IBM Applies for Password Manager Patent

An anonymous reader writes "As of August 21, IBM has applied for a patent on "A convenient and secure system and method for access to any number of password-protected computer applications, web sites and forms without adding to the user cognitive load and without circumventing the inherent security of such password-protection schemes. An existing password field on a device display is overlaid with password wallet pop-up field which allows a wallet "master" key to unlock the wallet. An application-specific and/or user-specific password is automatically retrieved from the wallet and entered into the password field with no other user action required." This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password"."

Comments

Prior art

[Motherfucking Shit]

This isn't much different from Mozilla's "Master Password".

Or from Apple's "Keychain." Or even from Gator, for that matter...

Re:Prior Art

[CatPieMan]

Arguably, the line about "without circumventing the inherent security of such password-protection schemes" negates the post-it argument as there is now a clear-text version of the password available for anyone to see.

While I don't believe this is patent worthy, the whole idea of a password wallet/keyring/etc would be much better than what many office workers do -- "hide" their passwords and usernames on a piece of paper that is right under their keyboard.

-CPM

Re:Prior art

[JamesTRexx]

And Microsoft's Passport thing? Isn't it meant to include that functionality as well?

Re:Who do we like today?

[Servo]

I think its fair to be able to criticize and praise companies for individual things they are doing or having done to them. SCO suing IBM is bad, but IBM trying to patent existing technology is bad too. What's so hard to see?

Novell

[jrwillis]

This is also seen in Novell's "Secure Sign-on".

Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

Please try to remember that the abstract of a patent doesn't mean a single thing legally. It is just a short summary of the invention, nothing more. The claims are the only part of the patent that has any legal power, and since the poster failed to actually link to the patent or give us the patent number it is hard to say what this patent would cover.

Also try to remember that a patent is for a specific implemenation of an invention and does not cover the general idea of the invention itself. If this were granted it would be possible to come up with your own implementation for password management and not be infringing on the patent.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

It is true that the specification covers a preffered embodiement of the invention. However, the claims themselves do not cover the general idea as I originally said. The claims will cover the basic steps/parts of what they believe their invention to be. Granted, this is broader in scope than the preffered embodiment described in the specification, but it still only covers a specific implementation of the general idea.

For example, here the general idea is password management. If this patent were granted, IBM would not have a lock on all patent mangagement systems regardless of implementation, they would only have protection on patent managment systems which meet the restrictions set by the claims.

Re:Yet Another Uninformed Patent Story

[servoled]

If a claim were written as "a method of converting steam into mechanical motion" it would be rejected under 35 USC 112 which states:

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

You can't write claims which leave out important steps or parts in the invention you are trying to patent. In the above example the claim would have to have a part about some manner of transistion between the steam and the mechanical motion. However, the unless the claim specifically mentions how the steam is produced, you are correct. It should also be noted that the only time such a claim would have been allowed in a broad state such as the example above is when the first steam engine was invented. It would still be possible to patent a generic steam engine today if your transistion step from steam to mechanical motion was a novel one.

No, the least-general "general idea" is using one master password to provide access to others so users only have to remember one password. If you invent something else that does that, you are in violation.

This would be true only if your method of providing one master password to provide acess to others is by the same method as stated in the claims of the patent application. If you come up with a new/different method of doing this, then you will not be in violation.

quit crying

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM has always done crap like this, this is no different. Think they are great when they help you fight your enemys, fight hard when they are your enemy.

Re:Who do we like today?

[bug-eyed monster]

I would say...

SCO Story... BOO SCO and the American judicial system for allowing to let this farce go on for so long

Patent Story... BOO USPTO for allowing American corporations to behave like this.

Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

I don't think you know what prior art means...

[MyNameIsFred]

Prior art does not mean something generically related. For example, just because lawnmowers have been around forever, doesn't mean that I can't patent a new type of lawnmover. As an example, look at the weedwacker. Lawnmowers existed before it was invented, however, the weedwacker was a new type of lawnmower and, I believe, patentable.

So the question is does IBM have a new and unique way of doing password management.

Useful reminder

[buddha42]

Stuff like this is good for us /.'ers once in awhile. It helps us snap out of the whole 'ibm-is-a-good-guy/on-our-side' romanticism. There are parts of IBM who's goals line up with ours very well, and there are parts that don't even come close. IBM is too big and diversified to have any sort of character assigned to it.

Re:Who do we like today?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That is how campaign financing works. Corporations finance politicians' campaigns, corporations get to write the laws.

Having said that, SCO's abuse of the legal system is of a completely different order to IBM's (attempted?) abuse of the Patents system here. SCO are committing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GreyWolf3000]

Generally.. Boo the American government for giving corporations so much power.

Correction. From your point of view, I would think that the problem is that the government hasn't restricted corporations enough, not that it has handed them anything.

These are different situations, since restricting corporations might not always be a good thing, yet giving them power is always decidedly bad.

And the whole government is not to blame for these issues; merely the USPTO and often the judicial branch.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GigsVT]

But it has handed them something. Patents (and IP) don't exist as a fundamental right, they're a wholly synthetic creation designed to benefit science and engineering.

Nonsense! Repetition does not make it true.

[werdna]

This canard, repeated in Slashdot with the frequency of a Bush press release on Fox News, just isn't the case. It does not become more true upon repetition.

Prior art is defined by statute, and the USPTO has no discretion to distinguish between patent and non-patent prior art. The USPTO searches not only the corpus of patent art, but also many commercial and generally available databases of non-patent prior art. Patent claims are frequently (and in some cases famously) refused in view of non-patent prior art.

Singificantly, if you are aware of patent prior art for a published application, there are vehicles by which you may make the art a matter of record. Finally, if a patent issues with respect to which you are aware of prior art (patent or non-patent) raising a substantial new question of patentability, you may either file yourself or bring it to the attention of the Commissioner who may, in his discretion, bring his own reexamination proceeding. Again, patents have been rescinded famously in view of non-prior art in this manner as well (Compton's for example).

you're missing the point

[penguin7of9]

The key behind the patent seems to be (from the summary--the actual link doesn't seem to be working) that the user types the master password into the same space where the original password went. Current keychains use a separate dialog box.

Does it have prior art? I really don't know. Is it a silly patent? You bet. But thanks to its patent portfolion, IBM can beat up SCO and hold Microsoft at bay. Until software patents are abolished, companies need to keep applying for this kind of stuff.

Re:Who do we like today?

[GreyWolf3000]

I'd say the patent office has handed corporations quite a bit.

Patents are good when they protect the little guy from the big guy, and they even make sense for corporationsn at times.

In my opinion, the problems come when people patent the digital equivalent of eating cereal with milk. A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.

Re:Who do we like today?

[HiThere]

IBM is using the patent system in the way it is currently designed to be used. It would only become abuse if they tried to enforce the patent on someone rather than just holding it so that it couldn't be used against them.

That said, this is a really vile game, that only benefits the big players. But IBM didn't start it. And IBM hasn't been particularly viscious about it. (I'm told that they *do* collect a lot of money on patent royalties, but I haven't heard of them trying to put companies out of business [bar SCO].)

Re:It's okay people....

[wayne606]

Don't make the mistake of assuming that these days IBM == good and SCO == evil. They are both for-profit corporations and the *single* goal of a for-profit corporation is to make money. IBM feels it's in its short-term best interest to be nice to the Open Source community. SCO has nothing to save itself from going out of business execpt the current FUD lawsuits. That doesn't mean that in the future IBM (or Novell, or any current "white hat" company) might turn "evil" if their $$$ interests dictate and use whatever patents they have to make a profit.