Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don't Help Him
from the hmmm dept
So, a lot of people are talking about Kim Dotcom’s latest gambit, which was to point out that he holds a patent (US 6,078,908 and apparently others in 12 other countries as well) that covers the basics of two-factor authentication, with a priority date of April of 1997. While interesting, he goes on to point out that he’s never sued over the patent because “I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society.”
But… he says he may sue them now. Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent. He points out that his actual funds are still frozen by the DOJ and (more importantly) that his case actually matters a great deal to Google, Facebook and Twitter, because the eventual ruling will likely set a precedent that may impact them — especially around the DMCA. That’s actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don’t like Dotcom at all and don’t want to be associated with him. Bad cases make dangerous caselaw, so having a good defense would be useful.
That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don’t fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire. Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, kim dotcom, lawsuits, patents, threats, two factor authentication
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Comments on “Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don't Help Him”
Silver lining?
As stupid a move as I find trying to squeeze funds out of three very large companies to be, a possible side-effect from something like this is that any argument made, either by the government or the companies, against this instance of ‘pay me or get sued’ would also work just as well against patent trolls, and anything that makes their lives more difficult is all for the better.
"I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
But what he ACTUALLY does is steal the income stream from the work of others, and funnel it into his OWN pocket. Geez, that’s just sickening coming from a grifting millionaire.
But I hope Dotcom does sue over this alleged patent! What a bunch of tangles for Mike! He’d have to choose between Dotcom and Google, and whether Dotcom is just a patent troll! And this is VERY MUCH like extortion.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
If you’re against copyright, quit putting your name on posts! You don’t own the idea!
02:00:36[c- 1-0]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
You believe Kim Dotcom stole the servers he let people use?
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
out_of_the_blue wrote:
“If you’re against copyright, quit putting your name on posts! You don’t own the idea!
02:00:36[c- 1-0]”
Ownership and attribution are entirely separate concerns. Duh.
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
“Ownership and attribution are entirely separate concerns. Duh.”
Right, and even if you don’t put your name in it, you can still claim the copyright later if you can prove that you did it.
Try again, blue.
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
That.
That right there. It shows that those who love copyright so much don’t even know what it is and what it is not.
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
How much money are you paid for this crap?
The only thing more insane than your comments are the people who pay you money to do this.
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
I dunno… Maybe they’re just paying the dancing monkey so that they can laugh at him along with the rest of us. I hope it is that, I’d hate to think I’ve been laughing at an actual mental patient all this time.
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
You do know that for normal, well-adjusted people it’s possible to be behind a person on one issue but against them on another right? It’s really not tangled at all, Kim is right on the Mega ‘conspiracy’ fight and wrong on patent trolling. It’s really that simple.
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
But what he ACTUALLY does is steal the income stream from the work of others, and funnel it into his OWN pocket. Geez, that’s just sickening coming from a grifting millionaire.
What, and record labels don’t?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110404/12211913771/record-labels-may-owe-artists-close-to-2-billion-lawsuits-ramp-up-with-rick-james-lead.shtml
Besides, Mike regularly calls them both out when they do something wrong or stupid, as Dotcom just did.
But don’t let your unrequited passion for Mike cloud your judgement or anything!
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
What he does is run a file locker, it is as simple as that. For a thousand USD and people to spread the news anyone could out do Kim Dotcom and the pirate bay. To do this is simple. Onion routing, distributed search, and a simple file listing. All of it available on GitHub or Sourceforge.
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
Yes, and John Gotti was just a simple businessman and carpenter.
Would you like to buy this bridge?
Re: Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
“Yes, and John Gotti was just a simple businessman and carpenter.”
Gotti was tried and convicted, boy.
Dotcom hasn’t even been tried.
Are you an un-American scumbag who doesn’t follow the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, ass with no brain?
Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.
I’m sure the prosecutor is grateful to Dotcom for his assistance in his own prosecution.
Re: Re:
FSM knows they could use all the help they can get, given they’ve been failing pretty spectacularly handling it on their own.
Re: Dotcom Can't sue
Well, Dotcom can sue, but the moment a defendant is ordered to pay, the DOJ would step in and order seizure of the proceeds. All Dotcom can do is sell full interest in the patent to a bona fide buyer at arms length – and in a foreign country.
That is why Dotcom has asked for anyone who is interested in buying the patents to contact him.
Is that it?
If this was any one else except the sainted Kim Dotcom, you would be all over them for being weasels and patent trolls.
Is that it?
Re: Is that it?
read the fuckin’ article you chump
Re: Re: Is that it?
I read the article. What the fuck does this mean:
That’s actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don’t like Dotcom at all and don’t want to be associated with him.
To me, it implies that it’s OK for these companies to capitulate to a patent troll because the ends justify the means.
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Well try again then.
It’s clearly stating that despite Kim making a bad move and being a dick, there’s a strong case for others to support him.
I bet you were home schooled…
Re: Re: Re:2 Is that it?
By christian scientists.
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Regardless of the patent B.S. these companies should help in his defense. Don’t be a dolt!
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
To me, it implies that it’s OK for these companies to capitulate to a patent troll because the ends justify the means.
Yep. But mostly it’s because it’s his pirate ally Kim D doing the trolling.
Re: Re: Re:2 Read for comprehension!
You didn’t read and understand the article either, did you? I’ll explain, perhaps that will help.
The reason for tech companies to support Kim Dotcom is because the legal theory behind the prosecution would end up gutting DMCA protection of entities running web sites with cusomter-provided content. The tech companies should do this in spite of Kim Dotcom’s repulsive personality and flagrant behavior.
There, that was easy, wasn’t it? Maybe with a little work you can live up to the “average” part of your moniker, instead of being “4th quartile joe” in reading comprehension.
Re: Re: Re:3 Read for comprehension!
LOL! It’s one thing to ask for another’s help, but quite another to threaten to sue another for patent infringement if they don’t cave into your demand for money. There’s a name for that. Oh yeah, patent trolling. If IV trolled someone but then pointed out that they should cave in because it was in their best interests on some unrelated matter, do you think Mike would think it was a good idea then? Of course not.
