Sued For Using HTTPS: Companies In Crypto Patent Fight (theregister.co.uk)

yoink! writes: According to an article in The Register, corporations big and small are coming under legal fire from CryptoPeak. The Company holds U.S. Patent 6,202,150, which describes "auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems" and has claimed that the Elliptic Curve Cryptography methods/implementations used as part of the HTTPS protocol violates their intellectual property. Naturally, reasonable people disagree.

Comments

NeXTStep had ECC...

[mlts]

In 1991, NeXTStep had ECC encryption for E-mail in version 3.0 (called FastECC.) If there were a patent made then, it definitely would be expired by now.

Re:NeXTStep had ECC...

[thaylin]

From the article the patent was granted in 1997, just a few short years later. It is possible that they did the extended application process, but I really doubt the patent covers this.

Re:NeXTStep had ECC...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the patent, it is quite clear that it depends a lot on preexisting cryptographic ideas. It explicitly mentions RSA, DSS and others, but it is also crystal clear that it isn't about the key generation but rather private key escrow. It goes on at length about the fatal failures of such systems and combines pre-existing parts into what they claim is a secure private key escrow system. If you look at the actual lawsuit, it is based on the basic stuff in there, like certificate creation, that are necessary to make other parts of the patent work. Furthermore, those parts are considered so basic, that they are not legally enforceable based solely on the way the are written, rather than their content. This seems to me the result of the fact the drafters didn't really care about getting those parts correct. But, if you need any further proof of what the drafters were trying to patent, just look at the first section where you are supposed to give a quick explanation of what general area you are patenting:

This invention relates to cryptosystems, and in particular to the escrowing and recovering of cryptographic keys and data encrypted under cryptographic keys. The escrow and recovery process assures that authorized entities like law-enforcement bodies, government bodies, users, and organizations, can when allowed or required, read encrypted data. The invention relates to cryptosystems implemented in software, but is also applicable to cryptosystems implemented in hardware. [emphasis added]

Twats

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of patent trolling twats.

Re:Twats

[Big Hairy Ian]

It's like we have to drive without headlights because somebody has a patent for "Using electric lights to see in the dark"

Totally screwed up

Re:Twats

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like we have to drive without headlights and LIKE it because somebody has a patent on "realizing you can't see and making provisions to increase photonic emissions" (probably Google)

What

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents suck for this exact reason.

Can you say Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there is a boatload of prior art on this one.

Re:Can you say Prior Art?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely there is a boatload of prior art on this one.

Yes, but it's more expensive to find it and take it to court than it is just to pay up.

That's kinda the whole point of an extortion racket.

Re:Can you say Prior Art?

[MachineShedFred]

Well, it's interesting, because the question is on the "elliptic curve cryptography" which is a method of generating keys that are more efficient than the older, larger RSA-style keys. So, technically, you could still implement HTTPS with RSA cryptography, which would increase the work done on both ends of the secure connection to encrypt / decrypt with the same level of security.

As someone mentioned above though, there is prior art even with ECC-generated keys by almost a decade to when the patent was granted. Hopefully this one gets shitcanned.

When will enough be enough?

[aglider]

We're just missing

"methods and devices to manipulate and store data encoded into electronic devices by means of electromagnetic field gradients"

and

"methods and devices to enable the interaction between users and electronic devices by means of electromagnetic field gradients".

and

"methods and devices to harass individuals and companies by filing, claiming and legally enforce trivial methods and devices as patentable intellectual properties"

Then we're done.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Jack Griffin]

Someone needs to patent "Things that do stuff" and be done with it.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[rioki]

Be careful with that "methods and devices" claim. The motion to dismiss of Netflix states explicitly that "Method And Apparatus" claims are invalid under current rules. This is obviously, because as you mocked, the claimant tries to get "anything similar to".

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Amouth]

IBM has you covered, a Patent on how to be a patent troll

http://www.google.com/patents/...

And for good measure Halliburton has a patent on how to patent someone else's invention and gain control of it

http://www.google.com/patents/...

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple already owns that patent.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"A method for using a 3-pronged handheld tool to utilize a starch resource", i.e, "eating a potato with a fork".

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Dog-Cow]

A good thing most forks have 4 prongs. Hate to violate that patent.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[SharpFang]

Unfortunately that merely counts as a modified three pronged handheld tool. A three-pronged fork with an extra prong.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[gstoddart]

Fuck everything, we're doing five prongs!

Re:When will enough be enough?

[MrLint]

Thing different!

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

That and "process to make things"

Re:When will enough be enough?

[astrojetsonjr]

That's pretty cool. Since the SCO lawyers have lots of time on their hands, wonder why they are not going after the trolls. Or is IBM selling licenses to the trolls for some extra cash?

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>And for good measure Halliburton...
WTF?? I know I'm not smart enough to fully understand this but seriously.....

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

"methods and devices to harass individuals and companies by filing, claiming and legally enforce trivial methods and devices as patentable intellectual properties"

Then we're done.

You may be on to something with that last example. Perhaps someone can turn it into a patent, then use it to harass the patent trolls.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

All forks have 4 prongs. The three-pronged ones are called "threeks". Duh.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[orgelspieler]

In all fairness, the USPTO hasn't granted the Halliburton one. But the fact that somebody would even try that is unspeakable. As for IBM, it even calls out patents in the abstract. WTF?! Fortunately it only claims patent trolling on a computer.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

by means of electromagnetic field gradients

You go patent that. I am going to patent the same using the method of storing electrons inside floating gates.

Re:When will enough be enough?

[J053]

From the Halliburton application:

[ 0016] The inventor and the assignee of this patent have no intention of applying the techniques described herein offensively but instead intend to use the patent defensively to discourage patent trolls and the like from extortionist practices.

Sure, I trust them...</sarc>

Re:When will enough be enough?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

All the ones in my drawer at home (and the plastic ones at work) all have 3 prongs. I don't know why, maybe it's a copyright issue.

Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent troll responsible for this nonsense, specifically the primary manager of the entity known as CryptoPeak Solutions, LLC is operated by a fellow named Nicolas Joseph Labbit, who happens to be the sole member of a "law firm" known as The Labbit Law Firm in Longview, Texas. Just thought some folks might be interested in knowing a little more about the charming young man behind this gross abuse of the legal system. HTH. -PCP

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Candidate for http://www.poopsenders.com/ ??

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Purely in the interest of maintaining public records regarding Mr. Labbit's particulars in the event that LinkedIn were to suffer some sort of localized data loss in the near future, here's a handy screen capture of Nicolas Labbit's LinkedIn profile page. -PCP

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems young Mr. Labbit has been very busy indeed filing mountains of frivolous lawsuits in Texas. (article dated Aug. 18, 2015, entitled "Texas non-practicing entity files patent infringement lawsuits against 25 banks in two days") ... looks like we've got ourselves a regular Darl McBride Junior here. -PCP

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Labbit season!

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a french last name, the "t" is silent... It's pronounced "Labia"

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets even better.

http://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2ihgq9/nicolas-labbit

"Nicolas Labbit is currently associated with twelve companies, according to public records. The companies were formed over a eight month period with the most recent being incorporated two months ago in October of 2015. All companies are still active. "

He's an OBVIOUS patent troll and needs to be shut down.

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Be velly velly kliet... I'm huntin' Labbits!

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Mariner28]

As he's in East Texas, he couldn't be expected to pronounce it correctly, since they can't even spell "Français". Lab-it it is. And my expertise on this comes from being a Cajun who lived in Dallas for over 10 years...

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Anonymous Coward]

Cajuns have their own French dialect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[Coren22]

I know another candidate for this.

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[mark-t]

Following the rules for French pronunciation, if the 't' were actually silent, I'm pretty sure it would then be pronounced Lab-bee'.

So.... who's going to say "Wooosh!" first, or will the fact that I have mentioned it prevent such a remark form occurring? (I feel like I just made my own private Schroedinger's cat experiment)

Re:Meet Mr. Nicolas Labbit

[dargaud]

If you pronounce it in franglish, it goes "la bite", which translate to "the dick".

Tested in the courts

[CaptQuark]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent.

But a patent is just a pretty piece of paper until you try to enforce it. Only then will the courts actually look at the merit of the patent and declare it enforceable or invalid.

The main reason for granting patents is to persuade inventors to publish their ideas and in return they are given exclusive licensing rights for a reasonable amount of time. The publishing and sharing of new ideas is the good side of patents. The litigation necessary to challenge or defend a patent is the unfortunate bad side.

--

Re:Tested in the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're just registering anything without further investigation then patenting something should cost 10$.

Re:Tested in the courts

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything.

. . . so I'm thinking of filing a patent titled, "A Method and Process of Doing Stuff with Things." Then I will open it up for free in the public domain.

That should end this patent mess that has evolved.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

But a patent is just a pretty piece of paper until you try to enforce it. Only then will the courts actually look at the merit of the patent and declare it enforceable or invalid.

Except that the court assumes the patent is valid and the victim has to demonstrate that it isn't which is effectively guilty until proven innocent.

It is always cheaper to settle and licence the patent out of court than it is to defend the claim and risk losing.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent.

Yes, it would be ridiculous for modern patent offices to employ experts in every field. If it were even possible, it would be an incredible waste of talent.

But a patent is just a pretty piece of paper until you try to enforce it. Only then will the courts actually look at the merit of the patent and declare it enforceable or invalid.

I'm not sure about this. It could be different in different jurisdictions, but my understanding is that it is generally not the role of the courts when ruling on a patent infringement case to determine the merit of the patent (since, in theory, the patent office is supposed to ensure this), but rather only to determine whether the alleged infringing act does fall within the scope of the patent, and if so, what "damages" are legally owed.

The main reason for granting patents is to persuade inventors to publish their ideas and in return they are given exclusive licensing rights for a reasonable amount of time. The publishing and sharing of new ideas is the good side of patents. The litigation necessary to challenge or defend a patent is the unfortunate bad side.

Yup. In the case of chemical and pharmaceutical patents, the good outweighs the bad, according to the research I'm aware of. All other fields, taken together, it was a case of more or less breaking even, until the arrival of software patents, when it became the bad overwhelmingly outweighing the good.

Bessen & Meurer (2008) Patent Failure

Re:Tested in the courts

[The Evil Atheist]

I think it was a good system when it started out. But now we have a more formalized scientific processes such that it is no longer difficult to reproduce so-called trade secrets. Someone else will eventually figure it out and publish the invention and/or improve upon it.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Sique]

As we are in Civil Law and not in Criminal Law, there is no such concept of "being guilty". Are you infringing on their rights? Yes, as they have a monopoly on their invention granted by the state. Are they infringing on your rights? Of course they are, but they have a patent that allows them to do so.

There are two ways to get out of this mess: first, prove you are not infringing on their rights. That would mean that you prove none of the claims in their patent fits to you, or it is already covered by prior art. Thus, their patent would not allow them to infringe on your rights, as you aren't enfringing on theirs. Second, prove that the monopoly should not have been granted to begin with. Then there is no case, as there is no patent at all.

Re:Tested in the courts

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent. But a patent is just a pretty piece of paper until you try to enforce it. Only then will the courts actually look at the merit of the patent and declare it enforceable or invalid.

That's a nice fiction, but legal reality is different. Legally, if a patent examine grants a patent, it is presumed to be valid, because the assumption is that the patent examiners are experts in the field and that they are doing their job. The presumption of validity means that overturning a patent is quite difficult.

We should change the patent system so that it works more like how you imagine it works, namely that patent examiners only do some simple sanity checks, and that validity only gets established through court challenges. But that's not the patent system we have right now.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Antique Geekmeister]

> I think it was a good system when it started out.

