I may not like his business ventures or his personality, but I just cannot not respect him for having a backbone and a pair of balls to keep pushing this thing forward. They did him wrong and he doesn't let go. This is really impressive.
Had trouble getting your last paragraph right, double negative makes it harder to read. Agreed with what you said though, he knows there is no trial possible over it.
Let me get this straight ... something as simple as 2-factor authentication can be patented in the US and enforced world-wide? Let's say I'm running a start-up or a small business and I need secure, remote access ... my go-to solution would be to use 2-factor authentication ... but I have to worry about getting sued or finding funds for paying extortion money just to apply an idea that's about as dead-simple as passwords? How is this a good thing for inventors?
We've well established at this point that the archaic US Patent System and software patents in general are not good for inventors, consumers, or the economy in general.
They are good for lobbyists and entrenched megacorporations, however, which means we can ignore all that and it's good for the public. Now go take your medicine, slave.
It is not well established or popular opinion. I work at a startup and many of my co-workers support patents, copyright, and intellectual property while simultaneously decrying patents like this.
I don't find it helpful to mix in copyright/intellectual property into this discussion as there is no reason why you can't support these while not supporting the patenting of ideas.
Personally I don't regard two-step authentication, or software patents in general as a kind of "invention", and don't find they should be patentable, much like "prime numbers" or "the periodic table".
I'd be interested in the reasoning you would support copyright but not patents? Copyright and patents have the exact same justification, just one is for published works and the other for "inventions." Both copyright and patents are titles of ownership to information.
I support patents, just not software patents. You can spend billions developing a new drug, and companies need to get reimbursed somehow for that, or everybody loses.
How much you think was been spent "inventing" two-factor authentication?
Can you give an example of software that you'd argue wouldn't have been developed if there were no software patents?
Don't confuse commonplace with simple. I think lots of people argue that a patent is trivial, because the idea has gained adoption and become universal. At the time of invention something might be totally groundbreaking, but a critical part of every household 10 years on.
I'm not saying that is the case here (A quick Google search finds SecurID was released in ~1994-1995), but the dismissive attitude of patents in general because you've come to rely on the technology really irks me.
Why can't I just claim all software patents simple? You just have to be presented with the problem and have a smart person sit down long enough to come up with the solution. And often that's measured in hours or days once the problem is presented clearly. None of us are as smart as we think we are, even if the solution appears elegant.
They don't take thousands of different filament tests. Or massive amounts of research trials. No repeated prototype builds. Or anything that actually costs money apart from simply thought.
And worse still, there's often no other way to solve the problem than the patented way and as we see so often the idea is solved repeatedly by different people.
You might reasonably argue that realizing the problem exists is 90% of the work and that is expensive, but then you're really patenting a business processes just like one-click shopping or two factor authentication.
1. Patent system is broken, you said it. So is copyright and many other systems or maybe nearly all of them.
2. Now, the guy just wants to fight it according to the broken system and if nothing else then at least the double standard (of authorities/govt) will come out evident.
Having said these, his patent is just too generic but then so are many "touch", "pinch", "zoom", "rectangular computing devices" patents and we have had very interesting verdicts from around the world.
The patent refers to authorisation, not authentication. They are different. The usage described is distinct from 2-factor authentication as practiced by Google et al.
IMO he's just grandstanding and will be rightly ignored.
It's interesting because this is the type of patent system abuse that we often rally so hard against. Now that the objective is somehow more 'noble' will we ignore that this approach is still fundamentally opposed to the prevailing opinion on the patent system and those who abuse it?
I think this is very, very clearly abuse of the patent system, and kim dotcom knows this. every time there's a highly-public and totally absurd abuse of the patent system it erodes the system a little bit more. I would never suspect apple or oracle of attempting to erode the patent system by bringing absurd lawsuits, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing that kim dotcom might do. I won't be so quick to judge him, given his stance on IP in general.
of course, i could be wrong and maybe he's just a massive hypocrite.