Besides, what precedent vis-a-vis the DMCA will be set here? I don’t think the DMCA applies in criminal cases, but even if it did, what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google? They are already protected by the DMCA. Dotcom isn’t going to affect that in any way I can think of. Maybe you can spell out the details for me? I mean, I’m stupid and you’re smart, so it should be simple for you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google? They are already protected by the DMCA
So was Megaupload, they followed the DMCA, still had the safe harbors, the only reason they didn’t take down one file was because law enforcement told them not to.
So, by following the law, they got screwed over by the law.
You think that wouldn’t be something Google, Facebook or Twitter should worry about?
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
Yes there is. It is called leverage. In this case, it may be improperly conceived and/or applied, but it is a very common practice in negotiation, everywhere.
Re: Re: Re:5 Read for comprehension!
It’s patent trolling in this case. It’s unequivocally what Kim is threatening here. Let’s not mince words. Average joe doesn’t need to be wrong about everything.
Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!
Of course it’s patent trolling (assuming the patent as granted is not 100% valid and correct or has obvious prior art – that has yet to be seen). But, Mike hasn’t denied that it is. AJ and his ilk are just busy creaming themselves because he didn’t write that specific phrase. They’re so used to lying about the points he’s made about Dotcom in previous articles, they’ve deluded themselves into thinking he supports everything he does.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
I don’t want to put words in his mouth but the article doesn’t read like Mike thinks trolling is a good idea here either.
The DMCA doesn’t apply in criminal cases? The safe harbor is for criminal charges too. For a wannabe lawyer that’s a pretty stupid thing to say. Any case over the DMCA has the potential to set bad precedent (or good) what tilts this towards bad is that Kim isn’t a particularly sympathetic case. And it would absolutely be bad for the ‘tech’ industry as a whole if a bas precedent was set on the DMCA just because a court didn’t like Kim very much (a very real possibility).
Re: Re: Re:5 Read for comprehension!
The DMCA doesn’t apply in criminal cases? The safe harbor is for criminal charges too.
Why’s it stupid? I don’t say things unless I have some basis for thinking it. See, for example, Copyhype: http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-and-the-dmca/
Even if the safe harbors were possible, there would be no protection for a person who otherwise would meet of standard of a criminal infringer.
Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!
As I said before, Megaupload was protected by Safe Harbors as they followed the DMCA in taking down any file that was said to be infringing.
The only reason they left that one up was because law enforcement said to not take it down.
They got screwed over by the law for following the law.
So, even if you think that other companies would be unaffected because they have Safe Harbors, remember that Megaupload did as well, and look at what happened.
Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!
You’re leaving out that the DoJ is trying to set precedent here.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
If IV trolled someone but then pointed out that they should cave in because it was in their best interests on some unrelated matter, do you think Mike would think it was a good idea then?
Does Mike think it’s a good idea now?
No. He called it “a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire.” Admittedly, I’d like him to use stronger language too, but what can you do.
On the other hand – if it were IV doing this sort of trolling, you would be on their side, saying that they’re just “protecting their property,” and that anyone who is against it just hates patent law and loves patent piracy, or some such nonsense.
Then, spam the comments with some misreading of unrelated case law, or misstatements of the Founders’ opinions, or multiple “Y u no debate meeeee!” posts at Mike, or some other idiotic attempt to derail the conversation. Just like you always do.
I don’t think the DMCA applies in criminal cases, but even if it did, what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google?
That’s not the only issue, of course, but even if it were, then it would mean that the government could seize Google (or whoever the next Google is), even though they are completely compliant with the DMCA.
All they would have to do is take Viacom’s accusations (or whoever the next equivalent of Viacom is), claim that shows probable cause for criminal infringement, and boom! Instant seizure, shutdown, and arrest. No DMCA defense, no advance notice, no prior chance to defend their actions. And all their assets would be frozen, so no money to mount a legal defense.
That’s exactly what happened to Megaupload.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
finally, we get one accurate sentence from you.
‘ I mean, I’m stupid and you’re smart,so it should be simple for you.’
Re: Re: Re:3 Read for comprehension!
The reason for tech companies to support Kim Dotcom is because the legal theory behind the prosecution would end up gutting DMCA protection of entities running web sites with cusomter-provided content. The tech companies should do this in spite of Kim Dotcom’s repulsive personality and flagrant behavior.
That may be true. But they’re not being asked. They’re being told. As Masnick states above:
“Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent.”
Again, the ends are being used to justify the means. As long as you know what a stupendous hypocrite you are, I’m fine with this.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
You said “They’re being told.”, then “Specifically, he’s asking…”, which is it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Read for comprehension!
Here’s Masnick’s headline, in case you missed it:
Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don’t Help Him
And here’s a later line from his story:
“Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent.”
That is Msasnick parsing words, not me. I see it for the extortion it is: Fund Dotcom’s defense or be sued for an unrelated matter.
Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!
Oh, I know what you mean.
Words is hard!
I guess more normal people can read “parsed words” just fine.
Re: Re: Re:7 Read for comprehension!
You should talk to Howard The Retard about this.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
Nothing in the article above is a justification of Kim’s actions.
Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!
IF you want to apply for a job as editor at Techdirt, so you can correct these oh so horrible mistakes in one wrong word (in your eyes), apply via e-mail to Mike and send a glittering resume. However, please please please, don’t come whinging here when (not if) you’re rejected.
Re: Re: Re:3 Read for comprehension!
Don’t reply to the trolls, just hit report and spend your time talking to a rational person instead.
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
You read one sentence, try the whole article. I know it’s hard, but I’ll give you a hint. The bit you quoted, what’s the antecedent of “That”?
Re: Is that it?
Of course he’s a patent troll (or acting like one in this case at least). Nothing in the article denies that.
“Is that it?”
Yes, apparently Mike has to use very specific language in his articles, else morons will come and attack him. Do you have a problem with any of the points in the article, or are you just the latest in a long line of people to whine whenever Mike doesn’t write what you want him to like? You certainly seem to be using the same tactics as the other idiots rather than address anything actually said. “Not a regular commenter” my ass.
Re: Re: Is that it?
Do you have a problem with any of the points in the article, or are you just the latest in a long line of people to whine whenever Mike doesn’t write what you want him to like?