A great deal of the difficulty is software patents. They overwhelm the patent offices resources, they're proven very difficult to differentiate, and they've been wildly abused both to harass legitimate developers and to develop overwhelming and impenetrable patent suites to protect patent violating companies from legitimate lawsuits.

Re:Tested in the courts

[SharpFang]

Employ? Who says anything about employment?

Implement a "public forum" where all applications are published and input from the broad public can be gathered - if someone knows prior art, or is able to point out triviality of the patent (e.g. "[doing an extremely common thing] over the Internet" ) they can post it and the USPTO clerk will just reject the application without further ado.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Jason Levine]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent.

But a patent is just a pretty piece of paper until you try to enforce it. Only then will the courts actually look at the merit of the patent and declare it enforceable or invalid.

Except the courts tend to start from the position "If the USPTO granted this, it is valid unless proven otherwise." So anyone can patent anything and then the people sued for patent infringement are on the hook to prove the patent isn't valid. This can cost a lot of time and money (not to mention stress of wondering if your entire business will go under because of some stupid patent troll). It can be easier and cost less time/money/stress just to pay the patent troll (especially if you are a small business with a small legal budget).

The USPTO should be the ones initially deciding whether or not a patent is valid. The courts' responsibility should be to catch the few that the USPTO lets through, not to catch all of them and decide which are valid and which aren't. The fact that the USPTO seems to want to punt responsibility for checking the validity of patents onto the courts is one of the major reasons that the patent system is broken.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Jason Levine]

Software patents also tend to be constantly amended until they are as vague as possible. These can then sit unused for 10 years at which time they are dusted off, interpreted to apply to some widely used technology, and pointed at to demand payments for use of said technology.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Jason Levine]

The only problem with this is that the costs for checking the validity of patents would then be put on the companies sued for patent infringement. Small companies might not be able to afford lengthy lawsuits and might just settle with the patent trolls so bad patents would not only continue to be used, but would get "settlement momentum" in their favor.

If patent examiners actually examined patents, the courts would only need to deal with the edge cases and the patent lawsuit costs on businesses would drop. Yes, this might mean more government expenses to hire patent examiners who actually do their jobs, but these costs would spread out across everyone - not just a few companies being sued.

Re:Tested in the courts

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The only problem with this is that the costs for checking the validity of patents would then be put on the companies sued for patent infringement.

You got it backwards, because that's the current situation: if you get sued for patent infringement, it is your legal and financial responsibility to challenge the validity of the patent. That's why we have patent trolls. What I suggest, namely dropping the presumption of validity, means that the burden of proof shifts to the company that is suing for patent infringement.

If patent examiners actually examined patents, the courts would only need to deal with the edge cases and the patent lawsuit costs on businesses would drop. Yes, this might mean more government expenses to hire patent examiners who actually do their jobs, but these costs would spread out across everyone - not just a few companies being sued.

Obviously, patent examiners can't keep up. Few people with any skills would want such a boring job to begin with, and patent examiners have no incentive to get it right, since they aren't liable for the consequences of their decisions. So, patent examinations aren't going to improve. And, frankly, I don't see why the public should subsidize multi-decade monopolies to begin with.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Rob Y.]

There should be some form of malpractice coverage (insurance?) to pay the court costs for those harmed by lawsuits based on patents that are ultimately found to be bogus. Perhaps covered by a fee on patent applications.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Theaetetus]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent.

Nope, they're experts in their own field. The USPTO is divided up into several thousand art groups, and Examiners only review applications that are in their field. You don't have chemists examining crypto any more than you have computer scientists looking at a new drug formulation.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Theaetetus]

We should change the patent system so that it works more like how you imagine it works, namely that patent examiners only do some simple sanity checks, and that validity only gets established through court challenges. But that's not the patent system we have right now.

Those systems exist in other countries, and they're uniformly terrible. Remember all those stories about someone patenting the wheel in Australia? That was a registration-only system.
They're also much more expensive for people accused of infringement, since the trials are much more involved, with having to first examine every aspect of patentability.

Re:Tested in the courts

[james_gnz]

It looks like you can search US patent applications, and submit documents relevant to a patent application, for a fee.

To search patent applications:

• Go to Patent Full-Text Databases.
• Under Applications (right-hand side), click Advanced Search.
• Enter the Query: PD/20151126 AND (CPCL/G06F OR CPCL/H04L)
• Click Search.

This will give you the 1,247 applications relating to Electrical Digital Data Processing or Transmission of Digital Information that were published last week. (Applications are published on the Thursday of each week.)

To submit documents relevant to a patent application:

• Go to Third Party Preissuance Submissions
• Or Information Disclosure Statement

The submission process could no doubt be easier, but on the other hand, this might create more work for patent clerks, having to read through more low-quality submissions. I'm not really sure how much high-quality community involvement is likely here, because reading patent applications and searching for prior art just doesn't sound like a fun way to spend free time.

Re:Tested in the courts

[SharpFang]

The community could actually vastly reduce the workload - especially removing a lot of burden of searching for the prior art.

Re:Tested in the courts

[Anonymous Coward]

The USPTO can (and does) award patents for almost anything. The patent examiners aren't experts in every field and if they receive advice that an item, method, or process is unique and non-obvious, they will award a patent.

Nope, they're experts in their own field. The USPTO is divided up into several thousand art groups, and Examiners only review applications that are in their field. You don't have chemists examining crypto any more than you have computer scientists looking at a new drug formulation.

If one adopts a very narrow definition of expert, then they are experts.

The League for Programming Freedom has a position paper that discusses this issue at length.

One can go beyond the points made in that paper (though they are enough in themselves to torpedo the patent system, in the eyes of any rational person).

