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: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: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.

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).

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].)