Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Patents Virus Updates
An anonymous reader wrote in to tell us that News.com is reporting that Symantec has a patent for updating their virus definitions incrementally. Symantec has recently informed their competitors of this fact. According to the article, Trend Micro fears not, because they have their own "technology."
That sounds a lot like how rsync works... checksum the file(s), piece by piece, and transfer only the portions which are different. It's been able to do that for several years now, if I'm not mistaken.
--
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to spot the deliberate mistake!
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
No kidding, eh? A virus description file is just a special case of a general file (by definition). The delta diffs, etc, claimed by Symantec have been used for ages to update 'general computer readable files'. Back in the DOS days, anyone remember the patch files for Doom? The patent _does_ say you can patch from any version to any other version (which the Doom patches didn't do), but unlike, say, Microsoft(r) WindowsUpdate(tm) and Service Packs(tm) which download the entire new files the Doom updates were really diffs. Which of course brings up something that has been around for ages, and that is rsync. If generates the differences between any two versions of 'general files' is has indexed and lets you download and apply them to local files.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
hate the game.
--
When you're responsible for a large network with a lot of non-tech-savvy people using it, you need virus protection. Yes, obviously educating the user is the best method, but that requires you to take the time and resources to do that. Most companies don't have the time, or can't spent the time. So what options are left...? Say, a program like the variety from Symantec?
Bash Windows and MacOS all you want. In the end it doesn't matter, especially when its not what we're discussing.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
The USPTO has no pro-Symantec bias. If another company had come forward with this first, THEY would have the patent and SYMANTEC might be getting sued.
It's all well and good to complain about the stupid way the Patent Office is handling things (I agree 100%), but corporations can't just sit on their laurels and say "this is a terrible shame", they either work with the system or they go bust.
In many of these cases, the registering company is registering the trademark just so none of their competitors will get it. The way patents are being handed out for a nickel apiece, it's first come first served. I think the board of directors of Symantec would agree with me that this was their only option.
Don't be mad at one specific corporation, be mad at the system. Corporations don't have a lot of leeway in how they act, after all. If it were a friendly and happy system, corporations would be friendly and happy (though poor).
-Kasreyn,
hoping I made some sense...
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Gee, you'd think that patents were created so that they could allow companies to compete in a market where a competitor could easily reproduce their product. How shameless a twisting of the original intent this is.
That is sarcasm.
-no broken link
Remember that a virus is much tinier, more pervasive, and more invasive than a worm.
We see such viruses as Ebola and Lassa that are tremendously fatal. The same is not so true for the worms that likely only live in the GI tract.
Once invaded by a virus, there is very little that can be done, whether in biological or computer systems; it can potentially get anywhere in the system, and readily be impractical to stamp out. There is no cure to Ebola, for instance.
In contrast, while worms may cause serious problems, by being largely restricted to the GI tract, and by being vastly larger, they are much more amenable to being flushed out.
My conclusion would be that viruses are quite a lot worse than worms...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
...Computer Associates. (Ok 2 words) Their _Free_ (as in beer) virus scanner picks up stuff that neither NAV or Mcaffee will.
http://www.ca.com
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I would agree with you except for one thing. They're not just getting them as a preventative measure. If that were the case, there wouldn't be lawsuits about these stupid patents (Amazon's enforcement of 1-click patent comes to mind). They would get the patent and sit on it. The companies realize they can get money from the patents and are using them as such. If Symantec was just getting this patent to prevent from being sued then they wouldn't be talking about pursuing their rights. I could have mis-read the article, but I gathered that they were going to enforce this patent in not just virus updates, but in many other areas. That doesn't sound like a company getting a patent for preventative measures. Just because all the other companies are getting patents and suing doesn't mean any single one has to. It appears that this practice (patenting something after it's widely used) has become a source of revenue, which is sad. I'm not saying not to be mad at the USPTO for creating a scenario that allows this, but the corporations are the ones attempting to uphold their patents. No one is forcing them to sue. If they're getting a patent just for prevenative measures, why would they care if it gets invalided because they don't enforce it? I'd say be angry at both equally.
Khyron
Honestly, please point to the technological innovation preventing Linux from contracting a virus? Post source code showing where this is at.
Seriously, explain your position. My Win2000 box has never caught a virus. I use Outlook 2000 for my mail, and even have it set up to show executable attachments. We had a breakout of the Prolin trojan last week (and I'd like to thank the particular member of the Linux community who tossed THAT little bundle of joy at me), and my machine didn't catch it. Yet you don't see me trumpeting, "Windows doesn't catch virii!"
Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't.
Enough rant...
I TOLD YOU WHAT THE PATENT DID BASED ONLY ON ITS GOAL. IT IS THEREFORE OBVIOUS.
Um, no. The legal definition of "obvious to a person skilled in the art" is "the invention has been described in a publication more than one year before the filing date." It's that simple.
A patent is a business tool, not a refereed paper. Get over it. Or, if you want to change that, write your congresscritter.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
Who uses antivirus software anyways?
They hog system resources, they slow down pretty much EVERYTHING, they require CONSTANT updating, they interfere with installers, and on top of that, they don't fix anything!
Antivirus software can be very *very* helpful, if they're configured correctly. I worked for the local school district a couple sumemrs ago doing basic software upgrades/configuration on all of the district's PC. Every computer had McAfee installed, but it was almost always poorly configured. The software was often disabled, or not configured to retrieve updates automatically, which made it basically worthless.
And, suprise surprise, we'd find "nests" of viruses in the labs with poorly configured (or no) virus protection. The PCs, as a result, were baerly functioning. We'd bring McAfee back up to speed, give the computer a thorough scan, and eliminate every trace of trouble, almost with no problem (the most infected machine had over 300 infected files, and it got up and worked fine after a thorough scan). On machines so crippled McAfee couldn't be installed, it was a simnple matter to share it's hardrives across the network, and have McAfee scan the drive remotely, which worked like a charm.
While AV software might not be as useful on the home PC, I would say it is essential in corporations and large business. And I would recomend getting AV software at home, too, if for nothing else than to scan downloaded files.
Stupid like a fox!
This article tells us very little about anything. The idea of not having to download the complete program for every update is nothing new.
Perhaps the idea is that there will be a different file for every virus definition. For example, you have version 5.0 that shipped with 10,000 definitions. The first part of the virus definition file contains a hash value that tells you what definitions you have.
So, you go to update you virus file from your favorite site. You send the hash value. They then know what 10,000 definitions you have. So the only need to send you the patch that contains the files you need.
This probably means no pre-defined patches. You will have to make patches on the fly. So person x gets the 100 definitions they need, and person y gets the 200 definitions they need, and these might be separate things.
This can be cool for several reasons:
* Everyone gets what they need
* Conversely, no one gets what they don't need
* No bad patches
* No one has archived patches that aren't good anymore
* Custom programs tailored to the user's needs
* Saved update time
I guess we will have to see if this is really anything new or not later.