Fundamentally, there is no scientific definition of what an 'expert' is. Such a definition would relay on having some measurement that is generally accepted by the scientific community. No such measurement exists, and hence we have no way to measure expert status. That means that claims to expert status are psuedo-scientific, which doesn't give one much faith in the claims. In other words, "expert" is generally a marketing term with no real substance.

A cat with stamps on its feet (with the text "approved") would probably do just as good of a job by walking on the patent applications.

In practice, the patent system has almost nothing to do with rewarding innovation, and almost everything to do with unethical practice of law, unethical government, and unethical business practices. This point has been made at length in prior Slashdot discussions, so I'll let interested parties do the search.

As with so many other matters of law, the illusion of legitimately is what matters, not the substance. As long as the illusion is there, the lawyers can continue to make money of a badly broken system, even if what they do is ultimately extremely harmful to society. Lots of historical examples of similar behavior exist (such as slavery), so this kind of situation is nothing new.

Essentially, almost every lawyer participating in the patent system (or at least making money off it), is benefiting from unethical practice of law on the part of their colleagues (in both private and public employ).

Unfortunately, unethical practice of law is now so common in the USA that it has become the norm: nobody gets to high judicial office that is going to rock the ethics boat, and that's been the case for a very long time.

Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm totally against personal death penalty, there should be a corporate death penalty, where a company is completely disbanded: its assets (yeah, the investor's and bank's too!) are confiscated and put towards public good. Naturally just for a particularly outrageous behaviour, but patent trolls seem to fit the bill.

This way investors would have to make sure they check the moral side of their investment (and not only the financial).

I'm not a believer in the Invisible Hand, mind you -- but lobbyism, nepotism and too much corporate power is obstructing the few good things it *could* reasonably do.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Pieroxy]

The problem is not in the companies abusing the system, it's in the system for setting up such a business model. The more laws in place, the more fuckups like this one. The problem is that these companies are shielded by the law, so theu're hard do counter fight.

I'm not advocating a zero-laws system, but there are clearly too much things in place. We don't need more of it, we need less.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

all that gazillion lawyers graduating every year in the USA have gotta do something.
The old saying was
If you can do, if you can't then teach

should now be

If you can do, if you can't become a lawyer.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[jpatters]

I would advocate replacing the current practice of corporations being legally required to act in the best interests of shareholders only with a new hierarchy or rules, much like Asimov's laws if you will:

First, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of the general public.
Second, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their employees where it doesn't conflict with the first rule.
Third, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their shareholders where that doesn't conflict with the first or second rule.

A corporation jacks up the price of a generic drug by 7,000,000%? Sued by the general public.

A corporation informs employees that they will have to train their H1B replacements? Sued by their employees.

A corporation pays its CEO an unreasonably large salary with no evidence that that results in better executive performance? Sued by their shareholders. (This should be happening now...)

I like it better than a corporate death penalty, because many corporations do have value and importance to the general public that would be at risk of being destroyed because of a single bad acting CEO. With this scheme, the courts would have a framework for redressing these issues.

In the case of patent trolls, some patents are more obviously bullshit then others. The more obviously bullshit the patent, the more strong a case members of the general public would have to individually sue the trolls for obstructing their use of the technology. What if everybody who uses HTTPS could sue these clowns?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea great idea. When you have a competing company just get a law passed making your competition illegal and have it destroyed by the government. No need to compete anymore, its just a race to get your corporate execution applied to your competition. Sounds awesome.

When government buys GM and can't compete with Toyota, instead of the NTSB making up false stories about sticking gas peddles, just seize Toyota and guess what? That same corrupt government gets the assets of it in the US for their own use!

Isn't that why we have an embargo against Cuba?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone does something bad to another. Then we make laws to punish such behaviour. Then someone does something else bad to another circumventing that law.

Who's to blame here, really?
Who should be accountable?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Zontar The Mindless]

First, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of the general public.
Second, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their employees where it doesn't conflict with the first rule.
Third, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their shareholders where that doesn't conflict with the first or second rule.

+1, I think you could be on to something there.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want something to act in the interest of the public, it should be held publicly. Asking corporations to do so sounds like something a child would suggest.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

there should be a corporate death penalty, where a company is completely disbanded: its assets (yeah, the investor's and bank's too!) are confiscated and put towards public good

This is a patent troll; they don't have any assets. And it's easy to disband a company, namely by getting a legal judgment against it that is larger than its assets. Lawyers like the "owner" of this company can also be held in contempt of court and disbarred.

but lobbyism, nepotism and too much corporate power is obstructing the few good things it *could* reasonably do.

What do you think is going to happen if you allow government to dissolve companies for "moral reasons"? Corporations are going to use "lobbyism, nepotism, and corporate power" to dissolve their competitors.

In different words, what this company is doing is taking advantage of a badly run patent system with bad legal foundations, both governmental problems, and instead of fixing those problems, you want to give government even more and bigger guns to fuck up people's lives even more. The reason we have "lobbyism, nepotism, and corporate power" is because idiots like you keep advocating that we should have more of it.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

First, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of the general public.
Second, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their employees where it doesn't conflict with the first rule.
Third, a corporation must act reasonably in the best interest of their shareholders where that doesn't conflict with the first or second rule.

A corporation jacks up the price of a generic drug by 7,000,000%? Sued by the general public.

The only reason a corporation can do that is because of monopolistic laws created by government.

A corporation informs employees that they will have to train their H1B replacements? Sued by their employees.

For what? Lowering their costs?

A corporation pays its CEO an unreasonably large salary with no evidence that that results in better executive performance? Sued by their shareholders.

Paying CEOs unreasonably large salaries usually correlates with poor performance; that's because you have to pay a CEO a lot of money to run a poorly performing company.

I like it better than a corporate death penalty, because many corporations do have value and importance to the general public that would be at risk of being destroyed because of a single bad acting CEO. With this scheme, the courts would have a framework for redressing these issues.

Your scheme is imbecilic.

