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.
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.
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!
You missed the plan:
1. File patents on methods for using Palladium-like solutions to enforce software licensing.
2. If the patent is not challenged, then Palladium cannot be used to enforce software licensing.
3. If the patent is challenged, then Microsoft's true intentions become obvious.
Note that this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
Oh, I almost forgot:
4. Profit!
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
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.
You're not getting it. He doesn't need to defend it. He just needs to have it either attacked or not attacked.
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....
Enforcing software licensing can't work unless it's impossible to run software that isn't signed. Some of us would like to run software that does not come from Microsoft and their friends.
believe it or not, there are actually groups out there who still call themselves cypherpunks. like it or not, they're real people. your post is like reading the LA times saying "the bloods and the crips are sooo cliche...." and demanding that they be called something else in print.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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!
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.
And what makes you think this guy won't get help fighting MS from, oh say, everybody that would have to pay the MS licensing fees?!
It's a pretty common, and very sad, misconception about the US judicial system that the one with the most money always wins. The guys with the money only fight the battles they can win. If they don't think they can win, they very quietly settle out of court for enough money to keep it quiet, and you never hear about it.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
Uh, wait a minute...
very quietly settling out of court for enough money to keep it quiet is winning.
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.
I took it that he patented the idea after the Microsoft representatives stated they were not going to use it for this. Of course that depends on if they say could not or would not. If they said could not, and he has come up with an idea which means they could that I would agree that is novel and new. If he patented what people feared they would do, but didn't say anything about then your right that would be covered.
Having said all of that it, thats not what the patent is about as what he really wants to know is what are microsofts long term objectives, and I have to admit this has got to be one of the better ways of finding out.
I do look forward to seeing how this one plays out.
James
What is so wrong in enforcing software licensing? Well, here's one thing for starters. Microsoft have been wanting to get out of the business of selling software for years. They want to get into the software rental business. Let's say you use Microsoft Office on Windows. Pretty common. You've bought the software, so you've nothing to fear from TCPA checking your copy of office is legal. If microsoft bring out a new version, you don't have to buy it, you can carry on using your existing copy. That is microsoft's biggest problem, they can't make you buy the new version. You'll always be able to access your existing files. Even if Microsoft change the file format, you don't lose access to your old data. Now, lets zoom forward 10 years. Office TCPA has switched to a licencing model. Instead of buying a CD and the rights to install it on only one machine, you download it from microsoft, and can install it on as many palladium machines as you like, as long as it's only in use on one machine at a time. Hardware backed encryption enforces that. So far so fair. But it's a rental, not a purchase. At the end of the year, unless you cough up that annual licence fee, you can't use office any more. And here's the killer. You can't open your old files any more. Your unbeatably encrypted and trusted palladium machine won't let you open them. And the double whammy? The DMCA and it's worldwide cousins will make it illegal for other products, like open office to even look at your old files, as microsoft will have comingled encryption into that closed document spec, thus making your interoperable product a circumvention device. So sure, you can switch to the competition. But only at the expense of losing access to all the files you have stored (yours and other peoples) in that closed format. Hell, if microsoft were really feeling their oats, they could make every document you ever wrote unaccessible to everyone until you cough up that 'nominal' licence fee. Of course, there's nothing to stop microsoft doing this now - except that without hardware backed encryption and a trusted operating system running on it being the only way to run the software, the file formats and software would be cracked before it hit the public download section. With TCPA and palladium, we'll lose more that just fair use rights, we'll lose ever competitor that even TRIES to fight on microsoft turf. And if you think the US DOJ will step in, I respectfully point you towards the events of the last few years as to how successful that will be.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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.
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."
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.
Not quite. He needs to have it attacked head-on by MS in particular.
I think this is an interesting approach, but I'm not going to hold my breath on seeing interesting results. If a third party were to attack it, either from a feeling of outrage over abuse of the patent system or with MS's surreptitious help, he (we) would be no better off than before.
Well, except for time and money spent. But money's cheap, right?
Or MS may be able to go to their Congressperson and ask for rules limiting "frivolous" patent applications. We might extrapolate from that MS's interest, but it would be murkier.
If I can spend a few seconds thinking of ways to muddy the view, I'm sure well paid lawyers taking their time could bury him under a lot of
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 $300 million."
Settling out of court is winning. One of the criteria of settlements is always that the paying party admits no wrongdoing and there is no liability.
But... by being a US corporation, they have an easier time selling to US government agencies, as well as not having to deal with import taxes. And with their clout and money, they don't really have any trouble with our laws, anyway.
Do not confuse duty with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.Duty is a debt you owe to yourself.
I would hate to be an advocate for DMCA, but I see the point of music publishers who are losing revenue to the likes of Napster, etc. At the risk of being derided, I think that some kind of DRM solution is necessary for the market to ensure that artists get paid for their work. The thing I don't agree with is the M$/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.
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.
It's worth pointing out that justice cannot be bought. The idea that it can is oxymoronic. What they are buying is injustice.
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.