----------------------
Kurt A. Mueller
kurtm3@bigfoot.com
PGP key id:0x4FB5FB1D
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Has anyone heard of any patents pending or granted for a computer virus?
according to the article, Symantec feels these patents cover *any* incremental patches to software. quote from the article: "Symantec is not only attempting to apply the patents to the antivirus industry but also to the software industry as a whole. In its statement Wednesday, the company noted that "the technology may be used to update general computer readable files, which may include data files, program files, database files, graphics files, or audio files." " it will be interesting to see how this absurd patent contention plays out.
Here is the link to the patent, if anyone is interested...
/.)
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US06167407__
I couldn't quite wrap my head around it.. but I think they are basically using several different incremental versions of the update, compare it to the current data and then applying the update that is most appropriate.
i.e. say you start with data version 1.
you update to version 2
you wait a while and now they are up to version 5
when you tell the software to update itself it goes and looks to the server and on the server are 5 different incremental updates:
1 to 5, 2 to 5, 3 to 5, and 4 to 5
it realizes that it needs the incremental update from 2 to 5 and loads that one...
of course, I could be completely off, please correct me if I am wrong..(of course you will, this is
HAND.
Run. I like water. Push My rutabaga.
Well just because you can think of how to do it after reading the article doesn't make it non-obvious. Just because something seems obvious in hindsight doesnt make it non-obvious to begin with.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
And regarding virii not found in the wild...(a) where do they get them from?? and (b) there are plenty of rumors that some (if not most) of these virii which never get seen by the public either don't exist, or are created by the labs (directly or indirectly) to keep the business ticking over. I have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, but it's an interesting idea...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
You haven't thought about what AND-ing and OR-ing really mean. _This is a linguistic issue_.
If X1 and X2 are claims in one patent and Y1 and Y2 are claims in another patent, then a patent application consisting of X1 and Y2 and Z is a perfectly valid. Novelty to the whole patent can be by the introduction of one novel claim (i.e. a logical OR). However, a violation would need to be a violation of all three things.
Violation(Patent)
= Violation(Claim1) AND Violation(Claim2)
Novelty(Patent)
= Novelty(Claim1) OR Novelty(Claim2)
This is why to get over Ericsson's vibrating phone patent, Nokia patented the vibrating battery, only one thing was changed, and it was suddenly a new thing.
So I'd avoid trying to use these simple AND and OR terms to blithely summarise everything about how patents work, the brush is too broad.
FatPhil
-- Real Men Don't Use Porn. -- Morality In Media Billboards
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Any recommendations
Switch to Linux.
If what you say is true, and there's "tons of prior art" covered by the claim, what's the problem? Patent isn't valid -- go home. (Unless one of the dependent or narrower independent claims survives because there isn't the prior art to defeat it, in which case, what's the problem?) If what you say isn't true, and either the claim isn't valid or the art isn't there, what's the problem?
You can't read the claim in the abstract -- the terms are defined in and have meaning derived from the prosecution history and the specification. I don't know what does or does not infringe, and would never presume to know without more research and study. This much I do know -- its always best to wait and see before leaping to conclusions.
The claim does appear to be quite broad, I agree. "Update source" in the specification is defined as a server, but I don't think the term is unclear. The patches must have the required state properties, and be applied in the manner set forth in the claim, as those terms are defined in the spec. How they are construed for trial remains an open question, and it seems that those limitations will be key to any infringement litigation. However, any construction of these claims must be understood in the light that the patentee seems to distinguish CVS and related updating technologies in its discussion of the prior art:
Oh yeah, I forgot. It would only be ok to post 'Can I patent something ridiculously common [that Microsoft does]' to be ok with you. I'll try harder to please you next time.
In my mind, the most 'interesting' aspect of this patent is the layering mechanism. On the other hand, I don't know if there's enough unique ideas between the RCS type stuff, incremental backups and this patent to make this into a patentable improvement. Definitely, I don't see this as being anything like the basic patent that they seem to be making it out to be.
--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
printf("bad Symantec");
}
if(Symantec == good){
printf("good Patents");
}
Where you looking for an value for that comparison?
What if a worm happens to get root and then modifies scripts to rm -rf * during the next reboot? You may call it a worm but I might call it a virus.
Can I bum you a
Why would a virus have copy protection? Isn't that counter to its intended purpose, which is to replicate itself?
rm
Sci-Fi Storm
The description of the patent in the previous post sounds an awful lot like "Windows Update"...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Yes, but have you read the Patent? Does the Patent describe exactly the software technologies you worked on? A Patent that uses broad general terms in my mind is not about protecting intellectual property. Broad general terms are more suited to preventing competing technologies, and more recently, the profitable litigation path.
I wish I could think of a witty Sig. Sigh!
Each change was distributed as a separate file. When you built the system, the changes were applied, and the result used for the build. If you skipped several patches, all the intervening patches would be applied.
Another place to look for prior are is in the Marimba http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05919247__ update patent. (I believe that patent fell to prior art, but since it was a similar system, prior art to it may be prior art to the Symantec patent as well.)
I don't see why. You can program an extremely trivial program and protect it by copy protection. All that means is someone else can't copy it or (thanks to the DMCA) reverse engineer it. Copy protection just means someone else can't muck with it, but the program can do whatever the original creator designed it to do. Including replicate itself.
Khyron
I would be real interested in see them enforce their patent on the makers of Antiviral Toolkit Pro. However I'm sure they will approach the Russian Mafia and ask advice.....
I would think he might have a say in this regarding patch(), as prior art.
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
For some reason the AV developers have a hard time wrapping their minds around the relatively simple concepts involved with a centrally-managed system. I have yet to see an antivirus vendor that offers an even remotely acceptable centralized management solution. The idea of an incremental update is JUST NOW being implemented in the various packages. It's not exactly the most complicated developmental task. It's pathetic to see the file-based IPC most of these packages are using for client-server communications. The entire management systems are cobbled-together pieces of crap loaded with this incredible level of lameness. Seeing an antivirus vendor heralding ages old technology as brand-new is of no surprise to me, the entire development effort in that industry seems to be focused on reinventing the wheel and stumbling over problems to which solutions have been devised ages past.
maru
That is hilarious. I did not know you could trademark a pose. Can I submit pictures of Run DMC circa 1985 as prior art?
-B
Logging into a computer? Then I can sue everyone! How about "http://" can I copyright that?
You can't patent that because it would be considered a business plan not an object or process. ;)
...we all get that much closer to realizing The Onion's dream of seeing Microsoft patent ones and zeroes.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Actually, I think, from a cursory look through the pages, that this is different from the way that the common "patch" program works. Oh well, I run SuSe, so I don't use Symantecs stuff anyway.
