Slashdot Mirror
Lucky Green vs. Palladium
CodeTrap writes "Wired has an interesting story "Can a Hacker Outfox Microsoft" on a fellow named Lucky Green that is attempting to force the issue surrounding MS's Palladium Gambit using a very creative method involving patents. If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions. Very clever indeed."
it's been proven time and time again that a hacker can outfox Microsoft. Look at all the copies of windows and office and other MS products out there that have product activation. There were hacks and cracks for that technology out before the software's release date.
Why would Microsoft every want to challenge the patents when they have enough money to buy this guy's soul outright?
If a potential patent challenge does ever get to court, who do you think is going to win? MS's $40bln dollar lawyers who have honed their skills playing delay games vs. the DOJ's anti trust suit or this guy and whatever pro-bono legal defense he can drum up?
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Doesn't the fact that the guy's name is Lucky Green sort of tip you off that he's playing Patent Lottery?
Microsoft will make him An Offer He Can't Refuse, and they will buy his patent (if they even need to.)
Warning: excessively realistic and cynical comments follow
Sorry buddy, but you will not get justice in this country unless you have the money for a team of attack lawyers. Anything that may cost Microsoft money will be dealth with swiftly and efficiently, and unless you can match them benjamin for benjamin on legal fees, it's not going to work. Think I'm wrong? Look at the prosecution and conviction rates for poor people compared to rich people for the exact same crime and similar evidence.
And then when MS has the patent, they'll be all the more powerful. Just feckin' great.
Can anyone thing of any other potential abuses for Palladium? Be creative.. it might not be feasible on a large scale for a while...
If you got an idea... run- don't walk- to the patent office today!
If corporations are gonna abuse the system, and the system isn't going to change, then a counter-campaign is in order.
Now who wants to start a fund-a-defensive-patent contribution site a la Blender3D?
In order of likelyhood.
1.) Microsoft has already filed patent applications for this process (pretty likely, I think), in which case Lucky Green will be too late.
2.) Green gets patent. Microsoft uses Palladium for license enforcement. Green gets rich!! Consumer is stuck with Palladium licensing.
3.) Green gets patent, enforces cease and desist on Microsoft, Microsoft finds another way.
Hmmm... I didn't realize there was one to be damaged.
Even if he successfully prevents MS from enforcing only licensed software on its OSs, it still does not addresses the issue raised by RMS in The Right to Read, namely that copyright enforcement thru technology can turn all the World in a global police state in copyright owners' benefit.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Bill G. Hey 'Lucky', can I license your patented process?
Lucky Pound sand Gates, I 0wn j00!
Bill G. Here's 100 million dollars.
Lucky I'm your b1tch.
Trolling is a art,
Why not take Spider's sol'n to this problem ala Johnny Mnemonic:
a cranial drill and a pair of forceps.
1. Name yourself Lucky. ...
2. Patent important technology that a large company wants to use to screw everyone.
The rest is history.
You can't handle the truth.
It sounds like a very sound plan, and it does put M$ in a intesting position as far as the Palladium initiative is concerned.
However, my readings from /. have told me that the main issue with Palladium has always been to secure digital entertainment content (ie. movies, music, etc) However, there is nothing saying that M$ could not develop another "technology" separate from Palladium to work on software licences (therefore negating the "patent protection" this has bought us)
I can't really give too informed an opinion without reading the actual patent filed (and I find it interesting that Lucky Green's website hasn't been updated since the symposium), but I can see M$ being able to honor this and still work around it, should they choose to.
If all else failed, they could go back to the ??IA for the political power to pull it off. "We scratched your back with Palladium. Now, you scratch ours."
Of course, this may be all a bunch of paranoid M$ bashing. Maybe they will do the right thing about it all. It's just interesting to think of the possibilities...
Slashdot - Come for the creative thought, stay for the lesbians!
And here I thought he was a leprechaun. They're always after his Lucky Charms, ya know!
I don't really care if MS uses Palladium to stop people from pirating software, good on them. The REAL problem is them using Digital Rights Management to control what software you can run on your computer regardless of license.
Without the right signature for DRM, you can't run a piece of software that isn't licensed to run on that hardware. IE, not "I don't have my 30 day license," but "I wrote some software, and didn't pay the company that made the OS so I could write it." In other words, bye bye Linux.
The article doesn't seem to cover if his patents cover this, since thats what I THOUGHT they were talking about until the last few lines where they talk about piracy.
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to enforce software licensing ?
Yes we all love free software blablabla... but MS Windows, MS Office & co are their intellectual property and they should be free to do with it what they want. If they want to charge zillions of bucks, then that's ok. They may. It's their software.
When you want other people to respect that you give software away for free via the GPL, then you must grant other people the right to charge money, too.
This open advocacy for pirate copies is a bad thing. Declaring crimes as "minor incidents" via public opinion dictatorship undermines to morale of the society and the goverment as a whole. Stuff like this is the reason for Enrons of this world.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Well if the prosecution was using only similar evidence to prosecute two different people for the exact same crime, you'd think both parties would probably get off. Reasonable doubt demands that if I can almost convict you, then there is still a shred of doubt you did do it also. If there is doubt you did it, there is shred of doubt that the other guy didn't/
The exact same crime with two defendants. Not an easy game to play.
