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."
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
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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....
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!