Yup, I have a problem with this. This article makes patent trolling sound like a wonderful and acceptable way to do things, as long as it’s someone on the “good guys for piracy” list. If anyone else was doing this (and I mean anyone not in the anti-copyright anti-patent side of things) the article would be a huge swipe at the nasty patent trolls who were abusing the system for profit and trying to scam money. I am sure there would be some insinuations of forum shopping and perhaps a sideways joke about it being an “East Texas patent” or something like that.
Eliminate Kim from the discussion, and this would be a standard patent troll story with angry assumptions. Why go so soft on Kim?
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Why go so soft on Kim?
Because Mike worships all pirates. The bigger the better.
Re: Re: Re:2 Is that it?
Your employer is showing. Again.
Re: Re: Re:2 Is that it?
And you average-joe by making comments on this website you tooo are worshiping Mike, you may not think you are but you are doing so. Every comment is a worship to Mike didn’t you know that so if you don’t want to worship Mike then don’t comment on this site, simple enough really.
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Did You Stop Reading Before The Last Paragraph?
Thats The Only WAy To Comprehend Your Issues.
Nice Selective Reading Skills.
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
No, it doesn’t “makes patent trolling sound like a wonderful and acceptable way to do things”. It brands patent trolling a bad strategic move that especially doesn’t make sense in this case since the perpetrator is already facing racketeering charges.
Re: Is that it?
If this was any one else except the sainted Kim Dotcom, you would be all over them for being weasels and patent trolls.
Is that it?
Bingo. The only problem Mike perceives here is that this might hurt Dotcom in his upcoming legal case. The patent trolling itself is not a problem, and in fact, he thinks it’s a good idea that these companies capitulate to his ultimatum. Incredible. Yet, not. Because it’s Mike.
Re: Re: Is that it?
Your usual bullshit. Incredible. Yet, not. Because it’s average_joe (yep, the moron with the stolen avatar).
If this was any one else except the sainted Kim Dotcom, you would be all over them for being weasels and patent trolls.
Is that it?
Understand that not only is Masnick a shameless piracy apologist- he’s also Dotcom’s own ‘mini-me’. You’ll see nothing but adulation here.
“Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don’t Help Him”
Dumbass.
That is all.
This is patent trolling at its finest, not even thinly veiled:
Where, with most patent trolls, “cooperate” means “fork over some money”, in this case it means… fork over some money.
Re: Re:
But, but… this is different. It’s Kim Dotcom!!!
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe it’ that, maybe if the DoJ’s crazy secondary liability ideas don’t get kicked to the curb Google is likely in the firing lines.
How do you manage to post so often without actually reading the article?
Re: Re: Re:
No one said it was different?
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not different at all. It’s a fucking stupid move by Dotcom.
However, I can understand why he’s gone down that route, even if I think it’s a massively idiotic move.
Well, as unpleasant as the demand looks, it’s a sad state of affairs that those who are in this world have to use threats like this all the time.
Personally, I see this as no different than Google’s buyouts of patents. “Don’t sue us or else!”
I mean, by now everyone should know these laws aren’t about protection of “rights”.
Re: Re:
I think it’s a desperation attempt by him because his funds have been wrongfully frozen. Now he’s not thinking very clearly.
Re: Re: Re:
You have to consider all the pressure this must be putting on him.
My bank’s web site has been doing this for some time. I would think that the fact that this is such a common practice shows that there is nothing unique or patentable. Patents on such general concepts can only be used for one thing: trolling. I seriously doubt that anyone was even aware of Dotcom’s patent and made a decision to steal it. This is not going to help him in his legal problems. It just makes him look so hypercritical.
I feel for this guy, standing alone and fighting against the corrupt prosecution funded by an entire country. He had this patent since 1997 and if he wanted to sue to make profits, he would have done it already. Instead he chose to compete in the open market by launching innovative services. When DOJ shut him down because their MPAA bosses didn’t like him, it is any wonder that he’s using the patents he owns to get money for his defense. Google, Facebook should be on his side already as this case would indeed decide the future of tech business in US.
Prior Art
The book Applied Cryptography, an extensive work on the subject describes multiple-factor authentication.
The book describes that at the most basic level, you can prove your identity three ways:
1. Something you know (eg, password, PIN, etc)
2. Something you have (eg, building key, electronic fob, etc)
3. Something you are (eg, retina scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, etc)
Banks have used two factor authentication for years. An ATM wants something you Know (PIN) and something you have (plastic card).
The military often uses something you Are and something you Know. The guard must personally recognize you and you better know the password of the day. Failure may result in getting shot — especially around nukes.
Google uses something you Know (password) and something you have (your mobile phone with a pre arranged app).
Re: Prior Art
Just to add a bit more, the book describes why people use cryptography. One of the uses is to ensure privacy from government intrusion. The author even describes that one day this may be necessary even for citizens in the United States.
It’s been a long, looooong time since I read the book, but I seem to recall it is on about page 100 (maybe 99, or 101), and it is long before September 11, 2001.
He describes that if there were a terrorist attack on the US, perhaps an large attack on, say, New York, that liberties and privacy may be curtailed severely.
Wow. He was quite insightful.
Like I said, it is an outstanding book. Also large, thick and heavy.
Re: Prior Art
Correct. Prior art on this exists for a very long time.
For example, to launch a nuclear weapon you (allegedly) have to use two keys – that are given to two different people – simultaneously, and the mechanism is designed so that one person cannot engage the mechanism on his own.
It’s not quite authentication. It’s more of a two-factor failsafe mechanism: no one person can fire a nuclear weapon. But the principle is the same.
In any event. such a thing has existed for decades. Unsurprisingly, some douchebag managed to get a patent on this…presumably because he put “on the internet” on the patent application.
Re: Re: Prior Art
In any event. such a thing has existed for decades. Unsurprisingly, some douchebag managed to get a patent on this…presumably because he put “on the internet” on the patent application.
But this is Mike’s buddy’s patent, so validity will not be discussed on TD. If IV was waving this patent around, Mike would be going ABSOLUTELY APESHIT. The double-standard is hilarious.
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Joe are you really this dense or just trying to compete with blue?
If you actually read what has ben written you’ll see that Mike thinks it’s stupid for Kim to be patent trolling.
