Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

IBM Applies for Password Manager Patent 247

Posted by CmdrTaco from the isn't-that-special dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As of August 21, IBM has applied for a patent on "A convenient and secure system and method for access to any number of password-protected computer applications, web sites and forms without adding to the user cognitive load and without circumventing the inherent security of such password-protection schemes. An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required." This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Applies for Password Manager Patent More

IBM Applies for Password Manager Patent

Comments Filter:

  • Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @11:59AM (#7429045) Journal
    This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password".
    Or from Apple's "Keychain." Or even from Gator, for that matter...

    • Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

      by Neophytus ( 642863 ) * on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:05PM (#7429079)
      Just remember, the only thing the USPTO considers as prior art are previous patents, until the said patent challenged in the courts.

      • Re:Prior art (Score:5, Interesting)

        by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:32PM (#7429227)
        the only thing the USPTO considers as prior art are previous patents, until the said patent challenged in the courts.

        Not true at all. The USPTO does dog food as a preference, but if you try to patent something and include references to scientific literature in the patent, it is quite likely that the examiner will turn around and use those references against you.

        • Re:Prior art (Score:3, Informative)

          by jfengel ( 409917 )
          Seconded. I spent forever explaining how my work was different from the references that I provided, which he understood incompletly. (But I give him huge props for reading them at all, since they're highly technical and involved.)

          That was rather frustrating, since he'd likely never have found those references if we didn't include them, when compared to some of the patent silliness I read on Slashdot.

        • Re:Prior art (Score:2, Funny)

          by JamesP ( 688957 )
          but if you try to patent something and include references to scientific literature in the patent, it is quite likely that the examiner will turn around and use those references against you.

          That's why they will only patent things with no scientific literature, like Healing Pyramids and stuff...

      • Re:Prior art (Score:5, Informative)

        by zieroh ( 307208 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:01PM (#7429351)
        This "fact", while oft-repeated, is unfortunately completely untrue. The patent office may not do a stellar job of investigating for prior art, but technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.

        Please stop repeating this falsehood.

        • Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

          by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:42PM (#7429566)
          technically any prior art, patented or not, counts.

          No, only published prior art. If you secretly invented it, didn't reveal this to the public, but still can somehow prove it... it won't invalidate the patent.

          One time, for example, a student came up with an invention and turned it in for a grade in college. Later on someone else filed for a patent on the same idea. Hearing about this, the college dug out the graded paper from their records, and got everyone involved to swear as to it's veracity. The USPTO acknowledged that yes, the student had invented it first, but the patent would still go to someone else.

          • Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @03:46PM (#7430003)
            No, only published prior art. If you secretly invented it, didn't reveal this to the public, but still can somehow prove it... it won't invalidate the patent.

            You have the first part wrong. Prior art need not be published for it to be used to invalidate a patent. The prior art only needs to be "known." See 35 USC 102 [cornell.edu], particularly subsection (a).

            A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,...

            The reason the student's paper is not prior art is not because it wasn't published, but rather because it was secret, and therefore not legally "known" by others in the patent law sense.

          • Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:40PM (#7431285)
            This is FALSE. I guess all you gotta do on slashdot to get modded up is _sound_ authoritative. I wish modders would verify facts before modding people up.

            Phil Farnsworth was awarded patent rights to using CRT as the mechanism for electronic television based on some scribble he had made in high school as a 14 year old.

            Patents are granted for first to invent, not first to publish.
            On the other hand if you invent something and dont patent it within one year, you lose the rights to patent it (that is, nobody will get the patent).
        • That may be so, technically. And if you challenge the patent holder in court, you can probably win on that basis. But this doesn't imply that the USPTO checks. And rather than saying The patent office may not do a stellar job of investigating for prior art it would be more correct to say they do a stellar job of not investigating (etc.). Some claim that they do a reasonable search within their own files, but there are a number of patents that call even this timid assertion into question.

        • Re:Prior art (Score:4, Informative)

          by WEFUNK ( 471506 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:49PM (#7431022) Homepage
          Not only are non-patents allowable as prior art, but many companies actually publish technical disclosure documents specifically to serve as prior art for things that they're not interested in patenting or don't feel that they could get a patent in but want to make sure nobody tries to pull a stunt.

          IBM is famous for publishing many thousands of these, which are frequently cited by both inventors and patent examiners as prior art, and frequently wielded by IBM to quash bogus patents.

