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."
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.
As a software developer, I came up against the latter a couple years ago, and I wasn't sure what to do. I was coming up with software that had similar results to a large company's software, but through different means. I asked them for a reference to the patent so I didn't infringe, and they pointed out that the patent is pending.
I was too poor to get legal advice,but I was able to find it a fact that patents that are pending are not publically available works.
Does anyone know how the intellectual property is safe during this period?
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.
What happens if entity A has a patent pending on something, and during this period, entity B files for a patent, or infringes on what would eventually become a patent?
When two parties file for patents on the same technology, the patent is awarded to whomever filed first, unless prior art can be proven.
As for infringement, the proud owner of the new patent has their lawyer send the infringer a cease and desist order. If the infringer honors the order hopefully, that is the end of it. If however, the infringer has made significant moneys AND the patent holders lawyers are good there may be some punitive damages awarded against the infringer.
Wrong. Why would it be pro-bono support? Let's say M$ goes ahead and implements something that violates the patent(s). This gets a lawyer to work on commission -- for a cut of the money M$ made from the infringement.
Let's say Mr Lucky Green wins: M$ is locked out from using Palladium to enforce their licensing; the lawyer walks away with the money, Green may get a bit, but that's not the point. He doesn't have to ever license his technology (which leverages M$'s own) to M$. He never has to license Palladium from M$ since he's never going to implement it -- this would undoubtedly leave the M$ knickers in a real twist.
Let's say lucky Green isn't: His money grubbing lawyers have no reason not to expose everything they find to the public other than black mailing M$ with the possibility of bad press. Either way M$ is going to get screwed.
So what other non-obvious Palladium applications can we dream up? Ok guys let us all Embrace and Extend Palladium with the USPTO as the matchmaker setting up the date.
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.
"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.
If the DRM is in the OS then Linux should not be affected by it. I thought Palladium was a HW/SW implementation so the OS would have to be verified by the hardware...and that could cause problems for Linux.
Sig is on vacation
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?
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
If microsoft does make him that offer he will have achieved his objective of making Microsoft show there colours. I kind of feel that if it when to court he might have a problem because he patented an idea after it was mentioned in a conference, if it was mentioned in a conference it is already in the Public Domain so not patentable, but just having the case in the first place would prove his objectives.
;-)
As a block it might work it is to high a risk to bring a product to market then worry about the patents, and example of a company who ignored patents feeling they could challege them after they got there product to market was Kodac v Polaroid. The whole affair cost kodac so much that no one else even tried to produce instant film. Of course they missed the ball on digital cameras
Yes microsoft could also try to patent the same thing, however this would also show there colours.
Personally i feel there is something really quite objectionable of patenting an idea so it cannot be used, the point of the system is to get ideas used but thats patents for you.
James
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!
Lucky Green is a well known cypherpunk, a guy who has been around for a long time. He might lose, but he won't sell out.
It's kind of strange seeing the name pop up, especially after seeing Perry Metzger's name yesterday, in connection with the OpenBSD privilage elevation. The old Cypherpunks are still out there fighting the good fight.
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.
Yeah, you're wrong on the "bye-bye linux" part. What makes Winders so popular? Lots of applications. What OS do you think small app developers will prefer if Winders enforces this stuff?
Besides, the only way this could affect Linux is if somebody made a Winders-only BIOS, and none of the x86 hardware vendors would get on board with that - they know that Linux users are their fastest growing market for their high-end hardware. Even if someone did use a Linux-unfriendly BIOS, it would just be a big growth opportunity for Linux-friendly hardware vendors.
include $sig;
1;
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 haven't read the patent, however I believe that the patent will effectively lock MS out of using the hardware aspect of Palladium. If it's all software, it could be broken easier than the hw/sw combo.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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
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
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
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.
This is known as a Submarine Patent.
This is a boring sig
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.
I'm not worried so much about the can't run Linux issue as the can't view open file formats issue. Palladium is a method of taking any file format, even an open one, and turning it into a closed one. Wheras Linux users today can basically take any document out there, even a Word document, and view it on their Linux machines, Palladium might make that impossible. And by tying Palladium to major software applications like Office, Microsoft and lock Linux users out of a huge amount of content in a way that has nothing to do with software piracy or DRM. What do you think will happen when all those morons running Word 2005 or Frontpage 2005 (all with Palladium integrated goodness) decide to "publish" their work on the internet. Suddenly, Linux users either a) submit to Palladium, or b) lock themselves out of that content, even if Linux could technically read those file formats normally.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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?
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
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.
Gee, I wish this guy had also patented email spam and pop-up ads.
Table-ized A.I.