He does however make the point that these other companies might be in serious trouble if Km loses his case.
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
Just like OOTB. AJ doesn’t actually read the entire article. Otherwise he would have noticed that Mike said it was a bad idea. It is much easier to make a stand when you take things out of context.
Re: Re: Re:3 Prior Art
yes, blatant extortion in public is generally a bad idea, you don’t have to be a genius to work that out, see even Mick the nick can sort of work it out, but with his own version of reality spin.
Re: Re: Re:3 Prior Art
ust like OOTB. AJ doesn’t actually read the entire article. Otherwise he would have noticed that Mike said it was a bad idea. It is much easier to make a stand when you take things out of context.
Here’s what mini-Masnick said about Dr. Evil:
“That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don’t fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire. Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.”
That is in marked contrast from his usual bile over patent and copyright trolls he doesn’t worship.
Re: Re: Re:4 Prior Art
And you, and other apologists, don’t see the problem if Megaupload loses, do you?
That’s because, unlike other copyright and patent trolls, and I disagree with Dotcom on this issue, but unlike others who only seek to gain money and do nothing else, the Megaupload case DOES apply to other internet companies. If Megaupload loses, it won’t be long before the MAFIAAA decides that if they can take down Megaupload, why not try for Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, ETC.?
There’s more at stake here than someone being a patent troll, which is unlike other patent trolls which just seek to cause disruption in the market place.
If Megaupload fails in court, then the entire internet community could be in trouble.
Remember how we reacted to SOPA?
Re: Re: Re:4 Prior Art
So you’re mad that he’s got a consistent position but doesn’t always use the same words to describe it? That’s your idea of a ‘marked contrast,’ espousing the same opinion over the same issue only being less angry about it?
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Did you even read the article or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass again?
First of all, if you read it, Mike’s not condoning this behavior at all.
Secondly, if Megaupload does go to trial and loses because Dotcom can’t get the finances to fund his defense properly, how long until Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites start getting hit with the same problems that Megaupload got hit with? I’d assume not very long.
So, even if it’s something that none of us really like (and if it was anyone BUT Megaupload, you would be cheering for them suing Google, Facebook and Twitter), the fact is, the alternative of Megaupload losing the case is BAD for the rest of the internet.
Or is your brain too alcohol-inebriated to understand that?
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
It is being discussed on TD you troll.
Where in the article does Mike suggest the patent might be invalid? Seems like you’re the one trolling by pretending like Mike said something he didn’t.
Re: Re: Prior Art
“Correct. Prior art on this exists for a very long time.”
If that was the case that prior art should have been patented, and Kim would not have been issued with the patent in the first place.
Fact is!!! He was given a patent for it, and without any challenges to prior art, Kim would have also been required to do a patent search for prior art, as would the patent office.. That’s how you get patents, and why patent searches when applying for a patent is necessary.
So the argument of prior art does not even come into this case, oh btw: point to some prior art that has been patented that makes this patent void please.
otherwise STFU, you don’t know what your talking about.
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Last I checked, the prior art requirement doesn’t require that a previous patent exists. It just requires that a device that performs the functions stated in the patent in the same or a similar manner exists.
Take the wheel as an example. The wheel (in it’s traditional form, not the strange/wacky modern reinventions of the wheel) was never patented yet, you can’t just go to the USPTO and say “I want to patent the wheel”. You can’t because prior art exists.
Of course, IANAL, if anyone wants to pitch it, please do.
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
Forgot to say, the fact that the man got a patent on two factor authentication just shows how poorly the patent process is conducted.
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
you can’t just go to the USPTO and say “I want to patent the wheel”. You can’t because prior art exists.
Actually, yes, you could. The patent examiner would do a cursory search for prior art, but patent examiners are notoriously lousy at this, because a) they’re not experts in the field, and/or b) they’re swamped, and/or c) they’re under pressure to approve as many patents as possible.
Then once someone “infringes” by making a wheel of their own, they get sued by the patent holder. It is now the defendant’s burden to show that the patent is invalid, as an affirmative defense.
That actually happened in the Apple v. Samsung case. Apple’s “rubber banding” patent was invalidated as prior art – after the jury had awarded a $1-billion judgement against Samsung.
Re: Re: Re:3 Prior Art
Quote:
Hmmm…I don’t think he ever searched the USPTO for anything, you definitely can patent a wheel, see how many omni-directional-wheels or wheels with some different arrangement there are.
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
I want to patent the wheel.
…on the internet!
Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art
like the difference between using a carburettor and fuel injection for a car engine.
they are both doing the same job (feeding fuel to the engine) but with 2 different METHODS.
But I don’t expect you to understand the difference, you’ve been worshiping masnick for too long.
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Re: Re: Prior Art
You are talking about the idea of two-factor authentication, not the method of implementation (What patents are supposed to protect – the implementation not the idea.)
Actually, from what I understood, Dotcom doesn’t plan to sue them in any case. His idea is rather to license the patent to someone (probably some patent troll) and let them deal with it, while he gets his license fees straight away.
Well, it doesn’t make him look better, but it is definitely not out of character for the image propagated of him (regardless of how true that image is).
Racketeering
Seems like it might depend a bit on the approach.
Something like “hey guys, so I have this patent, and I really don’t want to use it to sue anyone, but I have these legal bills and no money. Now, if I lose, it could hurt you too, so why not help me out, I’ll license it to you at a very reasonable rate, and we can keep the lawyers out of it.
Re: Racketeering
I think he should have tried to sell the patent to one of them to fund the defense. It probably would get more support. It would have also shown that he never sued them for their infringement.
Re: Racketeering
Even more reasonable:
“If I loose I’m going to go bankrupt and this patent is going to be sold to who knows who and if I win my funds are unfrozen and I can reimburse you.”
Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
Who’s gonna be the first to patent it?
Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
See my Prior Art post above. It covers all three of the most basic ways that you can authenticate.
Four, Five and other Poly-Factor authentication is just re-using one or more of the basic three factors.