          The old IBM Patent server [ibm.com], which later became Delphion [delphion.com], originally provided access to the IBM technical disclosure bulletins as well as US patents. They are now searchable for free at the IP.com Prior Art Database [priorartdatabase.com] along with disclosures from a number of other large companies. I've only just found out about it, but apparently you can only view summaries and have purchase full documents or to perform advanced searching, but it appears like a useful resource. Also easily browsable by month, which is kinda neat.

          I'm sure someone could find an example otherwise (or even has their own horror story), but as I understand it, IBM is probably the one big tech company least guilty of abusing the patent system. Sure, they make a lot of money off of licensing and have been known to throw their weight around from time to time, but they usually seem to play relatively fair unless they're put on the defensive.

      • Nonsense! Repetition does not make it true. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by werdna ( 39029 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:24PM (#7429489) Journal
        This canard, repeated in Slashdot with the frequency of a Bush press release on Fox News, just isn't the case. It does not become more true upon repetition.

        Prior art is defined by statute, and the USPTO has no discretion to distinguish between patent and non-patent prior art. The USPTO searches not only the corpus of patent art, but also many commercial and generally available databases of non-patent prior art. Patent claims are frequently (and in some cases famously) refused in view of non-patent prior art.

        Singificantly, if you are aware of patent prior art for a published application, there are vehicles by which you may make the art a matter of record. Finally, if a patent issues with respect to which you are aware of prior art (patent or non-patent) raising a substantial new question of patentability, you may either file yourself or bring it to the attention of the Commissioner who may, in his discretion, bring his own reexamination proceeding. Again, patents have been rescinded famously in view of non-prior art in this manner as well (Compton's for example).
        • It's repeated so often because the evidence makes it seem true. Perhaps the USPTO is behaving illegally, but we have no grounds to sue them. (And anyway, you can only sue the feds if they agree to allow you to. It's in the constitution.)

          It would only be legitimately called a canard if it were false, e.g., if I said they never checked any sources for prior art. I'm sure they must. Probably.

          • Naive and foolish (Score:5, Informative)

            by werdna ( 39029 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @05:51PM (#7430483) Journal
            You may continue to believe what you read on Slashdot all you like, but it just isn't so. Read some patents, read the citations, and note that you will find cited non-patent prior art. How do you think that gets there? By accident?

            And, by the way, there are a kazillion remedies available to you if the USPTO issues a bad patent short of full-scale litigation. If you actually have killer prior art, just file for reexamination, and it would be a matter of course.
      • First off, you're wrong, as many other posters have been quick to tell you.

        Secondly, everybody seems to be missing the point that IBM has had this technology for over 6 years. So your prior art has to be older than that.

    • I don't think you know what prior art means... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) * on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:12PM (#7429119)
      Prior art does not mean something generically related. For example, just because lawnmowers have been around forever, doesn't mean that I can't patent a new type of lawnmover. As an example, look at the weedwacker. Lawnmowers existed before it was invented, however, the weedwacker was a new type of lawnmower and, I believe, patentable.

      So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.

      • So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.

        No, they don't. Because their description is exactly what Apple's Keychain does. Just replace "wallet" with "keychain" in this passage from IBM's own description of their system:

        "An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required."

        The Keychain has been around since System 7 Pro, which dates back to October of 1993 or thereabouts. [ucsb.edu] Whether Apple patented it or back then not, I don't think they'll have any choice but to contest this IBM patent attempt-- because if it goes through, Apple will have to pay licensing fees to IBM to continue using Keychain in OS X.

        ~Philly

        • The Keychain has been around since System 7 Pro, which dates back to October of 1993 or thereabouts. Whether Apple patented it or back then not, I don't think they'll have any choice but to contest this IBM patent attempt-- because if it goes through, Apple will have to pay licensing fees to IBM to continue using Keychain in OS X.

          Not quite true. As has already been pointed out, the issue of a patent by the USPTO does not mean that the patent is enforcable. Apple might very well be able to prove that t

        • come on.
          everybody knows that this is SCO's IP, and that you should pay them $699 to use it.

        • Actually read the claims... (Score:5, Informative)

          by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:58PM (#7429637) Journal

          If you actually read the patent application [216.239.41.104], you'll see that they are patenting something much more narrow than you think.