Re: Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why Bernie Sanders has traction, socialism, which is effectively what the GP describes.

NB, Sanders describes himself as a socialist.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[roman_mir]

You missed the point of Asimov's robot stories. The laws are in insufficient and don't work IRL. Also corporations exist first of all to enrich the owners and shareholders, all other functions are tangential to that goal.

You want this behaviour (patent trolling) actually to stop? The only thing that is required and that can work is to ban government from setting rules. All patent and copyright laws need to be abolished.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you go ahead and try to define "the best interest of the general public" for me? Define it positively, e.g. "it's this", not negatively ("it's *not* that").

How about, say, banning cooking at home and mandating that everyone must get their food in the form of protein-rich sludge (like that thing from Matrix) from central location? I mean, centralization would allow driving down costs, the gruel would definitely be healthier than what most people stuff their faces with, the corporation providing the food could add weight monitoring and portion size adjusting in the interest of public health, and of course, central production and distribution (and not having to build kitchens in every home) would protect the environment. Oh, and since noone has a kitchen, noone needs to own kitchen knives; think of how many children would be saved every day! And the gruel could even be free, providing nutrition to everyone equally! That's all definitely in the best interest of the general public, isn't it?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Fnord666]

the current practice of corporations being legally required to act in the best interests of shareholders only

Citation needed please. What law requires this?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[MickyTheIdiot]

It very well may be, but it's probably also true that you've drank the corporate kool-aid.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[MickyTheIdiot]

The only reason that corporations act the way they do is because common and case law have led it in that direction. There is nothing scared about the "rules" of a corporation. They are changeable.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[MickyTheIdiot]

It's case law, and it's too common knowledge to require a citation.

IANAL, but suggest that a corporation should take care of its employees in an investor's forum and you'll get a citation.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It very well may be, but it's probably also true that you've drank the corporate kool-aid.

I'm under no illusions about what corporations are and what they want. However, I'm also under no illusion about what governments are and what they want. And when it comes right down to it, corporations can't force you to do anything you don't want to; only government can.

You need to lay off the statist and totalitarian cool-aid.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[suutar]

This is what I found on the subject. (I'm not saying, btw, that it proves you're wrong... or right. I just present it as an information source.)

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

corporations can't force you to do anything you don't want to

They don't have to force you, they simply have to shut mommy government down so you have nobody to cry to when they defraud you.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

You think they need you? They don't. They only need you to pay and as long as this can be guaranteed they don't need to give a fuck about you at all.

No corporation can jacks up drug price by 7,000,000%? Move entire corporation including everyone overseas, give all researchers 10 times the salary for compensation and sell the drug back for 70,000,000%.

Same for H1B. Why don't they just pack and leave?

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

A corporation informs employees that they will have to train their H1B replacements? Sued by their employees.

For what? Lowering their costs?

No. For blatantly abusing the H1B visa system. The whole *point* of H1B visas is that they are to be used to bring people into the country to do jobs which require skill sets which aren't readily available in the country. The idea that you currently *have* workers who can do the job *and* train the incoming H1B replacements completely obviates the need for the H1B workers to come in in the first place.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada the directors must act in the best interest of the company. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_corporate_law#Directors.E2.80.99_duties and in particular:

In Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise[27] it was held that the duty is not merely owed to the corporation itself, but also to corporate stakeholders, namely "shareholders, employees, suppliers, creditors, consumers, governments and the environment...

In reality, all corporation direction involves a hierarchy of obligations. Often where an obligation sits on the ladder depends on the length of time into the future one is prospectively thinking. The balancing of obligations is complex and challenging.

It may interest you to know that paying taxes is generally the single most important obligation, as failure to do so can result in personal liability of directors.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately ethics and morality is a fluid subject and there isn't a moral absolute.

We say "nepotism" like it's some abhorrent concept but in reality we're all guilty of it, or we'll soon all be guilty of it. If you're going to hand power to someone you want to make sure they understand your worldview and share your ideals: e.g. family ideally, or friends. This behavior is captured in law as well - when you die your estate goes to your family and not me or some random Joe (because that would be weird). It's only when we jealously witness this transaction and believe that we have a stake in it that we call it "nepotism".

"Lobbyism" is another natural trait. When you work for someone and they pay for your upkeep then it only makes good sense to support their interests. It's only the disaffected and disenfranchised that don't do this (e.g. the guy that works on computers at HP telling you "don't buy HP computers"). The core problem here is that money is changing hands in a political discussion which creates a conflict of interest. In reality there's always money changing hands but it might be several layers removed from where you are in the hierarchy. Your "lobbying" is just a bit quieter.

So these are shades of gray. Law can't work with gray. Enacting such laws would have some amusing consequences but I can guarantee they'd be near universally bad. Not to mention the hoards of SJWs that keep moving the line around arbitrarily would make for a fun metagame: try to move the social consensus to grant more moral power to yourself, and only yourself.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[KlomDark]

Your flaw: Corporations only exist by the consent of the government, thus the people. Thus you are the imbecile.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Your flaw: Corporations only exist by the consent of the government, thus the people.

Private property and the ability to engage in private business transactions are fundamental human rights and are Constitutionally guaranteed; they do not require "consent of the government" or "consent of the people".

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

the current practice of corporations being legally required to act in the best interests of shareholders only

The original statement is a bit broad, since the papers of incorporation can vary significantly. These set the rules by which the corporation operates.

However, in practice the statement is more-or-less true for most corporations. It follows from both the typical papers of incorporation, and the legal "duties" applicable to the corporate executives, such as the "Duty of Care" or "Fiduciary Duty" with respect to following those rules. Those are good phrases to put into your search engine.

It's logical that people who hire professionals to manage their companies would insist on such rules, to protect their own interests.

Unfortunately, in practice, the existence of these rules leads to a number of well-known side effects.