1. Something you know (password, PIN, passphrase)
2. Something you have (ATM card, RSA fob device, building key, passport, etc)
3. Something you are (fingerprint, retina scan, voiceprint, DNA, how you type, pressure patterns of your handwriting, etc)
Re: Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
well done idiot, you listed 3 “ways” to do something, but nothing ON THE FUCKING METHOD INVOLVED in making them a reality.
and as you should well know, (but clearly do not) patents are A METHOD to achieve a result, NOT THE FUCKING result itself.
This one apparently is “A METHOD OF PASSWORD” authentication.
Notice it is not THE method, or the only method possible, but it is simply A METHOD.
for example, “A method of supplying fuel to an internal combustion engine” Might describe the method of using a type of carburettor, ANOTHER METHOD might be using a form of FUEL Injector.
You don’t patent ‘feeding fuel to an engine’ you patent A METHOD of feeding fuel into an engine.
Therefore this is a method of password authentication, it is NOT the method.
Just as prior art does not apply between carburation and fuel injection it does not apply here.
what a freak, and freaking JOKE
Extortion anyone, oh but wait, he is the focus of Masnicks Bromance, so it’s ok.
Masnick would not want to do anything to rock the boat of his love affair with Mr Kim. (Bow when you say his name).
Lets watch Mick the nick dance this fine line between reality and Masnicks dream world.
Re: what a freak, and freaking JOKE
Literally no one said it was ok…
Re: what a freak, and freaking JOKE
You know, if you guys added clarity and sanity to your comments, you might not look like idiots and people might even agree with you.
You can always tell when the article is essentially correct. Half the trolls try to deflect from the article, while others either attack the author or act like they just ate the strange looking mushroom they found in the back of the fridge.
What no one even bothered to consider is how the heck did he manage to get such a ridiculous patent? What patent office on crack approved this patent to begin with? I suppose no one even considers the question anymore, we all take for granted that the patent office approves the most bogus patents and so it’s no longer even worth discussing.
Re: Re:
What no one even bothered to consider is how the heck did he manage to get such a ridiculous patent?
Simple. It’s Kim Dotcom, so Mike has his blinders on. This site couldn’t be any easier to understand. Pirate friends = good. Copyright enemies = bad. The details are unimportant.
Re: Re: Re:
Hahahaha.
What Does Any Of That Have To Do With The Patent Being Granted?
Reading Comprehension Fail.
Re: Re: Re:
This is such a ludicrous charge coming from you.
Blackmail. Plain and simple.
Yeah sounds like threats and racketeering!
“Want to buy the world wide license to my two-factor-authentication patent? (13 countries incl. US & China)
Email: twitter@kim.com“
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337410056859566080
Very threatening language indeed!!!
Bad legal move
Recipe for making you life much worse:
– Have the government seize your funds
– Threaten very large companies with an infringement suit if they don’t pay you so you can defend yourself on another matter
Reason:
This invites a declaratory judgement action that you’ve already admitted you can’t afford.
*** shakes head ***
does the US government violate this patent for some of their secure services (IRS etc)
It's all blackmail
I think Kim Dotcom is just being honest about something that takes place every day, namely corporate lawyers using legal blackmail to make other companies and individuals do what they want. Here, Dotcom will give Amazon, etc., a license to use his patent in return for joining him on his lawsuit and loaning him money until he can unfreeze his assets. Companies make these sorts of arrangements all the time. Kim’s just being more upfront about it.
Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Just to clarify for those making false statements: Yes, this is patent trolling. Yes, I think it’s a bad idea (as pretty clearly stated in the post). I focused on the idiocy of extortion more than the idiocy of the patent itself, because the extortion part is a much bigger deal. But I agree that it’s a bad patent and it’s extortion. People who think I support Dotcom in this, or in other stuff, are wrong. Which is pretty clear from the article, unless you don’t read it all the way through and pretend I said stuff I didn’t.
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
You only said it’s a “potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire” because of the racketeering charges. You did “focus[] on the idiocy of extortion more than the idiocy of the patent itself,” because you didn’t focus on the idiocy of the patent itself AT ALL. So of course any other thing you did mention received more focus than you gave to the patent itself, since that’s more focus than zero focus. The only one pretending you “said stuff [you] didn’t” is you.
It’s the stuff you DIDN’T say that we’re focusing on. You didn’t say it was patent trolling that is a bad thing regardless of the racketeering angle. You didn’t question the validity of the patent itself. You pointed out that he’s saying pay up or I’ll sue, and then you said that his victims should consider paying up and playing along because there’s a “pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case.” That’s you justifying his means because of the ends. That’s not you condemning his means. You didn’t condemn the means, hence our responses.
Sorry Mike, but you look pretty bad here. And, of course, it’s Kim Dotcom, so you give him a free pass with this stuff. No surprise there. The only surprise would have been if you had actually called him out for the “extortion” and said that was bad in general, and not just bad because it might hurt him in later litigation. Nice try and spinning this, but we can all see what you wrote.
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
then you said that his victims should consider paying up and playing along
Except he said no such thing. He said it was a good idea for “the tech industry to think about participating in the case,” not that it was a good idea for them to “pay up.” Not once did he say that the tech companies should give in to the patent trolling, just that they have an interest in the outcome of the case.
Once again, you’re lying. What a shocker.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
What is the practical implication of “the tech industry to think about participating in the case,”?
An amicus brief won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit in the absence of a vigorous defense. Clearly, the implication is that the ‘tech industry’ (Google, Facebook, Twitter) should fund Fat Bastard’s litigation. Which is exactly what he is demanding in exchange for not suing them for patent infringement.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
If he had his assets not frozen, he could properly defend himself.
Plus, as we’ve been saying, if Megaupload loses, then how long until other websites start getting bullied by the U.S. government over copyright infringement?
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
If he had his assets not frozen, he could properly defend himself.
Quite so. But they’re frozen. Except assets to fight his extradition were returned, I believe. So it’s unclear that he will even be standing trial in the US.
What I love the most about all of you piracy apologists is how hung-ho you are…. right up until it’s time to open your wallets. Where’s the ACLU and EFF? Where is Reddit? Where are the tech firms whose business models are imperiled? Where are all of the netizens who protested SOPA? Same place they were when Aaron Swartz needed money for his defense… sitting on their wallets pretending not to notice. I’d sure hate to be in a foxhole with any of you people.
