Kim Dotcom Wants Money From Google, Twitter For 2-Factor Authentication

Nyder writes "Kim Dotcom posted via Twitter, with a link to Torrentfreak, that he owns a security patent US6078908, titled 'Method for authorizing in data transmission systems.'" Techdirt points out that Dotcom isn't just asking for financial help: Instead, he's asking companies which use two-factor authentication "to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent. He points out that his actual funds are still frozen by the DOJ and (more importantly) that his case actually matters a great deal to Google, Facebook and Twitter, because the eventual ruling will likely set a precedent that may impact them -- especially around the DMCA." Update: 05/23 14:23 GMT by T : Why is this relevant to Twitter? If you're not an active Twitter user, you might not realize that (after some well publicized twitter-account hijackings), the company is trying to regain some ground on security. Nerval's Lobster writes "Twitter is now offering two-factor authentication, a feature that could help prevent embarrassing security breaches. Twitter users interested in activating two-factor authentication will need to head over to their account settings page and click the checkbox beside 'Require a verification code when I sign in.'"

Comments

How about this?

[MikeRT]

Sign a patent deal with them that if they will fully fund his defense, he'll agree to not sue anyone and when the case is over he'll turn the patent over to the public domain.

Re:How about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we not give a free pass to a patent troll just because he used to host a popular, thinly veiled warez site?

Re:Extortion maybe?

[GodInHell]

Offering to waive a right in return for settlement without bringing suit is not extortion.

Kim-Dot-Con

[Shoten]

It bears mentioning that Kim Dotcom was once named Kimble Schwartz, who basically went from one moneymaking scheme to another. Kimvestor, for example, got him jailed for securities violations. YIHAT was a front of an organization that tried to rally people around hacking terrorists. The list goes on and on. About 15 years ago he was noted as being a fraud in the security space, despite claiming to be a hacker. I think he got lucky with Megaupload, but now he's back to his old usual failing-yet-highly-vocal self.

Re:Kim-Dot-Con

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised this was actually modded up here... The hivemind has something of a hard-on for Kim Dotcom, anyone who was even mildly critical of him during the Megaupload situation was immediately dismissed as a troll.

It's rather smugly satisfying to see him turn the tables completely and reveal himself as a patent troll now that he needs some extra cash. It's even more satisfying to know that he's ALWAYS been a money grubbing scumbag, because from what you've posted here, those same people running to his defense should have known better.

Re:Kim-Dot-Con

[SirGarlon]

I always thought he was a scumbag. I don't understand why Slashdot and others treat him like some kind of folk hero.

Re:Kim-Dot-Con

[Desler]

Enemy of my enemy, apparently.

Re:Here's what you say

[lxs]

Someone should lock Julian Assange, John Mcaffee and Kim Dotcom in one room for a month and film it. I'd probably pay to watch that.

Go ahead, sue Google

[MetalliQaZ]

See what happens.

Re:Go ahead, sue Google

[Laxori666]

Um. Kim's actual twitter message was "Google, Facebook, Twitter, I ask you for help. We are all in the same DMCA boat. Use my patent for free. But please help funding my defense." That's not really threatening to sue, that's asking for help. Yellow journalism much?

Re:Go ahead, sue Google

[Desler]

I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me

From here. In your hasty attempt to defend Kim Dotcom you might have wanted to actually do a but more research.

Re:Here's what you say

[serviscope_minor]

Please add Steve Ballmer and a good supply of chairs.

Re:Here's what you say

[DogDude]

Kim Dotcom would just eat the other two.

Re: Extortion maybe?

[NFN_NLN]

If he has no money to fight his legal battles, he has no money to sue Google or anyone else. So I think the appropriate response should "Fuck off."

That's how you know the system is working properly: winning isn't based on the validity of the patent... it's based on how much money you have.

Sarcasm off.

Re: Extortion maybe?

[tattood]

If he has no money to fight his legal battles, he has no money to sue Google or anyone else.

I'm sure one of the many patent troll companies would be happy to foot the bill for the legal costs in return for a large chunk of the settlement if they win.

Re:Good luck enforcing that patent

[PRMan]

I'm pretty sure they said it was valid in a dozen countries and that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. are international companies...