. Buy the rights to the patent for *lots* of money and make the stuff?
B. License their patents to someone (say the inventor) or some company who will make the stuff?
C. Do nothing for 2 years, and have the patent invalidated thus saving *lots* of money and making the stuff themselves a bit later?
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Rather than waste our collective energies decrying the victims of a broken patent system, we should fix and refine the process by which patentees are recognized.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
A couple things to note (Score:2, Informative)
Hopefully they don't play chess (Score:5, Funny)
You can get sued for writing a program like the one above. It's 3 lines of code. No, really guys. It's 3 friggin' lines of code.
Look at it! It's a patent on the fucking EXCLUSIVE OR operation that's standard in every microchip ever made since the 1950s.
THAT, my friends, is why I don't trust patents. You never know how they can be extended.
PLUS they're a large gov't organization that's slow and stagnant. Let the people innovate!
Re:Hopefully they don't play chess (Score:3, Informative)
Moreover, the expired patent does not cover just XOR, it covers a system of which XOR is a part. Such a system as a whole was probably pretty novel in 1978. (Yes, software patents were perhaps too long given the pace of innovation at that time.)
Re:Hopefully they don't play chess (Score:1)
Re:Hopefully they don't play chess (Score:2)
1. Background redraw
In this case, the background is redrawn at each frame and all sprites are drawn over it.
1.1. Partial redraw
Same as 1. but the only areas redrawn are those that where written over via
Re:Hopefully they don't play chess (Score:2)
1. Background redraw
In this case, the background is redrawn at each frame and all sprites are drawn over it.
1.1. Partial redraw
Same as 1. but the only areas redrawn are those that where written over via sprite drawing operations
2. Reversible operations
2.1. XOR.
XOR a shape, reverse the operation by XORing it.
2.2. Buffers.
Copy the area that you are writing to into a buffer. Write. Reverse the operation by copying the buffer back. Note that this is different from 1.1, since *each and every* opearation is reversible. In 1.1. you go back to a 'blank' state by redrawing. Also, for a large number of shapes methods 1. and 1.1. can be much faster than reversible operations.
Pay back? (Score:2)
Should Mr. Stabler reimburse the companies that settled? Does anything say he has to? WIll they come after him for the money? Just a thought.
Re:Pay back? (Score:1)
Perhaps 35 USC or 37 CFR has a similar clause. I am no US legal expert, so I don't know.
The jury will decide... (Score:1)
So why don't we employ a similar method before a patent is awarded?
Think of all the frivolous lawsuits that would be prevented, as well as the absolutely absurd attempts to patent breathing, etc...
Re:The jury will decide... (Score:1)
When RSA and Netscape decided to challenge the patent, they probably spent millions to uncover prior art that would NOW make the patent invalid.
Its not that straightforward.
Fun with patent lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Re:Fun with patent lawyers (Score:2)
Re:Fun with patent lawyers (Score:2)
Congratulations!
You have fallen victim to one of the classic miss-miss quotes.
When read in context,
[spectacle.org]
The characters were describing their vision of utopia
-- this is not a
Re:Fun with patent lawyers (Score:2)
Re:Fun with patent lawyers (Score:1)
More on Stambler (Score:1, Informative)
Not only did the other parties settle, they settled for huge amounts of money. First Data settled [nytimes.com] for $4 million. This, of course is on top of nearly a million dollars in other settlements from other victims, and on top of a $2.6 million settlement for Stambler's previous bogus patent. A nice way to make $7.5 million.
the sad thing is... (Score:2)
The sad thing is that if these patents had been held by a laywer or a big company with a good legal team, they probably would have held up at least long enough for them to generate some revenue. And chances are they would have picked their legal battles more carefully and settled out of court at just the right points to avoid even the risk of invalidation.
Here's the patent, and it isn't as BS as you think (Score:1, Interesting)
Heres the link [uspto.gov]
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not an expert on encryption, but this doesn't sound like a bs patent to me. is it possible that a legitimate inventor got screwed trying to press his claim on a corportation that just doesn't want to pay people for what they've rightfully created?
Re:Here's the patent, and it isn't as BS as you th (Score:2)
Re:Here's the patent, and it isn't as BS as you th (Score:2)
What the patent describes is the use of a public-key cryptosystem to sign a document. That was well-known a decade before the patent was applied for. His patent fails both on obviousness and originality.