IANAPE, but his claim in the states should count as prior art for some period for him in Europe, both in applying himself and stopping MS doing so. And MS does target the global market, so they cant do it in USA but not elsewhere....
No, you are wrong! It is your attitude that is the cause of the Enrons of the world because it defends the immorality of an immoral corporation.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Palladium is a sytem to provide end to end control of the data in the hands of a third party.
By having complete control of the data one can enforce copyright or usage restrictions.
The goal of the patents (according to the article) is to prevent the use of end to end control as a copyright enforment method
Eager to allay fears about the scope of Palladium, Biddle insisted that the impetus behind Palladium was solely to secure digital entertainment content and that he knew of no way that it could be used for the enforcement of software licensing. This assurance was made while he spoke on a panel at the USENIX Symposium.
Uhm... isn't that exactly what everyone is fussing about in regards to Palladium ? The fear that it will be the death of fair use ? They even admit that it is to be used for DRM.
But was is so wrong in enforcing software licensing(=preventing theft of ones product) ? If you want to use MS software, buy it, if you don't want to use it or don't have the money use open source. But apparently people are not interested in protecting their exitisting consumer rights (=fair use of stuff they have bought) but in protecting their stolen free beer (=pirated software). Thanks for giving the industriy a great argument pro Palladium.
Here are some interesting links. Remember kids, it's not whoring if you're doing it anonymously!
s tems.com/msg02554.html: Lucky Green discusses this issue
p to/2002-June/019444.html: Palladium and TCPA.
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@wasabisy
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcry
Google should yield even more interesting documents
MS's monopoly is based on software installation. Even if you don't send MS one red cent for their software, you still contribute to upkeeping their monopoly.
As long as this doesn't affect their bottom line, and they're taking "reasonable actions" to combat it, they don't need to care.
As far as I know, patent pending is a legal tactic to stretch-out a patent's time of exclusivity. When a company has a 'patent pending' it pretty much means everyone who is using the not-patented-yet technique is screwed. IIRC, Colgate used this technique with its Total toothpaste that leaves some kind of layer of chemical protection on your enamel(sp?). It allows that 'patent' (which isn't really a patent yet) to be stretched out to about twenty years. Someone please correct me or elaborate further...
put the what in the where?
As seen on The Simpsons , all Bill Gates has to do is "buy him out".
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I don't know how things are in the US, but here in Blegium if you patent something but don't "use" it (e.g. implement the stuff you describe in your patent and market it) for a number of yearts (I thought it was two, but I'm not sure), the patent office can force you to license it to third parties who are interested in actually bringing to market what you patented.
This regulation is there to make sure companies don't invent something that's better than anything that's out there, but wait with actually using their invention because e.g. they already have most of the market and as such aren't inclined to improve their product, but at the same time they don't want this technology to be used by their competition. So it's some kind of consumer protection (within X years, the consumer will have access to the invented stuff if it's usefull and marketable).
So if this rule also exists in the US, this guy could actually be forced to license his patents to Microsoft (or anyone else) if they want it. They even don't have to challenge it. It'll still show the licensee's "true intentions" of course, but still...
Donate free food here
[from the article]: "In the U.S. we give the patent to the first inventor, and there's some possibility that Microsoft, or someone else, could show that they were the first to come up with this and prove they deserve the patent."
.. it's been shown that examples of prior art [i.e. the SmartBot patent] do little to sway the patent office. Skeptically, I see M$ passing a few large bills under the table in advocacy of their "deserving" the patent.
Well
Something you can think of off the top of your head just after a conference really ought not to be patentable. It's a weakness of the system if it is.
Abusing the patent system by obtaining ridiculous patents is one way of demonstrating how broken the system really is. My all-time favorite is Method of Swinging on a Swing I laughed so hard when I read it that I cried!
First off, I really don't think that Microsoft wants to stop software piracy, it's not in there best interest to do so. So this whole thing is just a waste of time.
Hell, many people in Afghanistan use Windows XP. If MS was to put anti-piracy measures, those people would be forced to switch unless they like paying a whole years salary just to buy Windows.
From the article:
"Biddle insisted that the impetus behind Palladium was solely to secure digital entertainment content and that he knew of no way that it could be used for the enforcement of software licensing."
Now, according to El Reg, Microsoft recently published a job ad for a position within the Palladium group which contained the following sentence:
"Our technology allows content providers, enterprises and consumers to control what others can do with their digital information, such as documents, music, video, ebooks, and software. Become a key leader, providing vision and industry leadership in developing DRM, Palladium and Software Licensing products and Trust Infrastructure Services."
Contradiction city, I say.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Don't they do that all the time?
The latest hack from news.com
. This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
Lucky's description of why he did it
--
"Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!"
So what happens if Microsoft doesn't bother arguing with the Patent right now?
Lets suppose they want to do software license enforcement with Palladium, in the future.
Even if they let the patent go through and don't fight it now. They have enough lawyers to get the Patent overturned later when it "doesn't suit their interest".
Sure it'd be more expensive then just fighting it now, but I'm sure they've got prior art sitting on a SourceSafe server in Redmond somewhere.
Microsoft can simply implement the patent secretly, ie phone-home software licensing data, without announcing it. Deny they do this if necessary - after all, the data is not for public consumption, just for 'partners'.
