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...
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
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.
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!
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.
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
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:
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.
...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
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
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.
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.
Do you really think we're gonna sue anybody? Probably not. Heck, apparently our legal department doesn't care about www.liveupdate.com, a Crescendo site named after our updater (the name of which we have trademarked).
I know you're looking for an example of some huge evil corporation intent on squashing everybody like bugs using a mighty system of patents, but Symantec is a company run by and composed of people. Darth Vader does not roam the halls.
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?
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
Sorry dude. You're truly barking up the wrong tree. Ask anyone around here who knows me. Relax... Pleasing everyone is just a waste of time.
Where have I been? Switching jobs, working my ass off trying to launch a company, dating an incredibly beautiful and bright woman... You'd post to Slashdot often if you were me? :)
Any such thing as a secret sid nowadays? Would you care to drop me a note by email and let me know where the action's at? I miss the Old Boys Club...
Perl appears to have been around since about 1987, but patch looks like it dates back to about 1984. I'm not certain, but I don't think Norton Antivirus is older, or even that old.
treke
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!
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".
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.
Has anyone heard of any patents pending or granted for a computer virus?
Well, yes, if M$FT has any patents on any Windows technology.
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
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?
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?
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)
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 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
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)
Its fairly obvious that many of the patents being granted these days have prior art, or violate the "obvious" rule. The patent examiner is noted on the patent. Someone should run through all the silly patents and see if there is a pattern of certain examiners not doing their due dilligence. OR, see if the examiners are being paid off.
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.
No, and neither can you patent the idea of posting a stupid 'Can I patent something ridiculously common' joke. It's been done to death before by better karma whores than you, and it qualifies as prior art in my book.
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 ...
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
I haven't played with my Mindstorms in a little while... I guess they're getting lonely. Last thing I did was a short-term memory buffer using neural networks, to map the room in 2D... Didn't quite work. Nor did the fully mechanical Enigma machine... I think my ideas are better and grander than my building skillz!
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....
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.
hey where you been?
Run Norton and Symantec at the same time? Norton Antivirus is MADE by Symantec.
Difficult to seperate the two....
Symantic just copied the idea then patented it.
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
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,
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!
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...