Exception to jury case (Score:1)
Is it safe to draw a preliminary conclusion here that these patents of Stambler are really crappy?
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:5, Funny)
You may speak to my attorneys to arrange a use license.
Please don't try to fight this in court. I've patented that. You'll need a license.
The internet infringes on my license for making odd symbols, pointing at them, and grunting as a crude form of communication between any animate object and any other object ( animate or not).
This patent itself merely extends my previous patent on forces between fundmental particles.
Face it, you're hosed.
KFG
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:4, Funny)
Hah! Two weeks ago I patented recursive patents, so it looks like you'll lose now!
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:1)
I knew that human genome project would be good for something.
KFG
Gloating (Score:2)
Contact me offline to arrange payment.
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:2)
Try again. You're violating my patent on claiming to have patents to prevent people from getting patents on things that shouldn't be patentable.
Furthermore, my patent for the use of hypothetical allegories involving hoses for causing disintegration of cells from the contiguous epidermal does not permit you to use the statement, or any statement even vaguely resembling it, "you're hosed" without a substantial licensing fee.
Even moreso, my latest patent revolves around the use of highly specialized invididuals with deep knowledge of lying, moral ambiguity, and ethical barenness (hereafter designated 'lawyer') to extract money from people via accusations of implementations of the obvious (hereafter designated 'patent infringement').
Please see my lawyer to discuss turning over large sums of money for your patent infringement.
Good day, Sir!
Note: I am obviously violating a patent on "Good say, Sir!", but enforcement of your patent requires violating at least one of my patents.
I would pay a judge off to dismiss your patent, but paying a corrupt judge to render such a decision would undoubtedly violate one of amazon.com's patents.
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:1)
Well, it looks like you're sending me to the showers on this one.
May introduce you to my patented (expired) Colt 45? (Although I hold the patent on exothermic chemical reactions, a license for your use of return fire will be taken up by my estate)
KFG
Re:I'm going to patent (Score:1)
I don't think you can patent those two separately like that. You would be better off trying something like "Making a patent on the internet" or "Making a patent by taking something obvious and adding 'on the internet' on the internet".
GEEZ (Score:2)
Can this Jury meet for Gateway (Score:1)
Re:Don't mean to cum off trollish (Score:3, Interesting)
OH Come now.. We all know that Google uses the Pigeon Rank system.
I've said that we should ignore software patents UNTIL all the crap in the system is worked out. We still end up with a few garbage non-software patents...
But how do you prove non-intuitive to a non-computer geek? XOR was 'patented' a while back (in the eighties) as a way of coloring/moving the mouse. The company who got that patent then went to computer expos and simply blackmailed damn near everybody who said they had a gui (and had that negative mouse style).
We need to DISREGARD ALL SOFTWARE PATENTS until this mess is fixed. And yes, that means going through the patent papers and making projects that infringe upon them.
Re:Don't mean to cum off trollish (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yeah, I do. Try looking through some of the software patents. There's a software design patent just recently filed by Apple (why, doesnt copyright already have precidence?), or how about "An innovative way to sell stuff over the internet".
We're ending up with patents on software utilities that normally exist. Companies/people are just applying normal principles to the internet and then slapping a patent on them.
And dont get me wrong. Many of the hardware patents are quite neat and damn near most of them deserve to stay in there. There's a few suckers like "innovative way to swing on swingset", but those are disregarded by judges who can see past that crap.
---I mean, Christ, you're worse than those people at the peace rallies. I showed up to discuss politics and world events with rational intelligent people.
I dont "do" peace rallies. And if you were smart enough to realise, they wernt "peace rallies". They were "I hate the US" rallies.
---Instead, there were like 2 or 3 socialist scumbags who didn't know the different between the White House and White Castle, and they were spewing forth such idiocy thru their megaphones that I just left. I was disgraced.
And guess what? Do you know who paid for all those demonstrations?? Do you? It was the National Communist Party. Now lets see... who's against us in this new war.. Russia. Interesting, dont you say.
---You wanna know why there's no peace? Because the stupidest of the stupid always seem to get the microphone.
I've forgot more than you'll ever know boy. Every situatuion isnt the nice, peachy world you want it to be. And if I'm right, you were one of those peace mongers too, eh?
Re:lawyers knew software patents was a cashcow! (Score:1)