>I would never suspect apple or oracle of attempting to erode the patent system by bringing absurd lawsuits, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing that kim dotcom might do.
It would be interesting to have real insight into what Apple thinks about the patent system. Obviously they are going to exploit the current system as best they can, as would any other company. However, the real question is financial for Apple, not ethical or moral, would they stand to make more money or less money based on a change? My guess is they want to eat their cake and have it too...meaning I am sure they want to be paid license fees on their IP and not have to pay anyone else, this would not be unique to Apple though.
Is KIM different? I do not know, but he is being tried criminally for a service that I have always believed is not fundamentally different than Google Drive, DropBox, MS SkyDrive, or iCloud. So it is interesting these guys do not stand up, if not for him, then for themselves as it would stand to reason they may be targeted next, but do you think the feds would ever round up their top level executives military style the way they did KIM?
I wouldn't have called this as patent abuse, he came up with a neat idea, and applied for a patent. He didn't use it, but that doesn't invalidate that he came up with the idea, he just moved on. He hasn't sold it to anyone, he's never used it aggressively. He's being a dick now and saying "I might have to sue you!", but it's not patent abuse in the way Intellectual Ventures approaches it.
Edit; Actually, I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.
Because he is The Little Guy, and there is a massive and highly publicized campaign by the US government against him. This is him doing what he can to fight back.
I think it says something that he never did anything with the patent until now, I believe that he has good intentions and no desire to be a patent troll. Given his unique situation, and his flair for drama and unorthodoxy, I think it makes perfect sense.
Yes, let's attempt to extort defense funds from large corporations. That will surely get them on his side.
Just because he's "The Little Guy" doesn't make it any better. Holding someone hostage to raise money for a cancer research foundation wouldn't make the act itself morally justified.
Well, I don't know what to say, I think we have basic ideological differences. I think every situation is unique and needs to be judged in full context, you seem to have a more rigid moral code. If that act actually moved the needle on cancer knowledge, I might support it.
This particular situation appeals to my romantic and absurdist philosophies, it's ballsy and interesting if nothing else.
In my opinion, it damages the arguments against such abuses of the patent system. A public outpouring of support for this case makes it seem like there's a double standard: that people oppose it in the typical context because of a general bias against large corporations, rather than a problem with patent trolling itself.
Well sure. I doubt Kim lobbied for software patents.
I oppose the use of land-mines in general but I support their placement in the boardrooms of corporations that manufacture them. Because heartless execs are nothing like innocent children. Context matters.
> Actually, I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.
Seems to me that that's like saying "I don't think its criminal homicide so much as it is good old fashioned murder." Using patents to facilitate extortion is the main form of abuse that the phrase "patent abuse" is used to refer to.
No other country matters, according to the US. If a company in another country does business in the US it can be sued in Eastern Texas (patent trolls' heaven).
But let's be careful and not attribute opinions from different individuals as incoherence by the whole community. Not everyone here agrees with the prevailing opinion on the patent system.
Uhm, I'm for changing patent law and I'm also for patents being abused as much as possible. The latter is linked to the former. People are never going to change patent law unless it hurts them.
I don't want people not to do it - some people are always going to do it and the longer it goes on the greater the damage - I want it not to be doable, have a decisive engagement, so to speak, and have the problem put to bed for a while.
I am a proponent of changing IP laws, but this does not seem to run a muck of the type of abuse typical of most patent trolls. KIM obviously developed this system, because he is/was intimately involved in the industry and he likely invented the patent in question, and actually used or intended to use the same in commerce.
Whereas your typical patent troll buys IP for the sole purpose of shaking people down, trolls usually did not invent or file the patent themselves, and they usually never have any intent to utilize the IP in the market. Additionally, patent trolls usually hold patents on patents that should not have been registered in the first place (they were obvious or the technology was already in the stream of commerce before the registration).