          IBM is attempting to patent a UI hack that will detect a signon request from a website or other application, and superimpose their master signon dialog. They are NOT attempting to patent the ideas that are covered by Keychain or Mozilla's autofill. By superimposing their own "widget" exactly where the application specific logon would be, this master signon system preserves the flow of the application UI.

          By comparison, the Keychain and autofill solutions can be more intrusive, and can be less secure. IBM's master signon would be entered every time I need to signon. I'd only need to remember one password. By comparison, Keychain and autofill don't require one to log into each application. An office worker can walk away from their desk without locking their screen saver and someone can use their accounts.

          • Sounds like a Trojan Horse to me.

            So the user thinks they are typing their password into site XYZ's mega secure web site, when they are actually typing it into IBM's not so secure widget? What are the consequences when this 'password widget' gets cracked? The user is not aware of even the possibility of a crack because they are not aware the widget exists.

            Not to mention the possibilities for a virus/worm installing its own version of a 'password widget', which the user will again not be aware of.

          • Whether IBM's or Keychain's is less secure is relative to one's paranoia. An office worker who walks away without locking their computer is probably the same kind that either uses an easy-to-guess password, or has that master password on a sticky note on their monitor. Both systems allow people to use complex passwords online without having to remember them, and both can be foiled from physical access and poor training.

            A thought also occurs to me - both could also allow the system administrators to set

    • Re:Prior art (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JamesTRexx ( 675890 )
      And Microsoft's Passport thing? Isn't it meant to include that functionality as well?
    • I use Roboform myself. It's better than Gator, and has no spyware.
    • The real question is how to fix the patent system. IBM (ie. PA Fritz Teufel) pressures for EU software patents. up to now they were successfully defeated. However, in order to gain ground we have to expand the European Campaign to the USA. And there it is up to you, create an initiative that puts pressure on the patent system with assistance of your FTC.

      We can support you, bring the software patent war home!

      http://www.noepatents.org [noepatents.org]
      http://wiki.ael.be [wiki.ael.be]
      http://swpat.ffii.org [ffii.org]
      http://softwarepatents.co.uk [softwarepatents.co.uk]
    • Or Kerberos for all I care.

  • Who do we like today? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:01PM (#7429050)
    SCO story... YAY IBM

    Patent story... BOO IBM

    do we like Apple today too? or is this an anti apple day? it's hard to keep up

    • Re:Who do we like today? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Servo ( 9177 ) <dstringf@tut[ ]ta.com ['ano' in gap]> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:04PM (#7429069) Journal
      I think its fair to be able to criticize and praise companies for individual things they are doing or having done to them. SCO suing IBM is bad, but IBM trying to patent existing technology is bad too. What's so hard to see?

    • Re:Who do we like today? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bug-eyed monster ( 89534 ) <bem03NO@SPAMcanada.com> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:09PM (#7429101)
      I would say...

      SCO Story... BOO SCO and the American judicial system for allowing to let this farce go on for so long

      Patent Story... BOO USPTO for allowing American corporations to behave like this.

      Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

      • Re:Who do we like today? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:34PM (#7429237)
        That is how campaign financing works. Corporations finance politicians' campaigns, corporations get to write the laws.

        Having said that, SCO's abuse of the legal system is of a completely different order to IBM's (attempted?) abuse of the Patents system here. SCO are committing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.

        • Re:Who do we like today? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn.earthlink@net> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:56PM (#7429627)
          IBM is using the patent system in the way it is currently designed to be used. It would only become abuse if they tried to enforce the patent on someone rather than just holding it so that it couldn't be used against them.

          That said, this is a really vile game, that only benefits the big players. But IBM didn't start it. And IBM hasn't been particularly viscious about it. (I'm told that they *do* collect a lot of money on patent royalties, but I haven't heard of them trying to put companies out of business [bar SCO].)

      • Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

        Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.

        These are different situations, since restricting corporations might not always be a good thing, yet giving them power is always decidedly bad.

        And the whole government is not to blame for these issues; merely the USPTO and often the judicial branch.

        • But it has handed them something. Patents (and IP) don't exist as a fundamental right, they're a wholly synthetic creation designed to benefit science and engineering.

          • I'd say the patent office has handed corporations quite a bit.

            Patents are good when they protect the little guy from the big guy, and they even make sense for corporationsn at times.

            In my opinion, the problems come when people patent the digital equivalent of eating cereal with milk. A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.

        • Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.