Best Slashdot Co
How about a geek sick-out day to protest stupid patents. The business school morons need a wake up call. How about it?
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
It's kinda hard to tell, unless I missed something in the article, but it really looks like a perfectly good reason to file for a patent: a process that does something specific. Wow, who'd-a-thunk-it? This one may really have been done "right"... based on prior art, but improving upon it, with a specific purpose - what more can you ask for in a patent... (rhetorical question).
I am eager to see what else spawns from this - whether it be lawsuits (bad), cross-lisencing (acceptable), or nothing (fine by me). Until then, I await further news.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Oh, like diff and patch. Thanks for the insight. Way to "innovate" there.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
More like rsync probably...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
This doesn't really bother me, even the article states:
Yet incremental updates have been around for a long time, most likely for longer than the Internet has been around.
While the patent is pretty stupid, I've got a feeling that no competitor of Symantec's will need to license whatever updating technology they use. One of the patents seems incredibly vague to me, stating:
A software application (110) is updated to a newer version by means of incremental update patches (122). The incremental update patches (122) each contain that information necessary to transform one version of an application to another version. Any version of an application (110) may be upgraded to any other version of the application, through the use of a series of incremental update patches (122). The appropriate incremental update patches (122) are distributed in a multi-tiered manner, such that some update patches (122) update the application (110) by only one version, and others update the application (110) by several versions.
Perhaps others can shed some light on this one (the multi-tiered patent), but it sounds to me like similar technology to update patches used everywhere - small chunks downloaded to update a program from one version to another. Oh well, we'll see what happens.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
There's a thought. Submit and receive a patent for a computer virus. When others come out of the woodwork claiming prior art, you can then nab them for writing the damned things...
rm
Sci-Fi Storm
You participated in the development of intellectual property? Admitting that around here is like drawing a target on your forehead.
Here's a relevent quote:
(Emphasis added is mine.)
So it is NOT OR; it's AND .
Furthermore, you should probably best refer to the USPTO as a canonical reference and not a /. article.
MAC | A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
How old is Debian's apt-get system? (Go with me here.)
Because apt-get compares (mostly) binary packages from multiple "update sources", with comparisons of different versions. (Isn't that the whole point of apt-get update?)
While this doesn't meet the patent per se, because data isn't transfered in the form of a patch, it's amazing how one stupid patent can branch out and squash different technologies.
The worm is still not so pervasive as a virus that resides in virtually every cell of the body.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Compare that to having Inoculan installed on the workstations with automatic updates coming over the network. Yeah it slows the workstations down a bit, sometimes you wind up with a file that you can clean but the important things is 99.99 percent of the viruses get flagged and either deleted or put in a sandbox. Better yet, those infected files don't get transmitted to other PCs.
So, to answer your question, I have 1000+ people using anti-virus software here. I'm sure a few more people can bump that number up an order of magnitude or three.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
So, Symantec, the BAD BOY company which opted to lock the world out of the Optasm source code than releasing it to the world - since Symantec has no use for it anyway - has been granted the patent on incremental anti-virus update.
Think of it - if there isn't any INCREMENTAL UPDATE OF VIRUSES itself, would there be any need for Symantec's latest patent?
So, has anyone applied for the patent which covers the INCREMENTAL UPDATE (or UPGRADE) of VIRUSES?
I remember that the 2600 magazine once had an article about "upgrading" viruses - by changing the register calls and such, and with the possibility of making the "upgrade routine" automatic.
If anyone has such a patent, that might even supercede Symantec's latest patent - and even become a "prior art" example which may render Symantec's patent invalid !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This sounds remarkably like cvs which uses patches and can patch between multiple revisions.
There should be prior art evidence all over the place, this sort of thing is hardly a "new" idea, nor one that Symantec first used... hell, simple cracks for executable programs could, if stretched, be called an "incrimental update" and thus "prior art".
I'd always thought Symantec was a good company, until now... *sigh*
If used correctly they are ment to allow the situation I mentioned. However, patenting a technology that has been used by the industry for a while, with clear prior art, to gain an advantage is what I am referring to. What I don't know, and isn't mentioned in the story, is when Symantec started using this technology. If it was last year, than there's no problem with this. I somehow doubt that considering AV programs have been doing viril updates over the net for years. I don't know about enough about this tech works to comment knowledgably on this patent. I'll let others do that. However, my comment was in a broad sense and not necessarily apply specifically to Symantec. There have been a number of silly patents that have gone through and I was just stating what I saw happening in general.
Khyron
This is (patently) ridiculous. It's more absurd than that Java OS that I heard about a while back.
I have a patent (1354m151345y4) on displaying text on a computer monitor. I also have one (135m34534) where the user hits a little button to enter information into a computer.
Finally, I have a patent (0), whereby users enter information at a website, and it can be viewed by other users. This information can be sorted by date or into "threads," or topics. An administrator can assign a number to the post, which can be used to indicate the quality of the information contained therein.
CmdrTaco, beware! All zero of my lawyers are hunting you down!
-drstatgeek (close enough, at least
Oh, really?
[insert wild speculation and/or accusations here]
I have a patent on breathing in oxygen. Pay me bitch.
--
Tres_Status
stephen
This one really takes the cake in terms of ignoring prior art.
Let's see, two examples that leap to mind:
-Lotus has been providing "Incremental Installers" for Lotus Notes since the mid-90s, well before this was even filed. These, I believe, make byte-by-byte updates of installed files, as well as adding/removing files.
-There was a product called RTP (?) that I think goes back to the **80's** that would validate and patch individual files. We're talking MS-DOS era here, folks.
Do the boneheads at the Patent Office even check these things, or just look at the references listed on the application and assume there is nothing else?
If I paid this level of attention to detail in my college work, I never would have graduated. And I wouldn't have made it a month at my job like this.
Profoundly bad.
So we can now patent the methods through which we fix things? Ya know, these patents can only go so far before we run out of things to patent... then what?
Once again a guy employed with tax dollars doles out a patent that isn't much more than a clever way to copy files. I'm sure that Symantec engineers came up with something that is effective and simple given the problem. But so would just about any other engineer working on a similar problem. Afterall a command like "copy f: *.* isn't a very efficient way to do updates.
All said with a straight face. I've had my meds today...
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
No, I won't hold my horses, because I've just read Claim 1 of patent 6,052,531. That claim is very general, and there is tons of prior art. Claim 1 tries to conver any system in which there is more than one patch to be applied, at least one "update source", with no qualifications on what that update source is, containing the patches, and finally, a client "disposed to receive transmitted patches from each update source". Guess what: CVS infringes, except that it is prior art. Even the Linux script for seeking out and applying patches infringes.
You may have patentable technology here, but only if the claims are rewritten so as not to cover anything that already exists.