For example, the rules tend to undermine attempts at taxing corporations, and also tend to make policies such as minimum wage not ultimately work to the benefit of those most in need. In both cases, the legal duty to look out for the shareholder's interests creates an incentive to find a technically legal way to compensate for the loss of profits that would otherwise occur. In a legal system that has serious legal ethics problems (such as the US legal system), such loopholes are common: the one leads inevitably to the other.

A potentially unfortunate side effect of the interaction between the requirements of corporate law and minimum wage policy is increased automation, good for the engineers and inventors designing the automation, but not so good for unskilled workers. This can lead a society in the direction of becoming a welfare state, as more and more workers lose the opportunity to build their human capital through job experience (even seemingly "unskilled" jobs can often provide some opportunities for development). The automation can also pose direct problems for society, such as in agriculture where many cultivars are not suitable for automated picking, leading to reduced crop diversity, which in turn creates a host of problems (such as increased use of pesticides and herbicides).

The net effect is to create situations where certain policies often work more to the benefit of the politicians proposing them - getting them votes from an ignorant public that doesn't see past the marketing hype to reality - than to society. There are always better alternative policies, but they aren't as easy to sell to the ignorant masses, so politicians tend to avoid them.

There are some good corporations out there that look out for the interests of the community in which they operate, or the interests of their workers, as well as their share-holders. These seem to be rare, and the policies usually don't survive the shift from idealistic founders to more 'professional' management. If the policies do survive, they tend to get weaker, with unscrupulous executives looking to get ahead by 'cutting costs' and 'bringing the company into alignment with industry norms'.

Any good textbook on corporate law will likely examine these issues in detail. You can find many at Amazon.com or other online booksellers. You might also want to look at a textbook on industrial psychology or organizational behavior, and an economics textbook on minimum wage research. Online sources such as Wikipedia will at least get you started, though they're likely to be incomplete, biased, or misleading.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[sjames]

Corporations are not human beings, they have no rights, not even the right to exist. If you want to own property and engage in private business, have at it. As a human being, you DO have those rights.

If you wish to work cooperatively with others, you are also welcome to do so. However, if you wish to sever personal liability from the organization formed, that is a PRIVILEGE that the public may (or may not) choose to grant you. If it does, it will be under the condition that the organization act first in the public interest. Should it fail to do so, it's charter will be dissolved.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

Your flaw: Corporations only exist by the consent of the government, thus the people.

Private property and the ability to engage in private business transactions are fundamental human rights and are Constitutionally guaranteed; they do not require "consent of the government" or "consent of the people".

And any individual can do that no problemo. If you want the additional protections a corporation has then no, you don't have fundamental human rights to do what you want.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

However, if you wish to sever personal liability from the organization formed, that is a PRIVILEGE that the public may (or may not) choose to grant you.

It's not really a "privilege", it's just a formalization of one form of structuring a private business transaction. As a business owner, I could also write liability limits into each contract. It's just easier to have a bunch of standardized legal forms for doing so. If you do business with a corporation, you know how its liability is limited, and if you don't like that, don't do business with them.

In any case, even if you call it a "privilege", the conditions under which liability is limited are already well-defined: corporations need to abide by laws and they need to comply with their corporate charter. If they fail to do that, courts effectively can already impose a "corporate death penalty".

What you can't do is impose a corporate death penalty just because you believe that a company isn't charging the prices you want it to charge, or is paying its CEOs too, or doesn't comply with some political demand you like.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[sjames]

The separation of liability goes well beyond what you can accomplish in a contract since it includes criminal liability. For example, if a corporation commits negligent homicide, there is a high barrier to having that liability fall upon anyone personally. That is, typically nobody goes to jail or ends up picking up litter along the highway.

As for the rest, if you are referring to capricious actions, then I agree. There is no place for capriciousness in the rule of law. OTOH, if you mean that the people collectively cannot justly pass laws imposing those conditions on corporations, you are quite incorrect. It can and to some degree probably should. Corporations have no natural rights, they are not human beings. You are free to act as yourself if you want to avoid those limitations since as a human being, you do have natural rights.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

For example, if a corporation commits negligent homicide, there is a high barrier to having that liability fall upon anyone personally.

The "high barrier" doesn't result from any kind of special corporate treatment, but the simple fact that it is hard to determine in a complex organization who is responsible for any particular act. The only people that creation of a corporation protects is its investors, for the simple reason that the act of investing in a legally established company cannot be by itself criminal.

Corporations have no natural rights, they are not human beings.

All "corporate personhood" means is that people don't lose their constitutional rights just because they act as a group. And the only rights that SCOTUS recognizes for corporations are those that are available to groups of people. For example, a corporation can't marry and it can't get a Miranda warning, because those are not rights available to groups of people. But a corporation can engage in free speech, own property, and file lawsuits because those are rights available to groups of people. Corporations should also enjoy the right to free association, meaning they should be able to hire and fire at will; that's still something we need to fight for.

OTOH, if you mean that the people collectively cannot justly pass laws imposing those conditions on corporations, you are quite incorrect. It can and to some degree probably should.

In the US, the only valid laws are those that are consistent with the US Constitution, and the US Constitution provides strong limits on what the federal government can do. That is, "the people" are legally quite constrained in the kinds of laws they can pass.

Of course, with large enough majorities, the constitution can be amended or ignored. That just happens to be a bad idea. The notion of reining in evil corporations and capitalist speculators for the benefit of society was the essence of fascist ideology at the beginning of the 20th century. Germany quite democratically elected a guy that was going to do just that, and the rest is history. So while technically, it is possible to do this, it is a really bad idea.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[sjames]

I have no idea where your bizarro notions come from, but I hope you one day find a way to return to your home dimension.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea where your bizarro notions come from

Obviously not. You have proven your ignorance time and again.

smart move....