Doesn't matter if the patent is granted - the patentee will get nowhere suing MS, and this way round the burden of proof is on the patentee proving MS used the patented technique.
Might even find DCMA covers the encrypted data been phoned-home, so it could be illegal to attempt to prove such patent (if granted) was violated. Wow!
If you were logged in, you would get Slashdot karma points.
Since you are not logged in, you get real life universe karma points instead of Slashdot karma points, and these are even more valuable.
So not only are you still a whore, you are a particularly successful/promiscuous/dripping one.
I'm sorry, but if you don't know Microsoft's TRUE intentions by now, then you need to get out of the cave and read a newspaper once in a while.
"Why would Microsoft every want to challenge the patents when they have enough money to buy this guy's soul outright?"
What happens if Lucky sells his patent to someone else with deep pockets who hates Bill. IBM? Sun? Apple? Oracle?
That would be very sad if this were the first test case of a "shady" patent being overturned. With all of /.'s (justified) whining about patent reform, I wouldn't be a bit suprised if large companies decided to join that bandwagon and target patents like this for annihilation.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I mean, really? Are we all going to give props to this guy for going out and patenting an algorithm? C'mon, this is slashdot people! Let's get those torches lit!
Whether or Lucky Green intends to "sell out" to Microsoft or hold his patents to frustrate them, this is an object lesson in how broken patent law is. At least they're apparently catching on down at the patent office. Declan McCullagh reports that "The head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acknowledged on Tuesday that many business method patents had been wrongfully awarded in the past, but predicted a more careful approach in the future." Time will tell, I suppose. In the meantime, no need for an actual product, or even a plan for a product, or even a clearly defined idea for a product. Patent first, ask questions later.
If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions.
What about Microsoft sues him just because they can and they are pissed at him for trying to show off as a geekero? Would that mean Microft's intentions are to use Paladium to enforce their licenses? It just does not make sense.
As much as I don't like Microsoft, I still believe that they can and are going to enforce their copyright however they can. It is their right to do so.
On a second thought I don't believe Lucky Green really has enough technical details about Palladium to be able to create a foundation for his patent. You have to describe how you do it not only that you do it. For example you can't patent a levetating car if you don't know exactly how you are going to do it.
Hmm, no YOU are in the wrong...
...oh and of course he got modded -1 flamebait for the obvious truth...
His attitude caused enron did it??!?
What a crock!!
He's right about the 'public opinion dictatorship'...but that's ok...you only believe what the marjority thinks anyway right??
MAN!!, slashcommie hasn't changed a bit, has it??
It tries to make sure that you have the right to play the song on the hardware, i.e you haven't ripped this from some CD. If you did, then it will go BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP and then like start singing in Billy's voice. This will ensure that you never copy or listen to another song ever again.
Uh, wait a minute...
" Let's see how Lucky he is when a Peruvian assassin knocks on his door"
Oh no! No-one expects the assassin llamas! (Think the llama on the old llamasoft poster with the shades and the leathers).
graspee
On Slashdot, "illegal" must mean anything supportive of Microsoft or detracting of Linux.
But "lucky green" sounds like a cleaning agent and "palladium" sounds like some moldly crap growing on my sink... so "lucky green" vs "palladium" sounds like some commerical where a frustrated house wife is tired of scrubbing, so she sprays on the cleaner and voila, its brand spanking new...
then again, maybe its just me...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Note that this isn't a slam on Microsoft. I'd probably do similar things if I held a monopoly on most desktop software. On second thought, I'd probably just sell said monopoly and retire happy :)
Does it cost a lot to file a patent?
Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Case in point: a friend of mine who is a decision maker for some of his company's IT purchases used an illegal copy of Dreamweaver for a few months at home. When the company accelerated their online presence, he recommended Dreamweaver, a great product, and the company bought a ten seat license. So Macromedia lost $200 on him, but gained a few grand on his company. Of course, they didn't really lose the $200 on him, 'cause he's a cheap S.O.B. and wouldn't have ever bought it himself.
If Microsoft and other companies implement this, it will be their downfall - not from a consumer backlash (there will be one, but not huge), but rather because many people will lose focus on their product line and try alternatives. They've forgotten the lessons of their success in the browser battle.
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
This interesting startegy has prallells among corporations competing with each other. I heard rumors that Motorola has pursued this strategy against certain telecom competitors:
If a competitor has a strong patent, and they want to pursue the same technology, then there is an alternative to violation.
They pursue patents on improvements on the original patent. A couple of years down the line, the originator will be compelled to use some of the (perhaps obvious) patented improvements. Then they are in an excellent bargaining position, either for royalites or for rights to the original patent.
Tor
If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions.
Or they could just ignore the patent and assume that he won't be any threat to them, even if he has a valid patent and they infringe on it. I'm afraid they'd probably be right in this.
Science may someday discover what faith has always known.
-1 indirectly redundant!!!
I've filed for a patent on using a software monopoly to force hardware vendors to implement a hardware based authenication scheme, in order to prevent free open source software from running on on said hardware without my permission. Thus if M$ tries to use Palladium to screw Linux, i've got them by the balls.
Well, since we all know MS monitors /.:
/. for screwing over this plan.