Re: Re: Re:4 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
gung-ho
Re: Re: Re:4 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Oh please, I’d rather be a piracy apologist than a copyright apologist who’s nothing but a hypocrite.
Copyright Apologists just love ruining people’s lives for the sake of a few dollars more.
if I was in a foxhole with any of you scumbags, I might do something horrible.
Like listen to music that I downloaded without paying you.
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It’s the stuff you DIDN’T say that we’re focusing on
Yeah. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
And, of course, it’s Kim Dotcom, so you give him a free pass with this stuff.
Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?
Seriously, dude, I’ve told you before, and I’ll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me, and start responding to what I actually said. The fact that you have this strawman Mike built up in your head who is nothing like I actually am, but which you insist is the real me, is fucking weird.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Very glib Masnick. But anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see that patent trolling by Dotcom is treated very differently by you than patent trolling by others. I don’t know why you don’t just come right out and defend him for doing what he has to do. I think you can actually make a respectable case.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Maybe because there’s more here than normal? Maybe the only thing different about this is in your mind? Maybe because it’s Kim Dotcom and you auto-hate him and think he should be hung without a trial? Maybe because it’s someone who’s ACCUSED of copyright infringement that has you and AJ and others with your panties in a knot?
Take your pick, they’re all likely correct.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
You again? After your last encounter with me you were reduced to tears of rage. I decided then to not take advantage of such a sensitive and over-matched opponent.
I will point out that the rest of us are discussing fatboy’s patent trolling and treatment by Masnick. Try to be calm, get yourself under some control and add something pertinent to the discussion for a change.
Re: Re: Re:4 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Ah! I thought you were familiar.
The internet tough guy.
Snicker
So, how’s your mommy’s basement been treating you lately?
Re: Re: Re:5 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
As I recall sonny, you were such an obnoxious little turd your own mother forced you out of her house at age 16.
I’ve been out of my parents house for many decades. Come on by some time, I might even let you mow my lawn.
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Snicker Aww! Someone needs a bottle.
I said I lived on my own since I was 16, not that I was kicked out of my house when I was 16.
Aww… The little moron is so cute when he’s trying to be a tough guy.
Who’s an adorable little troll?
Yes you is! Yes you is! Aww! Such a good little twoll!
You must make your mommy proud.
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I said I lived on my own since I was 16
Why do I find that perfectly understandable!
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Very glib Masnick. But anyone with an ounce of objectivity can see that patent trolling by Dotcom is treated very differently by you than patent trolling by others.
Exactly. Yet here he is pretending like he’s not giving Dotcom a free pass. Dishonest is as dishonest does.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It’s rather embarrassing to witness. I actually think that a decent argument could be made that Fat Bastard has engaged in patent trolling and extortion due to extraordinary circumstances, wherein he is literally fighting for his life.
Masnick’s weasely narrative is totally unnecessary and only serves to make him look like a bigger jerk than usual.
Re: Re: Re:4 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
“
Masnick’s weasely narrative is totally unnecessary and only serves to make him look like a bigger jerk than usual.”
which takes some doing !!!!!
Masnick probably has been taking lessons off Kim fatbastard..
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
And you claim you don’t argue for your ego.
What is this? A warm up before you put on your big boy pants?
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Yeah. That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?
That you didn’t condemn this obvious patent trolling as being bad in and of itself (as opposed to just potentially bad for his criminal case) is very noteworthy, and it speaks volumes about you and your love of Dotcom.
Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?
Yes, because you didn’t condemn the act of trolling apart from it’s possible negative effect on his case. You’re worried it hurting him. You expressed no concern about the trolling otherwise, and you didn’t even throw out your usual FUD about the validity of the patent. Only saying this might hurt his criminal case and not saying anything else negative about it is a free pass from you. Had this been IV, you would have said a lot more–and you know it.
Can you address my point about there being alleged specific criminal infringement? Or are you sticking by your claim that there is none despite that position being completely untenable? I’m happy to quote the exact text from the indictment again if you want.
Seriously, dude, I’ve told you before, and I’ll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me, and start responding to what I actually said. The fact that you have this strawman Mike built up in your head who is nothing like I actually am, but which you insist is the real me, is fucking weird.
This trope again? No matter how slimy and dishonest I think you to be, you only keep proving that you’re worse than I think. Want some credibility? Admit that specific criminal infringement is alleged. After that, admit that had this been IV, you would have been a lot more critical and condemning. That’s a good starting point. But your sliminess in pretending like you didn’t give him a free pass only reinforces my views about you. I can point to hundreds of other things you ran away from rather than just admit if you want.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
So basically, you’re calling him out on something that is off-topic for the article as published. This is what pundits and internet trolls do to puff themselves up, you realize? You’ve added nothing to the conversation but vitriol and bald-faced lies based upon your own slanted observations of how Mike thinks. You respond to things that were never said, meaning that they are without a basis in fact, or, as you seem to love to say, FUD. Grow the hell up, and join the adults in the conversation.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Joe hes made it pretty clear hes here to fight mythical dragons
I used to do that in grade school
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?
pretty much !! what do you think Masnick is this up to your standards ? You know how you respond to anyone and everyone you accuse of being a patent troll.
And all you can do is question his strategy ?
If it had of been Prenda and not Kim, would you have said it is not a very good strategy ?
But it’s too late for you, you never cease to disappoint, we can understand your extreme attitudes, but this massive inconsistency, and you standing up for ‘your friends’ taking precedence over your personal ‘morals’ is sad to see.
You don’t have much credibility at the best of times, and this is not one of them.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Seriously, dude, I’ve told you before, and I’ll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me
oh, and we love to see how when you are backed into a corner, and run out of all reasonable arguments, you just cant help yourself with the Ad hom attacks.
It’s clear you are not ‘above’ any form of standard.
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
While we’re talking about Kim D., Mike, any chance that you can directly and honestly admit that there is in fact an allegation of specific criminal infringement in the indictment (for “Taken”)? You’ve denied this in the past even though it’s undeniably true. Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Hey, AJ, can you stop denying that you’ve been payed by your masters at the MAFIAA and just be honest for once? Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Hey, AJ, can you stop denying that you’ve been payed by your masters at the MAFIAA and just be honest for once? Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.
