Slashdot Mirror
Alan Cox Files Patent For DRM
booooh writes "Alan Cox has filed a patent for DRM (Digital Rights Management). From the filing: 'A rights management system monitors and controls use of a computer program to prevent use that is not in compliance with acceptable terms.' According to the patent pledge of Cox's employer Red Hat, they will not license this technology if the patent is granted. And it can probably be applied to the DRM that is in Vista. This forum has a few more details.
I KNEW I should have kept using LimeWire instead of paying for songs on iTunes!
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Either the patent system will be proven rotten, or DRM will be halted! It's a win-win!
My new blog
It might be something that reduces the threat of DRM completely making our computers useless.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Microsoft has got its back protected: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6330670&id= tNcIAAAAEBAJ&dq=digital+rights+management
Had it been any other sort of technology, filing a patent for it and then refusing to license it, thus crippling adoption of that technology, would be considered a terrible thing on /. But in the case of DRM and RedHat, I think most would make an exception.
/. thought Novell was a fine upstanding company until recently.
But I'm still not that excited. Most on
He might as well try and patent the airplane. If he really wants to prevent further spread of DRM, he should use his energy educating people about it's true costs. The only people who are going to read about this already know about DRM.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
As patent law, legalese and such is not my area of expertise, I'm out on a limb here, but doesn't this sound like a patent for saving the state of an DRM-aware application before exiting if a DRM-breaking state occurs, thus making legal DRM-aware applications even more annoying to use?
Its like the one ring being destroyed in Mt. Doom
You see, he's not trying to patent DRM as a concept, he's trying to patent the technology of DRM system state saving. While this patent may have little value itself, it might be a show-stopper for Apple, Microsoft and the like. IANAL, but I suppose that Red Hat lawyers have studied the piles of MS et al DRM patents and Vista license agreement, and have found a hole in it [i.e. something that they use in the license or in their technology but haven't patented]. And now that Vista is getting ready for launch, Microsoft gets this blow. Let's keep our fingers crossed and see what follows.
FrostWire - all the *ahem* benefits of using Limewire, but without the annoying "Upgrade to Limewire Pro" popups.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
How, exactly, has prior art been stopping patents from being granted?
The ______ Agenda
Seems like the following patent application may be more suitable for stopping DRM
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Time_Travel_Patents
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
But with totally obnoxious terms. Red Hat could enact some kind of fee whenever DRM-protected content is played, essentially turning the whole DRM world into pay-per-view. And then there would be the price increases, linked to the average price of cable TV. I even have a name for it: Digital Rights Restriction -- Genuine Annoyance Edition. It that's too long to fit in a banner ad, they could just call it "Revenue Assurance".
The key is not to make money, it is to drive home the high cost of DRM, making the downside totally obvious to all. Remember, no matter how ridiculous the terms might be, it really won't be any worse than the copyright industry will do all by themselves in a few years. But instead of using the salami-slice method, the all-at-once/in-your-face method forces everyone to confront the issue here and now.
I think the DRM patent is a really nifty strategy, and presented here on Martin Luther King day, no less!
A patent is only useful if you have the money to defend the patent in court. Same with a trademark or copyright. Without lots of cash a patent is an empty threat.
Even if this is invalid, look how much of a fuss SCO and MS have created with BS IP claims. I'm sure if Mr. Cox has paid attention, he can make a few heads turn. Or at least provide us with some amusement.
The Red Hat statement on patents is such that they won't enforce it unless there's reason to retaliate.
Far from trolling, this is protection from trolling.
Wikileaks, no DNS
It's quite clever, actually. Any DRM-aware application that doesn't save state before shutting down will be vilified as being broken the first time anyone loses important data because of a false positive, and any DRM-aware application that does is in violation of this patent. This makes any DRM-aware application either a) broken, or b) illegal. Very neat. Simple, but neat.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Flamebait? "The threat of DRM completely making our computers useless" is not a contraversial statement. Even if you really like DRM, you can probably think of some examples where it has been taken too far: think Sony rootkits, Starforce CDROM damage, and Jon Johansen and Dimitri Skylarov being arrested for hacking their own computers.
Read up on TCPA immediately. Consider how much of the design of Vista has been aimed at preventing access to high-quality copies of information protected by DRM. Should the film industry really have been allowed to design an operating system?
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
'' It hasn't. However, the moment he tries to use it on one of the large companies, they'll haul the matter in to court, most likely bankrupting Mr. Cox in the process. ''
There are two possibilities how this could go to court:
1. Mr. Cox finds out that for example Microsoft does actually infringe on his patent, and he tries to do an Eolas on them. You can be sure that he would find lawyers who will happily support him for 60 percent of the proceeds on a no win, no fee basis. Mr. Cox would go down in public opinion quite a lot, but he might not care with $100mil in his pocket.