MS now knows this guy's intent, and probably is already getting the ball rolling on how to thwart it. Most likely, they are already drafting a letter to the patent office on why this is an invalid patent (using whatever legalise they can come up with).
So, thanks
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Thank god someone is doing something. If we don't fight to defend our rights than we shall surely lose them. I'm only surprised that more people, especially Americans, allow themselves to be so abused and exploited.
The affluent and powerful are enslaving us, and this is surely a test of our determination to be truly free. Will we pass, or will we fail? IMHO, our way of life is at stake from those who seek to own us and control us. We need more hereos like L. Green.
That makes me wonder. Why hasn't MS gotten around to buying themselves a small country yet? (Or, possibly, just buying an island and delcaring sovereignity, which might make them one of the first to do that and become actually recognized, as far as I know...) You'd think it'd be easier for them. They could just make up their own laws. (Open Source is illegal! Everyone must upgrade every product they own as soon as the next one comes out! )
I'm not sure I understand what legal risks Green takes on by filing for some patents. If the patent office determines that Microsoft has a prior claim on these technologies (or processes or whatever) then Green's applications will be denied, but will anything else happen? I probably just don't know enough about patent law. Ravi
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
1. The federal cicuit has been more keen lately on invalidating internet or business method patents due to obviousness problems.
It could be argued that it would be obvious to extend palladium's capabilities to include software registration enforcment.
2. Microsoft is not above patent law on legitimate patents:
Since 1998, Microsoft has been named a defendant in at least 35 patent-infringement cases, compared with seven suits in the prior 22 years. Twenty-one are currently active. - wsj 10/3/02
It's not such a bad thing. If he sold out the patents, lucky would still likely support the anti-corporate anti-MS community.
Which leaves us with what: A guy with brains, who likes the hacker community, and has a lot of money to donate...
If he gets the patents, even if he sells out we're not really losing anything. If the attempt wasn't made, MS would have pushed the Palladium software licensing button anyways.
Nope. Wouldn't work. Microsoft can demonstrate prior art.
TyZone
MS has another course. They can put palladium into production, as "described".
Then, they can attack the patent. But, then, the infrastructure will be in place, legalized, and irreversable.
By that time, Microsoft will be shown for the fink it is, but it will outright own every file known to man.
Heh, then all MS has to do is revoke Lucky's key and his patent app vaporizes into thin air.
You are redundant for saying that I was redundant.
:)
Look at the time stamp, my post was the first one with 'Profit' in this article!
You can't handle the truth.
LOL! Buy their own island, and force its two inhabitants to upgrade to XP Second Edition because, um, (flips Excuse-Of-The-Day card).. they live on the East side and not the West side - if they had lived on the west side they would have gotten free upgrades for life. :)
an article appeared in Dr. Dobbs about HP printers and their automatic detection of past-expiration date cartridges, etc, and how the system really does not work. HP's whole idea was to make it impossible foir people to by ink refillers, so they would need to throw out $40 on brand new cartridges, and many such tosses while debugging it. eventually, they stopped doing this.
microsoft might try to do the same thing, but remember, if it is transparent, it WILL be hacked, and if it just blocks your system, people will get very annoyed/pissed/angered/dissatisfied, etc. you get the point. it is not naturally possible for m$ to create a technology that is not crackable and yet keeps most people happy.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
I mean, hackers have been able to crack every single piece of digital rights managment before, why can't they do it again?
I mean, all we have to probably do is write an L on the processor in black marker and that will crack it. LOL
... is made from people!
You're not getting it. He doesn't need to defend it. He just needs to have it either attacked or not attacked.
Of course if Microsoft feels strongly that they can win the court case, then thay may choose to simply ignore his patent and keep their intentions secret until they are ready to roll out the tanks and whatnot, thereby leaving Lucky Green with the impetus to attack them.
In that scenario, Microsoft has neither announced its intentions by trying to patent piracy prevention, nor by attacking his patent, nor by trying to buy him out.
How can you own an idea? Really...
Intellectual property is a silly idea when you really think about it. Since it's such a silly idea, I'm more sure than ever that humans will not figure it out until they have a big war about it.
Of course, I shouldn't say anything... I make my money selling intellectual property - software. I suppose it's a simmilar business to prostitution: I sell my stuff, and I still have it! What a racket. What a crock.
The thing that scares me about DCMA is the fact that we're not saying you can't think about certain things (like cracking encryption)... The slope is slippery... and covered with green paper with pictures of dead presidents.
$G
-- $G
...
this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
Actually, I think the original poster got it right. The plan according to Slashdot's editors seems to be as you said, but of course we can't rely on the editors, and it appears that many posters, like the editors, failed to read the article. The article clearly states:
"Aggressively enforce" makes it sound like he's actually trying to do something more than just discreditting a company that's already been discreditted hundreds of times before.The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
In the RMS biography "Free as in Freedom" by Sam Williams, the point is made that Stallman views the legal system as just another system to be hacked upon. There is a complex set of rules to follow, and with a clever, well-made program (e.g. the GPL) you can achieve things people hadn't even thought were possible.
Using the patent system against itself and against Microsoft seems to me to be at least a similar idea, if not the same thing.
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
Consider this:
1) Microsoft wants everyone to use their software.
2) Microsoft wants everyone to pay to use their software.