I am not being paid by anyone. I speak my mind honestly and directly. Mike can’t stand it. He only knows how to attack people–and not the merits of their posts. He’s having trouble finding personal attack vectors with me.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
He’s having trouble finding personal attack vectors with me.
More like he doesn’t try because you make it too easy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
On the contrary, if I worked for the MPAA or similar, he’d just be attacking me for that rather than addressing the merits of anything I said. He does the same with other detractors, pointing out that they work in D.C. or are an attorney or similar. It’s his standard operating procedure to attack the person since he’s incapable of attacking their position.
Re: Re: Re:4 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It’s his standard operating procedure to attack the person since he’s incapable of attacking their position.
You mean like how you attack Mike and nearly everyone else on this board?
Re: Re: Re:5 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
AJ destroys Masnick on the merits every time. It isn’t difficult.
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
And that’s why everyone laughs at AJ, huh?
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Eh? If you got out of your mom’s basement once in a while you might know that Masnick is mercilessly mocked and ridiculed by people in the music world.
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
and by music world, you mean the lying blog Trichdocrist, right?
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
If by merits you mean throwing tantrums like a child, yes.
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
LOL! Mike runs from discussions on the merits faster than anyone else I know, including everyone else who posts on TD. Seems like everyone here is happy to discuss the merits except for Mike. Wonder why not… Hmmmm….
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It’s no wonder, anyone would have enough of you for a lifetime after having to endure your comments for a day. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
we have yet to see any merits to anythig that you have said. In any post….
Re: Re: Re:6 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It isn’t difficult.
…is one of average_joe’s favorite go-to lines. (As is “on the merits.”)
Could there be sock puppetry at work here?
I don’t know, but it wouldn’t surprise me, since 1. AJ has admitted he posts anonymously, 2. he has proven to be fundamentally dishonest, and 3. he’s the only person in the universe who honestly believes he’s ever won a debate with Mike.
Re: Re: Re:7 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Are you kidding? Masnick gets his candy ass kicked by just about everyone of his detractors every week. You must be going for the double head pat given that laughable assertion.
Re: Re: Re:8 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
What color is the sky where you live anyway?
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Honestly? You never speak honestly.
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Yes there is, yes he has said that and he’s also said that’s a non-issue since evidence that he was ordered not to remove that file by fbi has been publicly revealed.
Also, you’re delusional.
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Yes there is, yes he has said that and he’s also said that’s a non-issue since evidence that he was ordered not to remove that file by fbi has been publicly revealed.
Nope. He denied it just two weeks ago: “Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific criminal infringement.” Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public-opinion.shtml#c824
I agree that there is an issue with some of the files that relate to the NinjaVideo case, but there are other files where there are no issue including “Taken” which is the one I’m asking about.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I read “Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific criminal infringement.” as “Nowhere in the charges are there any evidence presented to support specific criminal infringement”. And there isn’t.
He didn’t say “He is not being charged with specific criminal infringement”. If he did, you’d have a point, also the subject has been discussed extensively when his indictment was news.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I read “Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific criminal infringement.” as “Nowhere in the charges are there any evidence presented to support specific criminal infringement”. And there isn’t.
He didn’t say “He is not being charged with specific criminal infringement”. If he did, you’d have a point, also the subject has been discussed extensively when his indictment was news.
I read it as him denying that there’s any specific criminal infringement shown, emphasis on “criminal.” That count of the indictment shows specific criminal infringement. It’s criminal under Section 506(a)(1)(C) even though it’s only one film.
The text of the indictment demonstrates some of the evidence behind the charge:
The allegation is that Bram van der Kolk uploaded it personally. The others are alleged to be accomplices (that’s the 18 U.S.C. 2 bit in the text I quoted above). Accomplices are treated as though they committed the act themselves. Thus, all are charged with specific CRIMINAL infringement. This is shown and alleged in the indictment.
I’d love to hear why Mike thinks otherwise, but I suspect, as per ALWAYS, he’s gone now (or you’re him), and we won’t get any answer from him directly. Why he can’t discuss and/or admit this stuff puzzles me no end. It’s OK to admit that something is alleged and shown in the indictment. But for some reason he has to defend and protect Kim and the Gang. Wonder why…
Re: Re: Re:2 Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
He denied it just two weeks ago:
Except that the entire focus of the article was on the aiding and abetting charges. In order to show that Megaupload “aided and abetted” criminal infringement done by their users, they have to show that a specific user committed criminal infringement.
And they have not done that. So, Mike is entirely correct.
Separately, that specific allegation – even if true – probably doesn’t rise to the level of criminal infringement. But that allegation was not the basis of the aiding and abetting charges, so it’s irrelevant to that discussion.
So, once again, you have shown that you are the one that is “slimy and dishonest” (your words).
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
no masnnick we are not pretending you said stuff you didn’t, we are SAYING you DIDN’T SAY STUFF YOU SHOULD OF.
Why, because it’s Kim… it appears.
as for you disagreeing with Kim fatman, sure you did.
what it is Masnick is a glaring lack of consistency from you, don’t you have opinions and standards that you apply to everyone. If so why do you fail to display any consistency?
When you consistently attack ‘patent troll’ like a rabid dog, then suddenly come out with…
That’s actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don’t like Dotcom at all and don’t want to be associated with him.
here you suggesting the tech companies comply with Kim’s demands, suggesting they ‘buy into’ this extortion.
Then this half assed, piece of advise for Kim…
That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don’t fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire.
so not immoral, not illegal, not ‘bad patent’ but just “poorly thought out strategic move”..
Geez, that would send me running for the hill’s, such a forceful attack Mansick..
But if it had of been Prenda and not Kim fatman I am sure you would have been OUTRAGED !!!!
This article clearly shows how two-faced and inconsistent you are.
It also makes it very clear that you don’t really have the conviction of your words.
so now we all know how you really feel, and your real motives. It’s clear you don’t actually really mean most of the stuff you say.
But ‘play favourites’ and if it’s someone you ‘like’ you will happily give up any pretence of standing up for what is right..