          Corporations are institutions completed created by the government. They have no inherent rights or powers aside from what the government has given them, so it seems to me that not restricting them is the exact same thing as giving them power.
          • Corporations are institutions completed created by the government.

            Nope.

            They have no inherent rights or powers aside from what the government has given them

            One could argue that humans have no inherent rights or powers aside from what their government allows. Does that mean that humans are "institutions completely created by the government?"

            so it seems to me that not restricting them is the exact same thing as giving them power.

            I just don't agree with your two premises, therefore I cannot accept your

    • Patent story... BOO IBM

      IBM is one of the few companies that I don't mind holding patents, at least for now. Their method for enforcing patents is waiting to get sued by someone and then busting out a nice portfolio of patents the other people are infringing on and saying, "Lets call this a day, shall we?"

      As long as they keep doing that, them patenting everything is better than Amazon or countless others.

    • Just make an opinion check (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:19PM (#7429161) Journal
      Here's how you do it: First, select which company it is from the first chart. Then apply any of the modifier from the second chart. Roll a d20. If you can beat that DC, then we like that company. If you fail, you hate that company.

      Comanies:
      SCO: DC 30
      IBM: DC 10
      Microsoft: DC 20
      Amazon: DC 15
      MPAA / RIAA: DC 30
      Apple (If you use Macs): DC 5
      Apple (otherwise) : DC 15
      RedHat: DC 5
      Disney: DC 15
      US Government: DC 20
      Other Government: DC 10


      Modifiers:
      Is switching to linux: -20
      Is switching from linux: +15
      Is going after Microsoft: -10
      _____ vs. SCO : -20
      Files a BS patent: +10
      Is being investigated by the US government for anti-trust or Fraud: -5

      In this case, we have IBM, a DC 10 check. We add a +10 Filing BS patent modifier, and we realize that we'll have to roll a natural 20 to make this check. I rolled a 18, so while I come close to supporting them, I just can't and decide to waste a bunch of my time making these charts instead.

      • "Apple (If you use Macs): DC 5
        Apple (otherwise) : DC 15

        Modifiers:
        Is switching to linux: -20
        Is switching from linux: +15
        Is going after Microsoft: -10
        _____ vs. SCO : -20
        Files a BS patent: +10
        Is being investigated by the US government for anti-trust or Fraud: -5        "
        Makes crappy computers that break a lot: +50

        Okay... I have Apple, a DC 5 check. They're not really going to or from Linux. They make OpenFirmware computers and support many of the same APIs, so we'll give them the -20 anyway. They're pretty

  • ah crap... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 )
    Is IBM evil now, or still good. I need someone to root for in the whole SCO thing, but now that they're pulling patent BS like amazon, I don't know what I should do.
    • Is IBM evil now, or still good.

      There's nothing evil about applying for frivilous patents. If the USPTO is stupid enough to grant such patents (and we all know it is), go for it.

      What's evil, however, is enforcing such patents. But there is another side to the same coin - if enough idiotic patents are enforced, perhaps, just perhaps, people will start seeing that the system doesn't make any sense. And when the patents are used to attack annoying companies like SCO, all the better.

  • Novell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jrwillis ( 306262 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:05PM (#7429074) Homepage
    This is also seen in Novell's "Secure Sign-on".

    • Re:Novell (Score:3, Informative)

      by malraid ( 592373 )
      Maybe you are talking about single sign-on? Secure sign-on is basically the idea that your authentication goes encrypted over the wire (RSA encryption). And by the way, single sign-on is diferent. You only have one password, and all services check a single database (NDS). This is like using LDAP as the authentication backend of several services. Single sign-on has another nice feature, that authentication can happen on the background, so you don't have to retype your user/pass everytime you use a service.

  • Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by servoled ( 174239 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:05PM (#7429080)
    Please try to remember that the abstract of a patent doesn't mean a single thing legally. It is just a short summary of the invention, nothing more. The claims are the only part of the patent that has any legal power, and since the poster failed to actually link to the patent or give us the patent number it is hard to say what this patent would cover.

    Also try to remember that a patent is for a specific implemenation of an invention and does not cover the general idea of the invention itself. If this were granted it would be possible to come up with your own implementation for password management and not be infringing on the patent.

    • Please try to remember that the abstract of a patent doesn't mean a single thing legally.