3) Microsoft wants to ensure through techinal means that everyone pay to use their software because users cannot be trusted and we are all villians.
4) Microsoft will use Palladium/ to ensure that everyone pay to use their software.
Joe Blow Public doesn't care about any of this because Joe Blow Public invests in Microsoft shares and are happy when they get a good rate of return. As long as Microsoft makes them money and they can run their birthday card creator program, they don't care. How many non-slashdot readers are going to say "Wow, Microsoft does some things I don't like - maybe I shouldn't use their software"? Yeah right!
I applaud this guy for at least doing something, but this won't prove anything we don't already know.
Now Lucky Green just needs to file a process patent that patents the process of filing a patent as a defensive mechanism to keep anyone from using an idea they say they won't use....
For a forum that bitches endlessly about bad patents, most posters here really don't know anything about what they're talking about.
1) LG must first have his patent applicatations successfully examined. This takes time and money (not a lot of money for a single inventor who thinks they have something valuable on there hands, but a fair bit for someone merely trying to make a point. Things become much more expensive if LG wants to apply internationally (requiring foreign patent agents, filing fees, translations, etc). LG must demonstate that his patents are not anticipated and not obvious. Despite all the bad patents that show up on Slashdot (and there are plenty), this is not an easy task, especially if you don't have the services of a patent agent or lawyer. It is also possible that MS has patent applications on these very issues (possibly not published yet), so the whole point is mute.
2) LG having the patents does not prevent MS from doing anything UNLESS LG sues MS for patent infringment. This costs huge amounts of money. Even companies that don't like MS aren't likely to be supporting this cause, since they don't want to antagonize MS or well, waste their money (maybe the EFF?). LG probably has other things to worry about (work, family, mowing the lawn, etc). MS has a division of people paid to worry about little problems like this.
Lucky has a nice idea, but I don't think the timing is really going to work. Here's the problem.
He wants to know if Microsoft is going to use Palladium for copy protection. We'd all like to know that. Well, of course, we're going to find out sooner or later, at least by the time they release Palladium, maybe around 2005. And chances are we'll find out sooner than that, because Microsoft will release specs and APIs to the developer community in order to have applications ready when the technology is released. So maybe we'll find out about 2004.
Lucky wants to speed up this process, so he files a patent hoping that Microsoft will either challenge it, or it will turn out that they have a patent of their own. But it's likely to take a couple of years for his patent to go through. So he's not going to find out until around 2004 anyway.
The timing doesn't really work. Waiting to see if Microsoft contests the patent won't give information for a couple of years. And by that time, chances are Microsoft will have revealed enough information about Palladium that we'll know the answer anyway.
The one thing that isn't going to happen, I guarantee, is that Microsoft will say "Oh no! Our secret plan to use Palladium for copy protection is ruined due to Lucky Green! Curses, foiled again!" If Microsoft does plan to use Palladium like this, they'll have the patent protection in place well in advance.
Novelty: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Peter Biddle, Product Unit
Manager for Palladium, very publicly and unambiguously stated during
Wednesday's panel at the USENIX Security conference that the Palladium
team, despite having been asked by Microsoft's anti-piracy groups for
methods by which Palladium could assist in the fight against software
piracy, knows of no way in which Palladium can be utilized to assist
this end
The words knows of no way, if they describe exactly what Biddle said with respect to Palladium and software licensing, creates an easy-out for Microsoft. Let's say that M$ has been working all along on a scheme that incorporates Palladium in a way that can be used to manage software licensing (which, given M$' track record, is more likely than not). Come the day it's thrust on an unsuspecting consumer public, they can point to this very statement and maintain that Biddle was, in good faith, representing the thruth - that he didn't know of any effort like the one mentioned. Whether he actually did, of course, is another matter entirely. Pointy-haired corporate executives use this gem all the time to elude personal responsibility: "I'm sorry judge, I had no idea the board authorized a personal loan for $300 million."
Ceci n'est pas une patente.
I believe patent law does have some statements about turning it into practice; hopefully someone with more legal knowledge can clarify that. However, I'm sure Mr. Green can implement the technique and sell the product in limited editions (e.g., 3 copies total worldwide), which would probably satisfy any such requirement.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Where does someone get stats on "exact same crimes" differentiated only by poor vs rich?
Barring some website I don't know about, I'd say we're stuck with perhaps bemoaning the prosecution rates for poor vs rich, for which we'd probably have to acknowledge a greater actual crime rate amongst the poor.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I would hate to be an advocate for DMCA, but I see the point of music publishers who are losing revenue to the likes of Napster, etc. At the risk of being derided, I think that some kind of DRM solution is necessary for the market to ensure that artists get paid for their work. The thing I don't agree with is the M$/Intel proprietary nature of the thing, bent to their wills and thoroughly sacrificing our privacy in the interest of fair payment.
This seems like the ultimate open source solution--opening up DRM and TCPA so that anyone with the programming skills can audit its activities. Why can't open source elevate DRM to the level of standard that Ethernet enjoys, for example?
DRM and TCPA aren't wrong, M$/Intel monopolizing the effort is wrong.
"The twist is that Green has no intention of implementing these techniques himself"
So I can just make up any old thing I want, like "A device and procedure for use of the device that allows an enitity or entities to travel into the past or future", and then be the beneficiary if anyone in the whole US actually creates it? That's cool.... Good system we've got there.