[Anonymous Coward]

by the original patent holders---selling at 18 years.. just sayin'

not a fan of shotgun ligation strategy.. filing dozens of suits nearly immediately upon receiving assignment of the patent. that alone should say its just a money grab attempt.. aren't patent holders supposed to at least try to negotiate and shit before litigation?

but shouldnt they be going after the implementers of https if that in fact was the infringing tech, not the users of the software that has the feature? like microsoft, apache, nginx (collectively about 85%+ of the global web server software market)?

and besides.. if faltering, cash-strapped and perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy blackberry (fka research in motion) hasn't found money to be made in ecc patent lawsuits (they have a very extensive portfolio of relevant patents).. perhaps there isn't any to be made....

Re:smart move....

[Anonymous Coward]

but shouldnt they be going after the implementers of https if that in fact was the infringing tech, not the users of the software that has the feature? like microsoft, apache, nginx (collectively about 85%+ of the global web server software market)?

Patents are licensed on a royalty basis - a fee per use, either collected from the customer or supplier. In this case the suppliers are generally either providing the product for free so would be very limited pickings, or are a big company like Microsoft who aren't going to cave in. They probably know they have no leg to stand on, but have a patent that to an untrained eye looks like they do and are betting on small businesses preferring to cave in and pay up rather than go bankrupt fighting it.

Re:smart move....

[Opportunist]

Dude, a schoolyard bully is not going to try to beat up the champion of the school's boxing team, ok? He's going after the nerd.

Re: smart move....

[Anonymous Coward]

Total meme +++

Excellent thanks

Klaatu's people were on the right track

[Anonymous Coward]

This sort of shit makes me think Klaatu's people had it right. I'm getting desperately tired of people trying to pull this sort of shit on each other.
It's not just this particular kind of case but that fucking predatory attitude in general.

These days I feel people even value money gained by taking advantage of other people or even downright fraud (of the legal kind) higher than money made by doing something useful and constructive.

The people of the world really better hope I'll never end up as the guy meeting Klaatu. I'd just go "yeah, I think you are right. Just do it in a more humane way than that nanite-cloud and give me a little time to spend with some nice female"

Just checking

[Opportunist]

It's still illegal to shoot patent trolls on sight?

I thought by now it would be considered pest control.

Re:Just checking

[PopeRatzo]

It's still illegal to shoot patent trolls on sight?

Yes, but it's only a $25 fine.

Re:Just checking

[Chrisq]

It's still illegal to shoot patent trolls on sight?

It infringes my patent on means to destroy vermin .... oh wait, put that gun down!

Haters gonna hate

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Security Agency cleared the way on ECC patens to prevent this very thing. Take a look at the license agreements of OpenSSL.

IANASE

[The Evil Atheist]

Someone more knowledgeable can answer this: isn't the "patent" in question just a description that could be found in any textbook on security and cryptography?

The real patent villains unmasked

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the yuppie scumbag who bought up a HIV patent and is now charging extortionate fees, the Patent system is seriously out of control. This is shit just keeps happening.

Who are the real villains in all this? The fucktard voter = every lard assed pot bellied moron who saunters in the the poll booth and votes for the Democrat and Republican because their mommy and daddy voted that way.

The Democrats and Republicans have let this happen, and let this keep on happening, because of the fucktard voters who keep reelecting them. SO DEAR READER, FUCK YOU!

Re:The real patent villains unmasked

[moeinvt]

-2 misinformative.

If you're talking about Martin Shkreli, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug in question is Diaprim (aka Pyrimethamine). This drug has been around since the 1950s and is not, I repeat NOT subject to any sort of patent protections.

Furthermore, the drug is a treatment for toxoplasmosis not HIV. There is some confusion about this because people with weakened immune systems are especially vulnerable to the parasite which causes toxoplasmosis.

The big controversy with Diaprim arises from the fact that there are relatively few cases of this infection in the USA so there is only one manufacturer of the drug. The size of the market is so small that it's not economically viable for anyone to set up a competing operation. Therefore, Turing figures it can radically increase the price.

"based in Longview, Texas" ...

[tlambert]

"based in Longview, Texas" ... that kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Re:"based in Longview, Texas" ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Longview is close enough to Louisiana that most of us Texans just think of it as "West Shreveport."
We don't like to go that far east unless it's part of an out of state road trip to the next worthwhile city on I20: Atlanta.

This should become public property

[jjhues7676]

Recently a judge declared that the song "Happy Birthday" is now public property. This is used to protect the public and should be their property.

Re:This should become public property

[caseih]

Are you sure? From what I've read, all the court said was that the Warner/Chappell Music did not hold the copyright on it. It's entirely possible that someone somewhere has a legitimate copyright over this song. They certainly did not declare the song was in the public domain, though it probably is.

Re: This should become public property

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the judge ruled the complainant did not own it, not that it was in the public domain.

Re:This should become public property

[Jason Levine]

The judgement effectively put the song in the public domain. If someone else stepped forward today to claim copyright on the song, they would need to prove not only why they should be granted copyright on it, but why they stayed silent so long while Warner/Chappell Music claimed copyright on it. In short, they would have a severe uphill battle to be awarded copyright on Happy Birthday.

Re:This should become public property

[Antique Geekmeister]

There were long periods since the authorship of "Happy Birthday" when copyrights required renewal to remain valid. Given that there were no such renewals, it lapsed into public domain decades ago.

"Method" patents

[DrYak]

The main reason for granting patents is to persuade inventors to publish their ideas and in return they are given exclusive licensing rights for a reasonable amount of time. The publishing and sharing of new ideas is the good side of patents.

...which is valid for physical invetion. I.e.: actual device that need to be researched and build.
Because you need exclusivity, so you can ask for money and investment in order to get the necessary resources to research, develop and built the device, then ramp-up production and sell it.

The problem with that crappy patent is that nearly every single claim point begins with :
"Claim n. A method..."
Yup. Methods. As in "I just had this idea and suddenly want every single other person who might have the same idea to immediately start pouring free money into my pocket".
Nothing to build or research or develop. No need to investors to fund the construction of a factory to produce your device. Just a plain simple idea.