      Not to mention that this is merely a patent application which could claim the sun, moon and stars as a starting point for negotiations as to what the issued patent would cover.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:18PM (#7429150)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Also try to remember that a patent is for a specific implemenation of an invention and does not cover the general idea of the invention itself.

      Wrong: a patent is precisely for protection of an idea. A patent application contains a detailed description of the "preferred embodiment" of said invention, but the key word is preferred. Other embodiments that perform the same thing are still violations if the claims are broad enough. If the patent contains a claim that covers a system that uses a master pass

      • It is true that the specification covers a preffered embodiement of the invention. However, the claims themselves do not cover the general idea as I originally said. The claims will cover the basic steps/parts of what they believe their invention to be. Granted, this is broader in scope than the preffered embodiment described in the specification, but it still only covers a specific implementation of the general idea.

        For example, here the general idea is password management. If this patent were granted

        • However, the claims themselves do not cover the general idea as I originally said.

          Again, it depends on how broad the claim is. If you got a patent on a steam engine that contained a broad claim about converting steam into mechanical motion, then whether you generate steam by burning wood or coal or whatever, or move up/down or back/forward along rails, is irrelevant: you are in violation. The job of a patent attorney is to get the broadest claims possible to cover as much as possible, including methods

          • If a claim were written as "a method of converting steam into mechanical motion" it would be rejected under 35 USC 112 which states:

            The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

            You can't write claims which leave out important steps or parts in the invention you are trying to patent. In the above example the claim would have to have a part about some manner of transistion between

      • The outline of the idea, however, is as given in the claims, which need to be sufficiently specific to allow a working implementation to be produced based on the description. This is because the point of the patent office is to make the techniques necessary to make an invention work commonly known (patens), as the price of giving the inventor the right to limit implementations of the techniques. This is to contrast with trade secrets, where the inventor gets no protection from the law, but does not have to
        • The outline of the idea, however, is as given in the claims, which need to be sufficiently specific to allow a working implementation to be produced based on the description.
          No: the preferred embodiment description prior to the claims does that. The claims themselves don't have to describe how to make an implementation.
    • Well the claims are sometimes very broad, for instance "Systems and methods for buying and selling legal services via a network"
      Claims:
      [..] A computer-implemented method for procuring legal services, comprising: receiving a service request including information reflecting a type of legal service; determining from a set of service providers a select group of service providers capable of satisfying the service request based on stored information associated with the set of service providers, the stored informa

  • Bruce Schneier did this a long time ago (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:06PM (#7429085)
    and he called it "Password Safe".

  • Not necessarily bad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PoiBoy ( 525770 ) <brian@poihol[ ]gs.com ['din' in gap]> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:09PM (#7429098) Homepage
    Think of it this way. You could have IBM apply for this patent, or you could have some less scrupulous company. For all intents and purposes, IBM will never make a penny from this patent. Moreover, IBM is more likely to allow others to use this technology without filing patent infringement suits than some other company like amazon.com with its one-click shopping.

    Said another way, IBM having the patent just prevents some VC-backed cyber squatter patent the idea and then demand royalties from everyone under the sun.

    • Moreover, IBM is more likely to allow others to use this technology without filing patent infringement suits than some other company like amazon.com with its one-click shopping.

      Unless you piss them off, then they let the lawyers loose like they're doing to SCO.

    • You could have IBM apply for this patent, or you could have some less scrupulous company.

      Or you could work to inform people about people about the problem with so-called software patents thus helping them understand why nobody should have them.

      IBM is more likely to allow others to use this technology without filing patent infringement suits than some other company like amazon.com with its one-click shopping.

      Just because you may avoid an infringement lawsuit doesn't mean you are being helped. Cros

  • More prior art at Bell-Labs - 2002 (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:11PM (#7429111) Journal
    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html

    The Fourth Edition of Plan 9 includes a substantially reworked security architecture, described in the USENIX Security 2002 conference paper [html [bell-labs.com], ps, pdf] by Russ Cox, Eric Grosse, Rob Pike, Dave Presotto, and Sean Quinlan.

    One particular aspect that other operating systems may wish to adopt is our single-signon solution. A process called factotum is used to hold credentials like passwords and public/private keypairs and perform cryptographic operations. Factotum allows clients to speak a variety of cryptographic protocols and therefore legacy application servers can participate in our single-signon system without change and without even knowing it exists.