Steve Balmer: "Mr. Green's luck has just run out."
Hackers have been hacking the computer systems for a while now, it was inevitable that Microsoft made themselves such a nuisance that one of 'em would figure out how to hack the social systems as well.
This seems to be another case of this - Microsoft wants to establish a standard method of copy protection and protocols to link all programs into their system given the proper set of keys. That it is a proposed standard by a single corporation tells me that it will fail miserably.
Of course, it's probably just simpler to rant yet again that Copy Protection Doesn't Work(TM).
This sig no verb.
Well I guess all the gloom and doom advice in this forum is comming from two facts. One the biased viewpoint that money wins em all. Two even more important. Most aren't lawyers in any capacity. The law and the legal process is the ultimate black box to them. The good side does indeed win. You just aren't going to turn on CNN and hear about it. For a better way to look at it take the viewpoint of a dedicated gamer. Yea that's right the legal system is a game. A serious game, with serious consequences, but nevertheless a game. The people who win games are the one's who understand both the rules and the interactions of those rules. Knowing when one can bend, and were as well as break. The outspending argument is simply bruteforcing a solution much like bruteforcing a cypher. While elegent methods avoid that by taking the gamers view. To wit the MS solution is simple brute force. Lucky Green's solution is better because he's taken a gamers view, and has built an elegent solution. Kind of like the japanese idea of using your enemies strength's against them.
"2.13.8.4: As with the levitating car (patent #540911245), the technique exploits a natural phenomenon known as "magic".
Where do we put a statue for this guy? ;-)
But seriously... If MS fights these patents they show their true intentions you say? Why is that? Maybe they would rather have had those patents themselves? For what purpose ? True... probably the wrong one (wrong in OUR eyes), but maybe to make sure no one misuses THEIR technologie (palladium) ?
Why is no one doubting the intentions of this guy? And maybe if his intentions are good NOW, what if he is granted these patents and realises, maybe not now, but somewhere along the way, what power and possible wealth he could gain with these patents? Maybe at a point that he desperately needs money or whatever, or just because of plain greed.
We always question MS here, but we still need to take a carefull look at the other parties as well ok?
So please stay political! Support FFII and Eurolinux in their fight against SWpatents, not someone who uses the weapon against a supporter.
if all software was free, there would be no jobs for software developers. you make money by selling software licenses. if you pirate software you are hurting developers in the long run, and raising the cost of software. so why are we praising this guy?
link rel="stylesheet" href="file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/antigu est/My%20Documents/cpunks/CSS.css" type="text/css"
Gee wiz.... for someone so anti-microsoft he sure does a good job of using their products to produce his leet hacker, wannabee, webpages!
The real question here is how important these patents are to actually performing software licensing. Do they cover the only way possible, or the most important way possible to do so under Palladium? If there's a way to implement the same thing in a different way, MS could just disregard them altogether.
Great idea, though.
Greens patents are extremely frivolous. Despite what the MS marketing people say, the inventors of palladium know that software licensing is one of the most obvious features of palladium. People have been building software licensing program for CAD for years now. Sun provides a unique ID for its machines to enable software licensing, for instance (hostid). It's useful way to prevent software piracy, which is a major problem in countries like China, with 80% piracy rates on software. I don't see a reason to reject palladium as a means for software licensing since fair use doesn't apply to software. If you buy a coy of something, you're usually not allowed to install it on more than one machine.
Vote for Pedro
Where do we put a statue for this guy? ;-)
We make an ASCII-art image and spam global IRC networks with it, leaving the image in the logfiles of millions of chatters worldwide; such that when all his base are belong to m$ and only his legend remains people will be able to look at their logfiles and remember the great....
Oh, hang on. Their logfiles won't be digitally signed, so in a few years they'll be unreadable.
sorry, forget that...
==
'No publisher will ever pay you enough to successfully sue them' - Dave Sim
The problem lies in how a standard is developed more than the standard itself. In my 22+ years of experience, successful standards are those that are developed in response to a need perceived by multiple vendors for a standard to interconnect or interoperate a number of EXISTING products. The standard may take the form of something new, or it may take on the appearance of a one or more of the existing products. There are many examples of successful standards that have followed this path of development. I'd suggest that software language standards, EE CAD systems, and most communications standards followed this path.
A second path developed many years ago which I believe leads primarily to unsuccessful standards. In this case, customers who wish to use products built to comply with the standard define a standard before there are existing and tested products in that area. Vendors are then left to develop totally new product to comply with the standard, or be totally non-compliant. Frequently some form of leverage is applied to force vendors to comply, yet the content of the new standard is untested until compliance is forced, and thus lots of money goes into standardized yet untested products which generally quickly fail. My favorite example of this latter type of standard is X.400... this is a standard for a full email system that has never been built. It does continue in life as a sometimes used standard for interconnecting other email system. But it is considered a failure as a standard. Other examples would be CASE (remember that?), and now more controversially, many of the new XML standards that are ahead of the industries for which they are actually intended (note the problem is not XML itself, it is finding agreement what the content should be and its semantics, not its technical representation).