That's the main problem with software patent. Half of them are just plain maths with IS NOT patentable. The rest are just ideas, where the main investment necessary to bring a product isn't "millions of dollars to build a production plant" but "find a few week-end of time, but your ass on chair in front of your laptop and start typing code". Something that you can do anyway, without need to go to an investor and without needing your idea protected so that the investor runs away with it.

That's the reason why pure software patent aren't considered enforceable under some jurisdiction.

    The litigation necessary to challenge or defend a patent is the unfortunate bad side.

--

keys.

[steveb3210]

Choosing a private key in ECC is no magic - you can pick any number, anything as long as its smaller than the order of the group you're working in - and its a valid private key.

Re:keys.

[Fnord666]

Choosing a private key in ECC is no magic - you can pick any number, anything as long as its smaller than the order of the group you're working in - and its a valid private key

Finding curves with the correct properties was the key to getting ECC working. I worked on ECC some in the late 80's and randomly selected curves were completely useless.

The relevant dates.

[goombah99]

from wikipedia
Netscape Communications created HTTPS in 1994 for its Netscape Navigator web browser.[41] Originally, HTTPS was used with the SSL protocol. As SSL evolved into Transport Layer Security (TLS), the current version of HTTPS was formally specified by RFC 2818 in May 2000.

so HTTPS itself does predate the patent filing and patent. The current version of HTTPS implementation is after the patent filing and before the patent grant in 1997.

Not sure what that adds up to. But if a specific method covered in the patent is implemented in the TLS then they might have a case.

Re:The relevant dates.

[thaylin]

You missed the part of his post where he was talking about ECC being created, not HTTPS using it. Do we really want an ECC but in a browser not email, similar to "but on a computer"?

Dear America

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello

Please, use some of your vast military budget to blow away your sick patent and copyright industry and lobbies.

Thank you in advance

treat the execs like sex offenders

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the Corporate death penalty; prison time for the HMFIC, board of directors, and everyone with a job title containing Lawyer, or President, Executive, or Cheif.

And put them through the same process they do sex offenders--because the non-consensual screwing they're doing to people.

I wonder...

[akahige]

...if they're smart enough to not sue Newegg?

It Works...

[auromed]

It seems to be working, the lawyers plan that is, as I clicked on a couple of the lawsuits and they've already been settled. BSNF and Scottrade have at least settled. That's the trick usually, sue for enough to make money, but not enough that it's worth the companies actually fighting.

Netflix Motion to Dismiss

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that the linked Motion To Dismiss argues that the patent construction is invalid. It does not (as the Slashdot blurb implies) challenge the patent subject itself.

The patent wording is "method and apparatus for", which has been ruled to be "indefinite".

I'd'a been happier if they (also) challenged the subject matter of the patent.

Coren22's impersonation "APKolypse"

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 IMPERSONATES RESPECTED MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COMMUNITY http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

---

"privilege escalation's a bad thing" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015

How else programmatically update it?

"requires elevation to write hosts" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015

Hypocrite later admits it - hosts do vs. WFP/SFP not my ware. Users set it not programmatic impersonation. Security wares need it.

---

"secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code & said it looked all good" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes

"yes I've seen the code & yes it is safe." FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

---

"we should avoid your crap it looks like malware." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

60++ reputable sources say different:

64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Installer-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

"MiTM... his software provides" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Hardcoded favs users provide = REVERSE DNS verified & my ware filters 5,500++ false positives - security site hosts data = false positives filtered.

---

"Apk doesn't think DNS servers are worth running & believes Microsoft Active Directory can run w/out DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015

Show us where I say it? Not illogic logic but where I say it. I say AD needs internal DNS far back as 2007

http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

See "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers" there.

APK

P.S.=>

"modding you down for trolling in your signature" - by Dog-Cow (21281) on Wednesday November 25, 2015

Dog-Cow's (old acc't. no new sockpuppet from you) thoughts of your signatures about me

... apk

Deal being worked on

[theendlessnow]

I hear our (USA) government has decided to come to our (everyone's) defense and pay the guy approximately 5 trillion in unmarked twenties.

Done...

Next...

Removing Elliptic Curve

[emil]

This is for Elliptic Curve ciphers (EC), not Error Correcting Code (ECC).

It should be possible to remove these ciphers from your TLS configuration. If you consider the current best practice for Apache:

SSLCipherSuite ECDH+AESGCM:DH+AESGCM:ECDH+AES256:DH+AES256:ECDH+AES128:DH+AES:ECDH+3DES:DH+3DES:RSA+AESGCM:RSA+AES:RSA+3DES:!aNULL:!MD5:!DSS

Then removing Elliptic Curve should be as simple as:

SSLCipherSuite DH+AESGCM:DH+AES256:DH+AES:DH+3DES:RSA+AESGCM:RSA+AES:RSA+3DES:!aNULL:!MD5:!DSS

That doesn't seem too difficult, and there is some opinion that this is actually an improvement on security.

Coren22: Tell us of "Bolting on 'MoAr'", lol

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU BLEW IT BADLY HERE especially -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

See subject & my last post you replied to Coren22: BIND doesn't come w/ Windows, the most used OS there is by the most folks on the desktop!

(LMAO - I own you... YOU, have been DOMINATED!)

APK

P.S.=> You're efficiency is poor - Less IS truly MORE in using what you already have (hosts + firewalls) as I do, & to do more with less... apk

Suing the User?

[Lotharus]

Since when do you sue the user of a product (in this case, corporations hosting HTTPS-enabled websites) rather than the implementer of the product (whoever wrote the web server's crypto stack)?

If I build an electric shaver that violates Braun's patents and sell it to some people, Braun has grounds to sue me. Do they really have grounds to sue the people to whom I sold my infringing product?