That said, it seems to me that the number of patent applications would be increasing. It also seems to me that the number of prior patents that must be searched by patent attorneys and PTO clerks is also constantly increasing. As patents expire, of course, that number decreases as well, but nonetheless, it just seems to me that the system is going to be more and more difficult to work with and more and more inefficient.
Of course, it the patents are categorized hierarchichically and cross-categorized, then the amount of searches required can by much more efficient and smaller...but again, I don't know how it works. Does anybody have any idea of how this works?
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Also, just because someone has used a technique before, it only constitutes prior art if the technique was published. If the technique is kept secret (i.e., closed source), then it is considered a "trade secret", in which another party is free to discover the technique on her own (and subsequently patent the discovery). If I recall correctly, it used to be the case that if someone got a patent on something you held as a trade secret, they could come after you and charge royalties for using their patent, even though you've been using the "invention" for a number of years. This clause has been recently cleared up, so that any previous inventors of a patented invention can continue to use said invention in their own products, they just can't license it out to other parties.
Have you actually read the very reference you quoted????!!!!
Elements within a claim are ANDed. That's what your reference means by "claim elements." (Gee, "claim elements" is not the same as "claims." Who'd'a thunk it?)
The claims themselves are ORed. (Note that the reference you quote talks about "a claim," not "claims."
So if a patent reads:
You are infringing that patent if and only if you are doing ((A and B and C) or (D and E and F)).
Clear now?
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
If X1 and X2 are claims in one patent and Y1 and Y2 are claims in another patent, then a patent application consisting of X1 and Y2 and Z is a perfectly valid.
If a single claim in the new patent is a combination of X1 and Y2 and Z, then yes, it is valid.
If the new patent has X1 in one claim, Y2 in another, and Z in a third, it is not. Each claim is like a little mini-patent in its own right. In patent validity cases, it's common for the judge to uphold some of the claims in a patent while striking down others.
Violation(Patent) = Violation(Claim1) AND Violation(Claim2)
Simply untrue. Violation(Patent)=Violation(Claim1) OR Violation(Claim2). I believe you are confused because within a claim, there can be multiple elements: Violation(Claim1)=Violation(Element1A) AND Violation(Element1B) AND Violation(Element1C).
Novelty(Patent) = Novelty(Claim1) OR Novelty(Claim2)
Technically, speaking of the "novelty" of a patent is meaningless, because each claim is evaluated for novelty on its own. If Claim1 is not novel, Claim1 would be struck down in a court case (in a perfect world). If Claim2 is not novel, Claim2 would be struck down in a court case. If none of the claims in a patent are novel, the entire patent could be struck down, but as far as the legal effect goes that's just the same as every claim in the patent being struck down.
Novelty(Claim3)=Novelty(Element3A) OR Novelty(Element3B) OR Novelty(Element3A + Element3B)
By which I mean by the last part, even if 3A and 3B are both known, Claim3 can still be valid if it combines 3A and 3B in a non-obvious way.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
To infringe that claim, a speaker must have both these claim elements. Any speaker with both elements is an infringing device, and any speaker without both elements is (probably) not an infringing device.
Said quote refers to one claim. To infringe a claim, a device must have all the elements of the claim. But infringing even one claim of the patent is sufficient to infringe the patent.
refer to the USPTO
I found some general patent information on the USPTO's site. But I also found this on uspatentagent.com (not affiliated with USPTO) and this ruling in which damages of $324.4 million were awarded for infringement of one claim of a patent with six claims.
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
IIRC they call it "english kissing" so this is unlikely.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Looks like someone should have patented CVS. Oh well looks like you're fucked. Too bad Symantec can afford to throw millions of dollars at this.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Microsoft (Insert product here) would be prior art.......
--
http://www.mp3.com/revlogik
The legal definition of "obvious to a person skilled in the art" is "the invention has been described in a publication more than one year before the filing date."
Let me make this short. No.
Those are two seperate test clauses you've managed to run together. The important bits are:
(from 35 U.S.C. 103) "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
(from 35 U.S.C. 102) "the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States"
In this case, it probably passes the test in 102 (Only Symantec knows) but it fails 103 miserably. Far more than miserably in fact, as I am a programmer of much less than ordinary skill. For me, a compiler is more useful as a spelling / grammar checker than as an actual compiler.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Delta-based updating? Isn't it like... well... rsync? Not that patent office lawyers or Symantec programmers ever heard of existense of Unix and rsync, but at least one person in Symantec (janitor? son of the HR manager?) should know people are doing this for years?
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
on the patenting process. My lawyers are on the case.
Apathy is a lesser known virtue.
Or, from Cult of the Dead Cow (CDC!) who probably also have a means of upgrading virus software remotely without user interaction.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Right, but unlike you and most of the FP'ers, I actually KNOW what this is about because I was involved. Plus, I _did_ take the time to read the article before I posted.
Um... Not sure if you meant that to be a troll or not. But how about CERT?
And by the way, Symantec isn't doing these things out of the goodness of their hearts. They're a business, and they do it because (directly or indirectly) it brings in money. Crow about their accomplishments if you like, but don't make them out like they're Mother Teresa's Sisters of Digital Mercy - they're a large business, and therefore (practically by definition) almost certainly amoral.
Troll point number 2: I don't know why you think it takes more or less skill to detect a virus not in the wild than one in the wild. That's inane. I'd actually think that figuring out the ones in the wild would be harder, since they're the ones original enough to get through emplaced defenses in the first place.
In the future, remember: Think, then post.
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Couldn't you sue them under DMCA?
well, lets see...most virus checkers call their virus definition files a database...hence a table of viruses and how to identify them. Now last I recall inserting and updating databases have been happening for many many years. And yes this even happens remotely over the internet, or TCP/IP which could be concidered the same thing.
So it seems to me they are pattening sycronizing a database. Won't hold.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
As bad as the patent scene has been lately, its actually nice to see a patent that doesn't seem to be frivolous (aka - instant cash by way of multiple lawsuits). It seems that Symantec felt their process was unique, was a vast improvement upon existing methods, and was important enough to protect. This is what patents are for. Too bad other companies see them as an income source.
Reform the patent process.
Yes. Write your Congressmen, write your Senators, let them know that the people who elected them expect more. The US Patent Office won't improve unless the people damand it.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
I currently own the patents on several viruses that use proprietary technology to spread themselves across the internet. Reverse engineering these viruses is explicitly prohibited under the DMCA and I shall now proceed to sue the socks over anyone who reverse engineers my virii and figures out how to bypass or disable them.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Full Vision Anti-Aliasing (FVAA) Patent:
This patent covers a method to smooth edges seen by the human eye. With this method, sharp edges (or "jaggies") normally seen by the human eye are softened by the process of bending the lens of the eye a small amount so that the focal point of the light passing through the lens is just in front of the retina rather than right on it. Since this is simply a readjustment of a sensory input, no additional processing power is required by the brain to smooth out the "jaggies". This a truly amazing breakthrough for human vision.