I believe we continue to see a growth in the percentage of standards that follow the second path. It thus is no surprise to me that we see more and more failed standards. I wish I knew how to encourage greater use of the former method as it sure would make for a more integrated computing environment.
It interesting that slashdotters, who are always complaining business are unwilling to adapt to changing technology (RIAA and MPAA, for instance), are completely against palladium, which is an emerging technology, and are doing everything they can to supress it. Aren't you guilty of the same crimes you accuse the RIAA and MPAA of, i.e. supressing technological development to hang on to an old computing model? And to top it off you're using a frivolous patent to fight your battle, which you are normally completely against, when it affects you in a negative way. If you're going to take a stance on something, at least be consistent in your arguements.
Vote for Pedro
And what is being exposed here? "He will have exposed Microsoft's true colors and intentions!!" Hello. Earth to Slashdot: Microsoft is a for profit company. They have been proposing a system of licensing like this for years. Subscription based software ring a bell? How about Activation Codes? This guy isn't exposing anything. MS has been very vocal in these intentions. That Palladium would be used has always been a given. You guys seriously need to step away from the crack pipe.
What are these "bloods" and "crips" you speak of? Please enlighten an ignorant Canuck.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
He is quoting what techies that developed palladium asserted at the anti-piracy group. Of course he knows it can be used to that end, but that is NOT what they said. Also, Software Licesing products != Palladium antipiracy.
...#%$%! )(anti-piracy is a good thing though, if they start enforcing licenses, they will harvest some revenues, and lower they market share. Bye monopoly (but still leading by huge margin) and some breath to competition. Could be cool for MS and the market).
Anyway, your quote was very to the point and interesting! Those m0therflanders
unfinished: (adj.)
Can we conclude that you are not a well paid lawyer? Your lack of fundamental grasp would indicate this is so. Let me help you think a little more.
The article and this tread miss the point, which is that Palladium will be used to squash other people's IP and rights. Who cares if M$ enforces their software licenses? Who cares if the RIAA can keep people from making more useless coppies of Britiany Spears? I have software and music that have nothing to do with M$ or the RIAA. The danger is that M$ will use this gimp to take ownership of all computing. If they can keep my general purpose computer from makinging a copy of a file and I can not, they own my computer and can censor it's content. If their goofey system requires hardware to get sofware certs from M$ or not run, free software won't run. If free software does not run on my hardware then my hardware belongs to someone else. Loathsome! other people's work will be broken and M$ will own all publication that is not completely manual.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...It's already causing a great deal of consternation among cypherpunks and hackers. Joe Public says, cypherpunks and hackers? That sounds evil, so who cares what they think.
since all the people willing to buy their software, do in fact, buy it. They are technically not losing money because that money was never theirs in the first place. Software is pirated by those who can't afford to actually pay for it and would therefore never give their money to the company in the first place.
Don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow. You'll likely find a better way to do it!Don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow. You'll most likely find a better way to do it!
So long as it's win32 code and works under the M$ hardware level kernel you can do anything M$ lets you. Otherwise anyone could boot off a floppy or mount the Palladium protected drive in another computer and copy anything they wanted. Hmmm? What would be accomplished if this were not true? What potential abuses do you see if it is true?
M$ never abused nobody because everything runs as root.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Gee, I wish this guy had also patented email spam and pop-up ads.
Table-ized A.I.
", Dan Burk, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law, says it is perfectly legal to patent any kind of automated technique, such as Amazon's One-Click patent and Priceline's reverse auction patent. Additionally, he says, "Improvements on known technologies are patentable." "
....
These are not quite true.
You cannot Patent any kind of automated technique!!! Why? Because I said so, and so does Father physics and Mother nature!!!!)
Nor Can you Patent improvements on Known Technology... as a general statement this is untrue in the class of technology consisting a core basis of Physical Phenonmenon, Natural Law and abstract concepts, to name a few
Another example is the ECMA-335 document. The Common Language Infrastructure, which is in essence the sum total of programming concepts and datatypes integrated in a non-conflicting manner.
Much of which has such a level of prior art that it is not patentable, and that does extend to "improvements".
The latetest and greatest hacker tool, IP spoofing. Not in the Internet protocols, but Intelectual Property spoofing..
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
So now Atari becomes a major force in the software world by being the first to prior art that is key to the functioning of the Palladium OS. :P
You know, it would be odd if there was a company that actually did stuff like this. Go get patents to things people already made in the past. The company does the patent office paperwork for the one that origionally made the 'prior art' through an agreement that lets them instantly buy the patent upon its creation. The patent then can be used against whoever and charge royalties.
Or you could also do the esnipe thingn like the guy in the article did.
"This is of course providing that it's genuinely non-obvious (which this probably isn't) and that there is no prior art, which there may be in the land of console gaming."
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
"Yep, you're wrong here. You can still use Palladium capable machines to run arbitrary code. Palladium enables software to require restrictions management to be enabled, and specify the restrictions; It doesn't enforce anything that the running software doesn't ask it to. If you don't put Palladium support in the software you run then Palladium has no effect on your code."
:P
If that were true then you can open the executable in a hex editor, change the security checks into noop and your former security restriciton requiring program no longer requires security restriction. That is the same trick used on alot of 0-day warez. Imagine hacked palladium programs being on the net before the OS is officially available.