    The factotum has no direct permanent storage, but rather fetches credentials at startup from a secstore server on the network. To authenticate safely with the secstore, Password Authenticated Key-exchange is used; this implies that the user just has to remember and type one password and passive eavsdroppers or even active malicious intermediaries can not launch even a dictionary attack against the system. The credentials are encrypted for storage on secstore, so even an administrator there would have difficulty reading them.

  • Responsibility (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:11PM (#7429114)
    The person who allowed the patent at the patent office should personally be responsible for any prior art they find afterwards. This person should be obligated to eat a copy of all specifications of prior art available. Either they would learn to appreciate and to digest cellulose or they would take a closer look at the papers they sign.

  • STOP! STOP! (Score:3, Funny)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:13PM (#7429130)
    [sarcasm]

    The innovation is killing me!

    [/sarcasm]

  • Useful reminder (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buddha42 ( 539539 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:20PM (#7429171)
    Stuff like this is good for us /.'ers once in awhile. It helps us snap out of the whole 'ibm-is-a-good-guy/on-our-side' romanticism. There are parts of IBM who's goals line up with ours very well, and there are parts that don't even come close. IBM is too big and diversified to have any sort of character assigned to it.

  • read more carefully (Score:4, Informative)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @12:28PM (#7429206)
    they are talking more about the user interface....

    A password field pops up in an application. their software pops up a dialog right over top, and asks you for the master password. It then finds your password and fills in the box.

    visually, it makes more sense.
  • Since our patent system is archaic and in the need of a overhaul I think IBM's motivation here might be to secure a defensive patent so that if they deploy said system than some yahoo, sensing deep pockets, does not come out of the woodwork try to collect a huge licencing fee.

    I am sure MS wish they would have filed for a patent for extending their own browser. I would not doubt that it never occurred to them that such an obvious next step was patentable.

  • I fail to see how it's different from SASL and Kerberos.
  • Remember, IBM has a huge patent portfolio and probobly owns patents to toms of stuff that is in widespread use, but doesn't bring out the guns except against companies like SCO. Hopefully this will be another of those.

    Of course if they enforce it i'll be pissed
  • As much as i despice patents on methods of accomplishing common tasks like theese i rather see a patent like this in the hands of IBM than to be bitchslapped by Microsoft with it. IBM has shown themselves quite understanding about the hows and whys of open source and wouldn gain anything by using it against OS. Commercial companies on the other hand should beware.

    Whether or not we like patents it is rather nice having the company with the most patents in the industry on our side.

    And i dont think IBM is ev

  • This seems to fit a pattern... (Score:4, Informative)

    by hansendc ( 95162 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:08PM (#7429380) Homepage
    Other patents by the same person [uspto.gov]

    They seem to include such revolutionary ideas as scroll bars [uspto.gov] and window resizing [uspto.gov]

  • Read the claims... (Score:4, Informative)

    by smeenz ( 652345 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:13PM (#7429414) Homepage
    From the google cache of the patent claims: [216.239.41.104]

    Points 10 - 13 explain what it is they are 'inventing' that is different from existing schemes. They list IE's auto complete, and say it has a failing in that anyone using the computer can autocomplete the form (thus it is not very secure), they mention quicken having a very similar method of requiring one master password to complete any password diaglog, but say that it is not ideal because the API is closed for quicken's exclusive use.

    The crux of their solution is that they want to make a generic API that allows their 'invention' to provide a password where requested to any application, browser window or similar.

    Of course, as other people have already pointed out, this too has already been done. Novell's single-signon pops to my mind, and I'm sure a lot of other people have done this as well.

  • The key behind the patent seems to be (from the summary--the actual link doesn't seem to be working) that the user types the master password into the same space where the original password went. Current keychains use a separate dialog box.

    Does it have prior art? I really don't know. Is it a silly patent? You bet. But thanks to its patent portfolion, IBM can beat up SCO and hold Microsoft at bay. Until software patents are abolished, companies need to keep applying for this kind of stuff.
    • The key behind the patent seems to be (from the summary--the actual link doesn't seem to be working) that the user types the master password into the same space where the original password went. Current keychains use a separate dialog box.

      Apple's Keychain doesn't work that way, however. It handles the login/password seamlessly behind-the-scenes so that once you've entered a login and password (and confirm that Keychain should handle it in the future) the login happens without presenting the user with a l

      • Apple's Keychain doesn't work that way, however.