It’s clear by the majority of posts here, that you have been exposed once again, as well what you have shown yourself to be here…
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Here’s a little something for you…
Had it been Prenda and not Kim, you and your ilk would be defending his actions 1000%.
otcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies "give me money or I'll sue" isn't the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges
Actually, DotCom could be providing the world with an invaluable service if he does get slapped with racketeering charges for being a patent troll. Good precedent, that, useful in umpty-ump million other patent troll cases, if it goes that way.
Hustler
Kim Dotcom is the Larry Flint of file lockers. Instead of throwing oranges at the the judge he’s throwing them at Google et al.
just read where Dotcom lost the patent in EU because AT&T got it. also read where there is a problem with the same patent in the USA over dates of registration, so he could be in for a swift rebuttal. however, the point about the effect the ‘wrong’ outcome of his case on those three and a lot more, is quite valid. sooner or later the likes of Google is gonna have to step up to the plate and make some sort of stand against the entertainment industries. they have already seen that no matter what a site tries to do to please those industries, it is never enough. they simply keep coming back for more, so you might as well do nothing from day one. on top of that, Google among others are constantly hauled over the coals by Congress. surely it must be getting pissed off with this? i certainly would be and be seriously looking for somewhere else to set up shop where the country/government concerned appreciated having a really, really major employer and tax payer.
I find it also very interesting that you can’t find Kim Dotcom if you serch him on Twitter. They basically censored him in their search!
Here’s coverage of Dotcom’s patent trolling from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-factor-authentication-but-he-wasnt-first/ and Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/23/kim-dotcom-authentication-patents and IPCopy: http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/
All suggest that the patent may not be valid, and there’s even info about the equivalent patent abroad being ruled invalid in 2011. Funny how Mike, who loves to jump on the invalidity train, instead focuses on how this might be bad for Dotcom’s pending criminal trial. No mention of how terrible trolling is or questions of the patent’s validity. But yeah, Mike, you’re not giving him a free pass. You’re treating him like you would any other troll. Obviously. LMAO!
Re: Re:
Here’s coverage of Dotcom’s patent trolling from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-factor-authe ntication-but-he-wasnt-first/ and Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/23/kim-dotcom-authentication-patents and IPCopy: http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor- or-not/
Good stuff. I had looked around last night when I wrote this and looked for prior art, but having not found any, I didn’t comment on the validity of the patent. I assumed you would appreciate me not making a claim about the validity without knowing much about it.
But, yes, based on those links, it looks like the patent is pretty questionable, which reinforces the point I made above (which you conveniently want to ignore) that I agree that this is abusive behavior.
Re: Re: Re:
I assumed you would appreciate me not making a claim about the validity without knowing much about it.
That’s a good point as I think you always jump on the invalidity bandwagon without being able to actually run through the analysis. I know that I couldn’t do it, and I’ve never seen anything that makes me think you could either. The point though is that you didn’t pull out the “invalid!” argument with this patent, and the reason why not seems obvious enough.
Care to comment on whether specific criminal infringement is alleged in the indictment? I’ll refresh your memory:
That’s an allegation of specific criminal infringement. You claimed there were none. Can you admit that there is such an allegation or explain why this isn’t one? Thanks. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf
Re: Re: Re:
I had looked around last night when I wrote this and looked for prior art, but having not found any
How about something as simple as the cold war era nuclear launch systems, which requires a presidential password and two separate operators, on two consoles, signalling to one central system to launch?
It’s very basic, but it is a dual authorization / confirmation system.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
is it the same method or are you suggesting that patents cover the idea, not the implementation or method of producing the result?
Care to try again when you have a clue
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Care to try again when you have a clue
Are you paid to be a stupid baiting troll, or are you doing it for free?
The point of prior art isn’t to show that someone is an exact method duplication end to end but rather to show that, for people knowledgable in the art, that this patent was not something particularly new or inventive. Rather, it’s more of a retelling of systems that have been around for decades, plus the old “with a computer”, which as the standard thing before you could use “on the internet”.
Considering that Techdirt is all against stupid patents, I am shocking that Mike Masnick didn’t rip Kim a strip for a very derivative and evident patent, the type of thing he would do for anyone he doesn’t like.
What’s your excuse? Didn’t you get paid enough to troll fully?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How about something as simple as the cold war era nuclear launch systems, which requires a presidential password and two separate operators, on two consoles, signalling to one central system to launch?
I am still trying to work out how you can say that this is anything like the method described in the patent. where is it sending an authentication to a seperate device that then needs to be entered into the authentication.
Yes, I will agree that the idea is the same, but the method is different.
For a physical analogy, lets look at the mouse trap.
The idea is to catch mice. The methods described in the Mouse trap patents use differing implementations of the idea.
Now, care to try again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“How about something as simple as the cold war era nuclear launch systems, which requires a presidential password and two separate operators, on two consoles, signalling to one central system to launch?”
Depends on the tools utilized to implement it, boy.
Two physical keys are different from two passwords or two retinal scans, or two voice-recogntion systems.
Thinking really isn’t your strong suit, is it, ass with no brain?
Thankyou TechDirtBag Censors
For highlighting the post most worth reading.
Really appreciate the “ADVERTISING” and your efforts to promote those particular posts.
Thanks again.. keep up the good work..
Re: What are you on?
You must be high on something. Tell me the number of your local police station so you can turn yourself in for doing illicit drugs. You’re clearly a danger to yourself and those around you.
And so goes all of the goodwill he may have gained. Flushed down the toilet like the big turd that he is.
Another way of looking at it
Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.
Yes, Dotcom’s words could imply that, but they could also imply “I could have sued you and didn’t, so now it’s time for you to return the favour.”
Is he trolling an individual or net data dealing huge companies?
If he was targeting an individual that would be quite dumbass. But he is asking that to Gloogle, Facebk, Twittr. Like it is said in the article, those are companies having an interest in the ruling. Between, some of them seems to be already deep involved in the patent trolling fight. I am not so sure you can call that racket in our today world.
After Michelin filed the patent for the first radial X tire for cars in 1946, the radial tire clearly demonstrated its superiority.
Look Michelin ‘patented the wheel’, except they did not, nor was “the wheel” “prior art”, they patented A METHOD of the wheel.
One day you may work out the difference, but I expect probably not.