A more interesting then MS could do is encript the executable itself. Then a non-DRM-activated cpu couldn't even read the instructions. That would make things harder, until the encryption is figured out. This wouldn't be like the CPS2 though; palladium systems will be more available to hackers than a CPS2 was, and there will be more incentive to break the encryption. People will mess with the hardware to break the encryption just like they ultimately did with the CPS2.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
"Now a hacker is moving into their turf, the legal arena, here is where Microsoft is very competent"
Yeah...wasn't it just fabulous the way MS's lawyer's outfoxed the government when they lost their case vs. the US govt and was forced to split up pending appeal?
Whoops.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
But the discovery would be fun!!!
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Bill will just drop 100 million dollars or so in his lap and buy the patent without any publicity.
Would you sell if you were him ?
I sure would
Because then Microsoft would be admitting to owning a monopoly, AND abusing it's monopolistic powers to wrongly influence the industry. Microsoft loses either way...they'd lose their way of doing things, or else they'd lose their monopoly.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"...to defend a challenge against your patent costs money..." Not true. Any law firm worth it's (its) salt will seize the opportunity to work a case pro bono - if they think they can win, especially win big. You know what - Microsoft is big. The law firm would easily invest millions ...to win billions.
...certainly wouldn't be the first time, but does anyone have the patent numbers? I mean, it's been my personal experience that it takes 18-24 months after filing a patent (and that's after patent counsel has accordingly refined the filing) before a patent in the US is granted. If a patent hasn't been granted yet, that gives you-know-who the ability to be able to walk around any patent (even the claims that do make it all the way through.
...now /. lets capatalist pigs post too!
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Since when was palladium about enforcing software licensing. This smells a bit like Microsoft's PR firm trying to paint public opinion on Palladium by dividing the issue into a cartoon black and white issue. ie: Good: Microsoft - just wants to get paid. Bad - Hackers - don't want to pay and illegally copy software. Or otherwise diverting the public's attention away from their main objective:
I thought the main problem with Palladium is whether non Microsoft approved (signed) software will run on the hardware.
I don't care if Microsoft enforces licensing using palladium, and yes it will effect me, I have a copy of Office 2000 that I shouldn't (Hey over here Office 2000 Pro full retail costs more than a low end PC). But all that will do is finally give people a reason to stop using Office, and start using Open Office. This will have the effect of reducing the reliance on the MS Office file formats.
I do however care if Microsoft stops Open Office from running on my computer because it has not been "certified" by Microsoft. I think in the long run Microsoft wants a platform where you must pay Microsoft to get your software certified so that it will run in the Microsoft environment (read: Windows). In other words, I think their long plan goal is to end up with a system similiar to a console, where publishers must pay a "tax" to distribute on that platform.
A nice juicy side effect of this is to severly limit free software distribution, recently admitted as being "enemy number 1".
The very statement that spurred him to patent the basic idea would be prior art to that basic idea.
Now, he still might be able to get very specific and narrow patent claims on particular ways in which one could use Palladium to enforce software licenses, but those would be mere inconveniences to Microsoft.
The broad idea of doing it would, in that case, be unpatentable by anyone other than Microsoft (assuming no one else thought of the idea before they announced it :-).
Also, assuming MS does want to challenge his patent, they won't do anything stupid like try to prevent it being issued, or sue him themselves.
They will wait until he sues them (which he won't unless he has big bucks, BTW), and then bring out all their prior art and proof of first invention, and claim that they are just protecting themselves against a predator (no bad intentions here, Mr. generous and understanding public).
So obviously it's 'non-trivial'.
Anyway, it's not a real patent, it's just there to keep MS from using it without challanging it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
License 6.0 may result in profit in that context. If Microsoft can lock people and businesses into being eternally dependent then that's profit and, eventually, cash. However, for the next year or so, it's going to be a drain on Microsoft's finances. the numbers are in from the last quarter, and aside from a once-only rush to stock up before License 6.0, takes affect, the new license looks like it is going to lose money for them for at least the next year.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
As an aside, what about an Anti-Palladium petition? Of course, presenting this to Microsoft would be a waste of Perl code, but what if we took this to VIA or NVidia or whoever, and said we wouldn't buy their products if they included support for this spyware? They might be tempted to turn down Microsoft, and if even one moderate hardware manufacturer refused to implement Palladium, Microsoft would probably have to yield, because having Media Player work only on VIA boards would be a mess, eliminating Microsoft's idea of simplicity. Or, someone would develop a program for VIA boards that bypassed Palladium, and then disarray. And then, we could all rise up against Microsoft and create a digital utopia, and stick those "Designed for Microsoft Whatever" stickers on our garbage cans (oh wait, I already did that). I'd do this instead of babbling, but I don't have access to much in the way of webhosting (read: I'm too dumb to be any good at Perl or PHP).
"We're not talking about the same thing," he said. "For you the world is
weird because if you're not bored with it you're at odds with it. For me
the world is weird because it is stupendous, awesome, mysterious,
unfathomable; my interest has been to convince you that you must accept
responsibility for being here, in this marvelous world, in this marvelous
desert, in this marvelous time. I wanted to convince you that you must
learn to make every act count, since you are going to be here for only a
short while, in fact, too short for witnessing all the marvels of it."
-- Don Juan
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...