(In case you didn't catch it, this is a patent on near-sighted vision.)
If you can read this, then I forgot to check "Post Anonymously".
Well 2 mistakes actually one spelling the other factual.
1. Its viruses (ii ending for latin virus isn't a latin word)
2. depends upon what you call a virus actually, it can get worms, as there are worms out there that can get root, which if it was programmed to do so, could deposit a virus, but so far such a program hasn't been caught in the wild. But that doesn't mean anything.
Not to nitpick, but isn't CERT often chided for being a day late and a dollar short in terms of their advisories? I'm not sure that I'd consider them the speediest of entities.
I like this one better...
jargonfile definition:
virus
virus n. [from the obvious analogy with biological viruses, via SF] A cracker program that searches out other programs and `infects' them by embedding a copy of itself in them, so that they become Trojan horses. When these programs are executed, the embedded virus is executed too, thus propagating the `infection'. This normally happens invisibly to the user. Unlike a worm, a virus cannot infect other computers without assistance. It is propagated by vectors such as humans trading programs with their friends (see SEX). The virus may do nothing but propagate itself and then allow the program to run normally. Usually, however, after propagating silently for a while, it starts doing things like writing cute messages on the terminal or playing strange tricks with the display (some viruses include nice display hacks). Many nasty viruses, written by particularly perversely minded crackers, do irreversible damage, like nuking all the user's files.
In the 1990s, viruses have become a serious problem, especially among Wintel and Macintosh users; the lack of security on these machines enables viruses to spread easily, even infecting the operating system (Unix machines, by contrast, are immune to such attacks). The production of special anti-virus software has become an industry, and a number of exaggerated media reports have caused outbreaks of near hysteria among users; many lusers tend to blame _everything_ that doesn't work as they had expected on virus attacks. Accordingly, this sense of `virus' has passed not only into techspeak but into also popular usage (where it is often incorrectly used to denote a worm or even a Trojan horse). See phage; compare back door; see also Unix conspiracy.
sorry, but patch has been around long enough, and it's free software... thus this patent is void.
If symantec can patent virus updates, do you think I could patents viruses themselves? Specifically trojoan horses? I mean, the patent office has repeatedly show that prior art means diddly-squat these days.
Think about it: I patent programs that appear to be useful, but in the background perform malicious acts on computers and may cause loss of user data. This is the best get rich quick scheme ever! Think of the money microsoft would owe me!
Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
And I just thought of another good, centralized repository of virus and security info: Bugtraq. I don't know that they're largest or most authoritative in the world, but I think they're certainly worthy of notice.
Anyone else have a favorite repository of security info that the original poster in this thread missed?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
1. Its viruses (ii ending for latin virus isn't a latin word)
Sorry, but you are mistaken there. (I know, I have 3 years of Latin, even if that was a looong time ago).
The word was first used in the 19th century and they loved latin at the time.
Cited from Britannica.com
an infectious agent of small size and simple composition that can multiply only in living cells of animals, plants, or bacteria. The name is from a Latin word meaning "slimy liquid" or "poison."
I think I should patent the computer virus so those guys who write anti-virus software will have to pay me for doing anything with any virus. I wonder if it will actually get by the USPO?
It basically boils down to that the patent office just checks to make sure the patent is written up in the proper legal syntax, if so then they grant it and let the courts figure out if it has merrit.
>> It's not a simple file replacement methodology, it's closer to a structured delta-based updating technology. <<
You mean like updating tables with only the records that change?
Rats! Even tables have been ruined by patents.
Table-ized A.I.
Here is my suggestion for modifying the patent process to try to eliminate some of this madness.
1. Patent applications should be published shortly after filing but before the patent is granted. This would allow interested parties to review patent applications and sumbit challenges before the patent is issued. Claims of "obviousness" might also be entertained here, but beware: anyone can have 20:20 hindsight.
2. An invalidation of any claim in a patent should invalidate the whole patent. This would prevent applicants from filing a whole load of questionable/frivolous/fraudulent claims alongside one arguably valid claim. It might also encourage applicants to research the prior art a bit more carefully.
Just my 2[insert minor currency here]
Comments, anyone?
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Only half? What are you wasting the rest of your time on then? ;-)
I think....therefore I am
I reject your reality
"
:-) )
Novelty(Claim3)=
Novelty(Element3A) OR
Novelty(Element3B) OR
Novelty(Element3A + Element3B)
"
Yes, I realised that my simplification was not a good one (I was going to change it to be more like yours), but as I was trying to _highlight the dangers_ in trying to apply propositional calculus to Patent Law, my 'mistake' reinforced my point! (or that's what I claim now
You have the correct formulation, thank you for clarifying it.
FatPhil
-- Real Men Don't Use Porn. -- Morality In Media Billboards
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Yes, but the claims of a patent are ANDed together. To infringe, you have to have a product that not only falls under Claim 1, but also Claim 2 AND 3 AND 4 AND...
B*llsh*t. Patent claims are ORed. If you infringe one claim of any of the 2-million-odd unexpired U.S. patents, you can be sued, and if you are an individual, the corporation suing you (lawyers don't sue people; plaintiffs sue people) will run the trial so long that you run out of money to pay your attorney(s).
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wonder if they plan on patenting their "kill your patition table" function. Yes, Norton AntiVirus 2001 will KILL your hd partition table leaving you a useless HD - and you have to reformat and reinstall. This happend to numours machines here at work. NAV -WAS- used to scan systems and our network for virii. one day it started poping up messges that the boot sector needed repairing and asked to repair it. Being this has beeen done to many times to count with scan disk "ok" was selected. Then NAV said to reboot. Guess what - BAM- no more hard drive. When using a boot floppy with fdisk on it it showed the drive but the partitions had been blown away. And with the way software companies cover their ass - you can't sue them. So ... ALL norton software was banned by the company and the laywers are sending letters to Symantic.
After doing some research I found that there had been a problem with this in NAV since way back in October of last year!
So buyers beware!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Game companies have been doing patches like this forever, and certainly prior to 1998. A game release schedule will often have an initial 1.0, followed by a 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, etc. Sooner or later they'll do a 1.1. They'll often make patches for 1.01 to 1.02, but they'll make a single patch that goes from 1.0 to 1.1, for example. A prior art search should start there!
they're gunning for;
;-)
C|Net's "Catch-Up" program for Win9x.
I'm not going to break down how it works for you, you'll just have to trust me on it
ti_dave
You think they should be able to get a patent on doing more? That's like saying that every patented process has another patent waiting when somebody uses it on twice as many objects!
The "informative" tag should be immediately removed from gregbaker; he is asserting an outright falsehood. Patent claims are not ANDed. If they were, why would anyone issue a patent with dozens of claims? Because patent claims are ORed, not ANDed, patent lawyers try to claim as many distinct things as possible.