        Sure it does: at some point, in some application, it popped up a dialog box asking you to authorize it; it's just that you told it to remember.

        so that once you've entered a login and password (and confirm that Keychain should handle it in the future) the login happens without presenting the user with a login panel at all.

        You say that as if it's a good thing.

        However different the UI implementation is, it seems to me that the basic concept is the same an
        • And I really don't see why people need to drag Apple into everything. Apple didn't invent keyrings and they weren't the first to deliver them commercially either.

          In this case, because the Keychain would appear to be a well-known piece of prior art, which would make it unpatentable (at least by IBM). Whether Apple was first or in the middle is irrelevant to the instant case (as long as it was before IBM :).

          People like to drag Apple into lots of things because even if they didn't invent something, or w

  • It's okay people.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @01:34PM (#7429545)
    Don't start slapping IBM and putting on your tinfoil hats people. If IBM doesn't patent this, chances are someone else will, and then sue IBM. Yes, it might be the most obvious thing in the world, and I hate myself for not applying for this patent myself, but in the hands of IBM, it's more or less safe. IBM's not going to sue anyone unless they start spewing FUD like SCO. Hell, I'd prefer this patent in the hands of MS than in anybody SCO-like. Say what you want about MS, but they have tons of patents as well, but they're very lax about enforcing them. Better a patent with IBM/MS than with someone like SCO or Eolas.
    • Don't make the mistake of assuming that these days IBM == good and SCO == evil. They are both for-profit corporations and the *single* goal of a for-profit corporation is to make money. IBM feels it's in its short-term best interest to be nice to the Open Source community. SCO has nothing to save itself from going out of business execpt the current FUD lawsuits. That doesn't mean that in the future IBM (or Novell, or any current "white hat" company) might turn "evil" if their $$$ interests dictate and u
  • Not only is it "not spyware", but now it's prior-artware too!

  • Here's what it really is (Score:5, Informative)

    by dilute ( 74234 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @02:19PM (#7429714)
    For those who tried to follow the (broken) link, I looked this up. It's U.S. published application number 220030159071, which was published on August 12, 2003 and originally filed on Feb. 21, 2002.

    This is merely a PUBLISHED PATENT APPLICATION, not a PATENT. There is no indication that the application has as yet been examined. The most that can be said is that IBM has asked to patent what is claimed. Whether it will be allowed, amended, etc., remains to be seen. Anyway, this is claim 1, which is representative of what IBM is going after in this patent:

    1. A method within a computing platform of graphically providing a secure field value retrieval and entry, wherein said computing platform includes a display device, a field activation device and a user selection device, said method comprising: displaying a user dialogue to receive a master key value from a user responsive to activation of a field; receiving a computing context indicator regarding the context of said activated field; determining said master key value is a correct master key value; retrieving a field value from a secure field value store which is associated with said computing context, said activated field and a user identification; and automatically entering said retrieved field value into said activated field.

    Maybe the examiner will find the good prior art, or maybe even IBM will be good enough to cite it themselves. In any event, what would be NICE, rather than relying merely on the effectiveness of the examiner and the bona fides of the applicant, would be a mechanism to take comments from the public on pending patent applications after they are published and after (or maybe even before) they are examined. This is (more or less) how it works in most other countries (it's called "opposition"), and variations of this approach have been suggested many times in this country and repeatedly shot down or watered down to the point of being useless. Now the Federal Trade Commission is jumping on this as well (it is one of their recebnt suggestions), but it will probably get nowhere because the small inventor lobby (decidedly NOT the IBMs of the world) is too strong.

    IBM, as some other poster has pointed out, has been pretty much a model citizen in the patent world.

  • Gator? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @03:26PM (#7429946) Homepage
    Could this give IBM the leverage to shut down Gator? I'm not saying they would, they'd probably make them pay a license fee. But in a magical world where IBM had our best interests at heart, would this give them the legal power to shut down Gator for patent infringement? (Note: this is ignoring the 1145 other patents of IBM's that Gator infringes on, including using a button to give power to an electronic device, and using a diode to transfer electricity)

  • 1. Steal someone's unpatented invention

    2. Patent it yourself

    3. Get patent granted...It's easy to do! After all, the patent office is so clueless they would probably issue a patent for: "Brown 25 Organic Lubricant" (see: "The Kentucky Fried Movie") these days.

    4. ????

    5. Profit!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close