2. Microsoft starts attacking Linux with patent claims, and Mr. Cox's patent is used as part of the "assured mutual destruction" policy that patents are used for. It won't be Mr. Cox paying for the court case.
Are you sure? This does not seem to be a patent for all DRM, but for a system that saves the state of the application when detecting a condition that violates the rules.
It's not like many people don't think that anyway.What do you mean?
Either way it will be proven that the patent system actually works, because a patent troll has been defeated,Red Hat is no patent troll. A patent troll is a company whose only business is patenting and suing for infringement. And that isn't a description of Red Hat by a long stretch.
on top of that it will be shown that the people who most adamantly argue against patents a) don't refrain from trying to use the system to their advantage (double standard)So everyone that don't like the current implementation of the patent system should refrain from patenting things at all? Let's face it, patents exist and don't seem to be going away. As a corporation, refraining from patenting anything would be an invitation to competitors to sue, as you would have almost no defensive capability. Avoiding infringement altogether is about as easy as walking through a minefield, so in case you are sued, you need some defensive measures to fight off the attacker.
file patents for other people's inventions, which we all know is STEALING (or intellectual theft or somesuch).A lot of patents cover the same or almost the same thing. It's a feature of the current implementation of patents, and whose patent is valid is left for the courts to decide.
One could suspect that the system is set up only to enrich lawyers, as lawyers in the patent office earn money proportional to the number of granted patent applications. Then their patent lawyer friends earn money when corporations battle it out in court. A different implementation might require the patent office to not issue patents that cover each other, but then the lawyers would not be able to enrich themselves as much.
The current attack vectors on cryptographic based "DRM" schemes are (1) accidental key leakage, (2) the key exchange system or (3) the fact that the data must be eventually decoded.
Note that (3) is what makes DRM systems very dumb. It also follows that the Operating System must get involved in order to so hide the data.
If the Operating System allows a debugger to run AT THE SAME TIME as the "DRM", its attackable. If the OS allows "unsigned" drivers to run, its attackable.
The OS (for example, Vista) will (eventually) not allow unsigned drivers. It must also "kick out" or "suspend" all non-DRM (unsigned) software when DRM content is played.
This behaviour falls into Mr. Coxs patent.
Now, if (Vista) doesn't implement the scheme, it remains vulnerable. So, the problem must be solved another way.
My suggestion then is to ALSO patent (or disallow) by widely publishing the idea that a hypervisor (VM supervisor) can be used for DRM control as well, and can also be used to suspend, terminate or otherwise control applications that could be used to attack DRM software.
Got that? It's now published.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
This may be true somewhere, but not in the United States. In the U.S., you infringe a patent if any claim of the patent describes what you are doing.
Not if you unconditionally save state before checking DRM, so that it's already saved should it need to suspend.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Microsoft? They're not huge DRM supporters by nature
Say what? I have just three words for you.
Windows Genuine Advantage.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read this:
Something infringes a patent if it has all the elements of a claim in the patent, or performs all the steps of a claim. It does not have to match all the claims, a single one will do. However, it is important that it matches all elements in that single claim. Most patent courts take this requirement quite strictly and will not easily ignore an element in a claim unless it is clearly irrelevant. One often-heard argument against ignoring an element is that patent writers are aware of the strict interpretation and so would not put in an element unless necessary. Therefore, an element that is present in the claim must have been deemed necessary and so may not be ignored.
I didn't read this case, but citing slashdot on patent issues is like citing Soviet propaganda to find out about the US Constitution. It is just about the worst place to find reliable information on patents.
2) a lot of people have been working on DRM for a long time.
Yeah, but have any of them actually produced valid, workable DRM software? I get the impression that most of them are invalidated (i.e., "cracked") within days of release. Either that, or like the Sony "rootkit DRM", the DRM was a fiasco that was quickly withdrawn due to its side-effects on customers' equipment.
Cox and RedHat can be making the claim that all previous DRM has been poorly-functioning and/or vaporware, and they're the first ones to have actually implemented it. If so, those who support DRM should support their patent. (Whether software should actually be patentable is an independent issue.)
There's a lot of precedent for patents for inventions that others have attempted. I recently read an interesting history of the invention of the zipper. Many people tried to invent such a mechanism in the 1800s. Their attempts generally worked for a while, but were fragile and required frequent replacement. Finally, someone came up with the zipper that we all know, which both worked and was sturdy enough to last for years in normal clothing. They got a patent on it, despite the fact that many other (poor) zipper mechanisms had already been invented. Theirs was slightly different from all the others, and it actually worked well.
There are many stories like this in the history of technology, with many false starts before someone comes up with a good solution to a problem.
There is another potential problem with this patent, however. It's the way that the US Patent Office now accepts patents without a working model. So it's entirely possible that Cox and RedHat are also patenting vaporware that they can't build. Do we know much about this question?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.