Drop him down to a -1, with extra negative karma points for assertively claiming something when he has no clue.
If the other manufacturers want to make life easy on themselves, they could always just use rsync to update virus signatures. They couldn't* be sued for the method because of the huge amount of prior art (using rsync to update things ... ).
... but ...
* Sure, they could be sued
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Remember to run whatever note you send to your Congressman through a spellchecker ;)
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
I have seen these assertions so many times before. If you are right, no problem, the patent is invalid and we are done. If "precisely this technique" has not been used before, however, further analysis (and therefore thought) is required.
And yes, virtually every patent adds elements to existing prior art. In all of these matters, the devil is in the details.
The Teamsters do this, each new member gets the next number. If you don't mind being beaten with sticks and having your car set afire, go right ahead. Jackie Pressor might even rise from his grave to take you on!
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Rosie, Rosie's stylized signature, and Rosie's middle-finger-pointing-skyward-with-arm-extended pose are U.S. registered trademarks of Rosie.
A radio maverick jumps to internet only. The Future of Rock n Roll
The current patent system just doesn't work anymore.
This is my proverbial straw... the general public is gonna need a much bigger one though, unfortunately.
Sig missing. Reward.
The primary infringement is that each new item posted to the sites that are non-compliant are numerically assigned a value that has incremented from the last previous item posted to the site. The infringement is not limited to the Internet, however, and it appears that the methods involved with my numerical ascension have been stolen by numerous companies, organizations, and groups. Furthermore, the methods have been provided without my permission for use to be taught to children in our school systems.
This post (which ironically enough is in non-compliance), will serve as my notice to cease using the methods for determining numerical precedence based on ascension.
Thank you.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
"Symantec is not only attempting to apply the patents to the antivirus industry but also to the software industry as a whole. In its statement Wednesday, the company noted that 'the technology may be used to update general computer readable files, which may include data files, program files, database files, graphics files, or audio files.' "
So you're telling us this is somehow different, yet does the same thing as updating "general computer readable files, which may include data files, program files, database files, graphics files, or audio files."
Excuse me, but this has been done before.
AC comments get piped to
"rsync is an open source utility that provides fast incremental file transfer. rsync is freely available under the GNU General Public License."
"Xdelta is released under a BSD-style license" and features a "delta-compression algorithm, including diff- and patch-like utilities. Xdelta uses a fast, linear-time, and linear-space algorithm that works well on both binary and text files." Newer versions support "XDFS", the "Xdelta File System", "making it a reliable solution for delta-compressed file storage".
someday the french are gonna patent french kissing!
Did you read the article? (No). What does the article say? To sum it up, "They patented a method of updating virus definition files that is more efficient, using less space than updating the entire file". They said nothing about how. Did I read the patent? If I had, I wouldn't have asked 'Where's the patent'. Now, I just gave you how it is done. Therefore it is obvious.
In case you misread me again, I'll sum it up in a nice concise all-caps sentance, in bold I may add.
THE HOW IS OBVIOUS.
If someone were to ask me how to update any sequence of incrementally changed repeating records with the lowest possible data overhead, I would suggest the same thing; Use a change vector, or as one other poster put it, use a delta. Having now skimmed the patent, it appears to be a multi-part change vector with revision stamping.
In case you misread me yet again, I'll sum it up in another nice concise all-caps sentance, in bold I may add.
I TOLD YOU WHAT THE PATENT DID BASED ONLY ON ITS GOAL. IT IS THEREFORE OBVIOUS.
.sig: Now legally binding!
I don't know, It seems to me that Symantec is not very good company either. While they aren't as big about FUD as say trendmicro, they sell their biggest products (Norton AV) primaily though FUD. Lets face it, virus scanners are not a very good fix to the virus problem, and virus are easy to avoid.
Additionly most of Symantec's products exist only to fix defficiencies in Windows and MacOS, namely that they don't have any kind of real file protection and they don't have adaquate filesystem management utilities.
ie
Norton AV (ugly patch for lack of file protection)
Norton Utilities (ugly patch for the fact that windows has ugly file and data sturcuites, ie FAT32 and the registry)
Norton Internet Security (ugly patch for the fact that windows has no access control)
Norton Ghost (expensive dd clone)
Basicly their is nothing that Symantec sells that doesn't come with, or isn't needed by Linux or *BSD)
The reason Linux doesn't get viruses is that the morons who would take the time to write a virus, don't want to hurt the Linux brand(?). Those who would like to, don't know Linux enough to be able to, and by the time they learn, they realize that it's better. My 2 drachmas (been playing Zeus too much)
Sig missing. Reward.
Symantec's virus institute is so sophisticated that they've managed to release updates for viruses that haven't even been spotted in the wild, yet!
That's because AV companies tend to create viruses, so that they can release fixes for them.
Ultima Online has been doing this for 3-4 years (as do other online games now I'm sure). Granted it may not be exactly like Symantec does it, but they are incremental updates, and very common (in the beta of UO:Third Dawn, there have been 40+ patches in the past few months).
There is another link from Wired but it is from '94. I remember this being an issue and there was a promise of reform but I can't find anything recent abut the quota system. Does anybody else have more current information?
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
In related news, K00L ACiD, a 13 year old l33t hacker, has announced a patent for his Virus Deployment Apparatus (TM). The system uses an uncanny technique of replicating itself, most often done by the transposing of zeroes and ones from one media to another. When asked how he'll defend the patent, Mr. ACiD explained, "I'll DoS yer sorry ass."
-- Solaris Central - http://w
On some Symantec products, they state that the arms-crossed pose of the Holy Pink-shirted One is a trademark of Peter Norton (not Symantec though, Peter Norton is a third party).
Ah, here it is, from:
http://www.symantec.com/legal/legal_note.html
Third Party Trademarks
Peter Norton, Peter Norton's stylized signature, and Peter Norton's crossed-arm pose are U.S. registered trademarks of Peter Norton.
why every year they organize the production of a flu vaccine expected to match the viruses live in the general population for that year .... with this long term example of how to handle infectious inofrmation diseases (be they bits or RNA) it would appear to me to be obvious to anyone working in the field ...
Any chance on getting a patent on "malicious code designed to hamper productivity, clog major internet backbones, and make me look cool to my friends"?
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
cvsup, used by FreeBSD to update the system's source code based on CVS trees, is exactly what is described in the first patent. It has the same abilities, including the delta based changes and time based changes.
In fact, what they talk about is basically a remote revision control system; so how they can claim this as a valid patent is, well, patently absurd.
This patent needs to be thrown out either because of prior art, or because it is very very vague.
-sirket
another patent they should issue is for inventing and distributing viruses in order to sell more antivirus software.......
