Symantec Patents Multiple File Area Virus Scanning

DigitumDei writes "Symantec announced on Wednesday that it has aquired a new patent (United States Patent - 6,851,057) titled "Data driven detection of viruses". Symantec has declined to comment on whether it will pursue litigation. Symantec's director of intellectual property Michael Schallop stated : 'We don't generally discuss how we will leverage this patent against competitors or others,'." From the article: "[The patent] could refer to any technology that allows antivirus researchers or antivirus products to use scripting to determine, dynamically, where in a file to scan and detect threats. It could also include the use of Javascript or other common scripting languages to direct antivirus scanning..."

Comments

Oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't generally discuss how we will leverage this patent against competitors or others

He just did.

Rediculous

[adennis]

The U.S. is granting too many patents for too broad of topics. It's coming to a point where even new things can't be created simply because a patent exists that, not only covers part of the new invention, but the entire GENRE of the invention.

They need to reform the patent law before it gets even more out of hand than it already is... Up next: a patent for "any process whereas pages of paper are bound together.."

It is not.

[Raven42rac]

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to
A)Protect your business model.
B)Ensure you can "pay back your investors for a long shot" This patent is bullshit, it's like EA, just eliminate all competition, then what incentive is there to change or improve? None, slap 2006 on it and ship it. I want a patent on "Exchanging Oxygen for Carbon Dioxide utilizing organic muscle structures", and sue everyone who breathes.

'Leverage' why not just say 'use' ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do American corproate idiots insist on saying 'leverage' when they mean 'use'? It sounds so lame.

i dont get it

[JeanBaptiste]

""Data driven detection of viruses". "

how else are you going to detect them?

They've got to do something...

[the_skywise]

Now that Microsoft is getting into the anti-virus biz and presumably shipping it with the OS, Symantec knows its days are numbered.

Re:Awesome!

[damian cosmas]

Patents encourage innovation in a quite simple and straightforward manner, by providing financial incentive to innovate. If you invent something, you can exclusively profit from it for a period of time. Otherwise, those with more marketing power (or anyone capable of making a ripoff of your software/device/drug/&c.) can flood the market with copies of your invention, in which case you make no money and you and your family die of starvation. Dead inventors stifle innovation.

Re:More patent problems

[XorNand]

If a small developer could get a patent for $20, but then the next patent cost $40 and then $80 and so on, it would really discourage people from getting tons of patents. ...just a thought (I'm sure it's been suggested before...)

If you make patents cheaper than toner, how is this supposed to prevent companies from sweeping up countless bogus patents? The costs aren't the real issue here; I think you're looking at the wrong side of the equation. Look at PARC: A lot of bright people have churrned out a lot of novel patents. Should they be punished for that? What we need are greater standards to prevent junk patents; not playing pricing games in an attempt reduce the number applied for.

Re:Awesome!

[frankie]

That's an excellent explanation of the THEORY of patents. The REALITY is that:

1. patent examiners are rated and promoted based on volume
2. it takes more work to deny a patent than accept it
3. patent applications have accelerated through the roof
4. trivial, obvious patents are granted every week
5. it has been over 50 years since SCOTUS properly slapped down USPTO for doing so
6. such patents are used to STIFLE competition and innovation rather than spur it

Re:RTFP

[akad0nric0]

I agree. What seems to be happening here is that Symantec is patenting a domain-specific framework for creating code that will analyze files for malicious patterns. While it is a bit broad, at the same time it's innovative and certainly useful.

I'm as big of a critic of the US patent process as anyone, but there are plenty of legitimate patents out there, and on the surface this appears to be one. If they try to enforce it in an overly-broad manner, shame on them, but the patent itself sounds legit.

Very smooth...

[Rs_Conqueror]

While talking to my boss Chris about how Mcafee patented the firewall a few weeks back He made the point: "Do you think the guy who awarded the patent even know what a firewall is?" I think the point still stands.

I disagree

[NigelJohnstone]

I disagree, all they've done is change their virus definition (a series of tokens in some format) to pseudo code (a different series of tokens in some other format with program like qualities).

I presume the other virus programs already use IF and LOOP tokens to handle polymorphism of virus's because polymorphism is already detected by other companies products.

What interests me, is that if this was a patent for a Spinning Jenny we would *know* if there is prior art from looking at the previous machines and I wouldn't have to 'presume' anything.

But because this is software we have to guess whether other companies use programming constructs like IF and LOOP in their virus definition files that would qualify as the use of P-Code in virus detectors.

I also wonder if they need the patent to protect that idea, if they don't document the virus file format who would know?
Seems to me if they didn't disclose it and it was a real invention then they would have plenty of opportunity to make money from it.

Its like patents are being used as a fight mechanism..... and Symantic has hit out with a left patent hook, meanwhile McAfee strikes with a sneaky undercut design patent.....
rather than a mechanism to reward invention.