Disclaimer: I emailed KIM with interest in researching the issue, performing due diligence, and maybe enforcement per the article. Though any response will be maintained confidential. I also have a track record of supporting KIM on the underlying legal problem, including a few posts/comments here on HN.
If a company does actually help his legal battle the US gov won't be happy. I hope he does get help with his legal problems and I want to see how this whole thing plays out. It's likely that companies like FB, google and twitter will ignore him so I want to see how he's going to respond to that.
On the other hand, this sort of high-profile strong arming could be helpful in changing opinions about software patents. Someone using software patents to blackmail companies into pouring money into a case against the US govt might be exactly what we need to change the opinions of some congresspeople...
If you look at the SecurID wikipedia[1] page, in the references you can find a paper discussing two factor authorization in 1996[1]. Also, it's not defining two factor authentication, it assumes the reader knows what it is.
I guess he means he will license his patents more than one company. In contrast, if he sells all the patent rights, he can't sell them to anyone else and those who want to acquire a license should negotiate with the buyer.
Yes, license would be allowing Google etc to use the method described in the patent (and potentially making money from it), buying the patent would give Google etc the ownership rights and allow them to license it out themselves.
But isn't suing to enforce his patent rights also an expensive legal battle that he would need to somehow fund?
I don't see how this threat could be seen as effective.
Perhaps he missed the memo which clearly states that patent's are used to protect multinational corporations and governments, not individuals or small corporations.
So I guess this wouldn't cover, for example, Google Authenticator (what I think of as 2-factor auth)? There's no transport mechanism and the agreement is via a shared secret so it's seems like a different kettle of fish. Then again, I'm no expert on security so don't take my word for that....
He's a smart guy, you'd think he'd try to broker these deals through more discrete channels if he were actually serious. All this theatre ensures the companies Kim's trying to court won't touch him with anything like a $50m pole. He's fun to watch but a bit of a trainwreck.
I don't see how this is valid patent. He just changed delivery method from mail; as described in prior art section; to more modern (SMS etc..) but he didn't invent any new process. Why change of delivery medium would be sufficient to grant patent?
You might be right for how the system is supposed to judge validity, but how many patents have been successfully used and abuse that are nothing more than "<insert_old_idea_here> over the Internet"?
Exactly. And even once the patent is granted, prior art can be re-examined in the courtroom when a lawsuit is brought. I'm not an expert or anything, but I wouldn't expect this patent to stand up in court.
Aaron Swartz needed a few million dollar for his defense (probably the main cause of suicide).
I don't think $50 million for someone like Kim who was probably at the top of the list of the Obama administration along with Osama Bin Laden, is that outrageous.
Actually, that's only 50x more than a person would need to spend to defend a federal criminal suit in the US. It is a big number, but not completely outlandish, especially for someone the government has it in for.
Probably includes a public relations team, campaign contributions and other favors in kind. Given the about-face by the NZ gov't (in a short time too) I can believe $50 million.
Do you speak with any experience or have any information that might be able to back your claim? I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to see an informed discussion.
I just wish Kim would start something like Startup Chile for New Zealand - but only for privacy and security related startups. He would have the right swagger to make this thing successful and (at least over the more recent past) a credible track record for standing up for what he believes in.
What a twist! There seems to be a lot of related prior art referenced by the patent. I thought patents were valid only for the country that issued them. How is this a worldwide patent? Trade agreements?
If people would actually read what he writes on twitter instead of the sensationalist blog posts derived only from those tweets, they would get a much more nuanced picture.
Let's see if he even manages to sue the tech giants, let alone what the judge rulings will be like when the patent owner is an individual instead of a tech giant.
It can't be anything else, he's not an idiot.
I may not like his business ventures or his personality, but I just cannot not respect him for having a backbone and a pair of balls to keep pushing this thing forward. They did him wrong and he doesn't let go. This is really impressive.