You can't handle the truth.
I designed and implemented a patching system that works exactly as the patent summaries describe in early 1997. The software was released in late 1997, predating the patent application filing by around 9 months. The software is in use by hundreds of thousands of users currently. I hope this patent shows up on BountyQuest so I can collect a bounty! :-)
Just so you know - everyone who has ever written a piece of code has developed intellectual property. As soon as you create it, it's copyrighted.
The same thing goes for code you create at work. As soon as you create it, it's not only copyrighted, it's a trade secret.
There's nothing you can do about it.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Didn't PointCast patch/replace itself and it's content incrementally?
I used to be involved in the development of LiveUpdate, and the technology that has the patent here is not simply the updating of programs over the internet, it's a patent on the specific method of how the virus definitions are updated. It's not a simple file replacement methodology, it's closer to a structured delta-based updating technology.
But I don't expect most of the FP'ers to read the article before they scramble to get a post up in the lucrative first 5 minutes of KarmaHeaven....
Actually, it probably wouldn't. If they had to pay through the nose for patches, maybe software developers wouldn't release games that were 50% done anymore :-)
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
I dont know but I have never been a fan of Norton
It's bulky and uses way too many recourses for a program that runs in the background. I also dont know how they managed to get that patent. I have been using Fprot http://datafellows.com/ for close to four years and had much more success. ever since the begining they used virus signitures which could be updated just by replacing a data file. I remember way back when my first little Packerd Bell got a cold,and killed my homework. Norton didn't find it, McAfee found it but coudlnt' remove it. FPRot (fit one one disk at the time) Found it and four other viruses. Ive been hooked ever since.
Those are two seperate test clauses you've managed to run together. The important bits are: (...)
While I agree that what technos quoted is the law as written, reality seems to be a bit more constrained. I'm drawing on my experience as a named inventor and primary technical contact for a patent issued a few years ago (and flamed on slashdot.)
Both of the relevant sections (102 and 103) turn on what prior art the Examiner has in front of him/her (him, in my case.) The interesting thing was that, since the Examiner didn't really understand what we were doing, he turned into search machine on the prior art. He'd look at our independant claims, then try to find something similiar in the prior art. It was almost as though he was running grep on the prior art, looking for matching key phrases.
In my case, he found a patent that mentioned a crucial part of our application, and promptly said "rejected". We had to point out to him that the referenced patent did indeed mention a part of our app, but it also said that "this part cannot be currently accomplished". That is, the referenced patent taught away from our invention.
After a few more rounds of similar things (Examiner say "patent xxx mentions the foo technology, therefore you can't patent it"; we point out that our tech is more advanced or is sufficiently different), our patent was allowed, and issued a few months later.
This is one man's tale. I sure there are others out there.
And no, our Examiner wasn't clueless, just not on the cutting edge of our field. If he was on the cutting edge, we would have hired him. :-)
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
From my limited under standing, an idea, as implimented, being obvious is not enough to count as obvious in the world of patents. It must be obvious within the space of all the other possible solutions. So while their 'solution' to the particular problem might be obvious after the fact, prior to its excecution, they might have chosen another equally or even more effective method. But they didn't they chose the method they chose. Oddly, their chosen method, now patented, may cover all the previously unpatented methods. It's this changing scope and lack of omnipotence among patent examiners that causes the problem. Just the presence of other at least equally good choices in the space of possible choices is what makes their patent technically non-obvious, and gives them the stick to control the space of all possible choices. It's an odd system we have here in the US. Much of it was done by the courts, the test reads as perfectly reasonable, but it's applied in a hopelessly contorted fashion thanks to the courts. But what else did we expect, we're letting sophists make important descisions.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
(OK, so I didn't bother reading any of the article, start modding me down now!)
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Fidonet nodelists were distributed in a manner (in australia, at least) that you could miss a patch and it would still work. Also seem to rememeber MBBS having something similar to this too.
I'm just about to jump on a plane to India (sigh), so don't have time to read he comments at the moment. Hopefully will have half an hour in Sydney airport on the internet PC there, if not, will be using Singapore airport's net access (free 802.11, woop!)
--Rob
Comics:
Sluggy.com - Poing!
Schlock Mercenary.
When did Symantec patent the computer virus? And where's the updates? I only see the main story... how did this get by me so fast that you guys could update it... does this mean we hafta pay Symantec every tiem we send out a mail saying ILOVEYOU?
Along with this and other offenses, I've decided to avoid doing any further business with Symantec. For starters, I've begun to look at other antivirus utilities (primarily for Win2k — stop snickering!). And, so far, Command Antivirus looks to be quite promising, especially since it's available for so many OSs. Any recommendations?
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
If a company pulls crap like this, and it pisses you off... just don't use their software. There's a good, functional, FREE virus scanner at antivirus.cai.com. It seems to detect everything Norton does, and even has a "live update" feature. Grab it while it's still there.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
While the idea does have a few flaws, it'd be interesting to seem something like this attempted. I mean, if I wrote a virus with some form of copy protection in it, I could sue them for circumventing it under the DMCA. Now, I'd get fined and/or thrown in jail for writting the virus, but if you got out on bail and sued the company, it just might open up their eyes a bit. Soon we'd have all the virus writters using copy protection (if they don't already) in their viruses making AV programs invalid or illegal. I think the AV companies would jump on the bandwagon to get DMCA declared Unconstitutional. It'd be interesting to see what would happen, but this will probably never come to be. Kinda sad too because I think an event like this (not necessarily this) is what the industry needs to open it's eyes.
Khyron
Upon installation of a recent copy of the software it seemed to attempt to get on the internet using an obsolute dialup. Since I was already connected via cable it crashed Netscape.
I placed a question on their board where I remember seeing a statement about a 24 hour turn around (i.e. a response). Well if they meant a email response, it has been more than 24 days and still no reply. Perhaps they meant I was to return and search for an answer, well one visit was enough for me.
Windows = insecure
insecure = open to viruses
open to viruses = need for virus protection software
virus protection software = needs updates
updates = bad patent
Yet another evil to blame on Bill Gates.
Talk about the myopia of zealots (and I am one for Linux as well). Socrates said "Know thyself." I like Linux much better than that M$ OS, but I am not naieve enough to believe the fact that it is better is why there are FEW (not NO) viruses for Linux. It has to do with market share on the client and accessbility by the virus writers. When Linux get's into the double-digit share on the client look out. In the meantime, we can harden Linux clients--Eazel you listening?--so that Linux never sees the proliferation and destruction that Windows saw last year. Red Hat no more flawed/exposed releases like the RH&, 'kay?
Yadda yadda yadda, lame patent.
Of more interest to me, and my fellow Slashdotters, is how this will positively affect Linux.
I think it will, since Linux doesn't get virii and Windows does. If you can only get updated virii definitions from one vendor, your Windows box either becomes a monoculture, or has dangerous outdated virii definitions. For the very cautious people that run Norton and Symantec at the same time (yeah, probably overkill, bur you never know) they won't be able to do this.
So, in the end, protecting Windows machines become more expensive, less secure, and Linux desktop share rises.
It's all good!
Incremental Update Patches - Incremental Update = Patches
I've gotten patches which spanned disks before, so wouldn't that make them incremental too?
Wow, that really explains some things...
like how I spend half my waking hours programming...
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Sure this sounds like a whole lot of evil corporate mechinations in the slashdot blurb, but it doesn't sound like their sueing anybody. They supposedly have their own special method, which may or may not stand up in court, but what's so wrong about that?
Nobody else seems particularly worried about this thing so why should we care?
Mordred
Whenever I see someone play Age Of Empires, I always expect to see "Aztechs copyright Microsoft" Or some such...
--
http://www.mp3.com/revlogik
When I do use Windows, (rare)... I've found that some of the newer antivirus programs aren't that intrusive. (Specifically Norton 2001). The memory and CPU usage is minimal, and I've never run into a virus that it hasn't been able to remove yet. McAfee is notorious for hogging resources...
(or viruses, or viruss)
So could I pantent the idea of making new versions of vir(pl) to beat anti-viral updates? And how do I sue for infringement when somebody else uses my method?
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Anyway it's not only US companies make anti virtual software.
I know that you'll think its just another foreigner moaning, but if you think about it, its not really as bad as you think.
But enough about how well that was trolled. I'm a little curious about why no one has mentioned how bad symantec's products are. For the past two years, really, installing Norton Antivirus was a great way to insure you WinTel was never up for more that 30 minutes at a time. (No stones please, I'm not a windows fan, but I am a trueSpace fan, so I don't have a lot of options. Besides windows can be metastable for long periods.) But back to why symantec sucks. I remember that in older toshiba laptops, norton used to kill the video driver. But back when I was fixing computers on the side, on of the first questions I'd ask for people who just had a laundry list of problems was, "Do you have Norton Antivirus?" Something like 95% the people replied affermatively. I do realize a degree of the fault lies with windows, but none of the other virus protection programs had the truly incredible array of serious problems that Norton AV does. Ghost is probably the only software Symantec makes that I would risk owning. By in large, their products can be described as evil in a box. I know, they didn't use to be that kind of company, but times change and my way-back machine is in the shop.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Packet Switching? Array bounds checking? I wouldn't be surprised to see a patent on cookies be suddenly uncovered. This is ridiculous.
I apologize for stating the obvious. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here. This kind of stuff really pisses me off, though.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
While I would love to see reform of the patent process, sadly I am hesitant to have the Congress involved in this without a firm and clear mandate sent to them by us, the backbone of technological society, that provided the substance of the reform. Remember that the Congress is the same collection of softly-funded chaps that passed DMCA and been involved in other dilutions of public rights.
meh.
building a virus is not illegal. putting it into the wild is. Get a patent first.
Yeah! And when the virus hits your system it waits for a few days, then hits you with an EULA that you have to agree to or it formats your system.
On this EULA will be the stipulation that you agree to pay me (Mr. Flibble) $20.00 for the continued use of my virus and its "protection" of your hard drive and information.
It's a good thing that there is no prior art for viruses because that would eat into my cash flow.
Don't worry though, I plan to publish this wonderful program for all operating systems, I would open source it too you know, but I don't want to damage my revenue stream.
Besides, it will be there to "protect" your system right? We all know that security by obscurity is the best security!
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Symantic just copied the idea then patented it.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
The reason seems pretty clear. If the first thing you do after being granted a patent is run out and use them against your competitors, then you've pretty much admitted that you knew about prior art and kept your mouth shut about it. This way, Symantec can say "look, we've held this patent for a year, and then stumbled across a company that we think is violating it".
You have to wonder if the USPO isn't just taking an attitude if just give them the patent and let the courts settle it later.
Note that Intuit uses Castanet to update Quicken.
Any other programmers out there every had to write anything to update customer data file definitions to a newer version regardless of what the current definition was? I sure have with a few different file formats.
I sure we can come up with a couple thousand examples of prior art on this one.
Of course, we must wait until there is a bounty is set.
Just what the world needs,
I've got lots of prior art on that.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
It seems to me that companies that can't compete or can't find a competitive advantage over the other companies in their field have resorted to patenting things in order to gain this advantage. Virus scanners have been around for a long time, and have been upgrading their databases for a long time, so this patent just seems like an attempt to gain an advantage. The only anti-virus program I found to be any good was AVP, and they're not a major player. I like them because updates were free forever and it could detect more viruses than Norton OR MacCafee. In that business, whoever has the largest virus database the fastest has an advantage. Since most big anti-virus companies are about the same in this regard, is seems Symantec is trying to find another way to get an advantage. Lord forbid they work harder. Course, being a non-windows user means I don't have to worry about things like this, so this really doesn't phase me. :)
Khyron
There is only one way I can think of that would be better than a regular UNIXy patch. Using a change vector from another virus. EG, there are fifteen thousand variations on LoveBug and CIM, not to mention the classic Stone-B, each differing only slightly. So, instead of resending the entire definition with each variant, they send a vector that reads 'Variant: STB001. New variant:STB002. New partial search tag at offset 0x003, 0x060F1E667. New partial search signature at offset 0x004, 0x00000000".
If this is the case, how is it not obvious?
.sig: Now legally binding!
While your point still holds true, Symantec makes Norton Antivirus, MacAffee is a completely different company. Let's give blame where blame's due...
--- What
This is coming from the company that is trying to patent the human being "Peter Norton" (keep in mind he hasn't touched the code for the Norton utilities for several years)... What do you expect?
--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Say what you want about the patent process these days; it's nothing like when I first got started in the industry with IBM back in the day. You can get the slightest piece of crap patented if you write it up well enough and pay a fee, and we all know it.
But don't demonize Symantec just because you're angry at the US Patent Office. Symantec is a godsend to consumers and industry giants alike, with their rapid proliferation of virus fixes and breaking news about security compromises. They were the first ones to provide what the industry needed for so many years: a centralized repository of information and knowledge about malicious code -- one that hasn't been replicated (much less supplanted) by even the best efforts of free-software advocates. Symantec's virus institute is so sophisticated that they've managed to release updates for viruses that haven't even been spotted in the wild, yet! Now, that takes a lot of skill, so you know they're doing something right.
Reform the patent process. Don't blame companies who take advantage of whatever they can (before their competitors beat them to it). We'd all be a lot sorrier if someone like Microsoft had gotten this patent than if Symantec had. And we all know it.
Read the rest of this comment...
Just patent your virus and sue the anti-virus companies for reverse engineering it.
Ask Slashdot - google for stupid people.