marcio.barbado at gmail
Jul 28, 2010, 4:04 PM
Post #7 of 7
(386 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Patent Absurdity - How software patents broke the system
[In reply to]
|
|
I'm sorry, Rohit.
Chances are you're gonna face some problems in the US.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Shawn Merdinger <shawnmer [at] gmail> wrote:
> check this out:
>
> United States Patent 7,743,281
> Conger , et al. June 22, 2010
> Distributed file fuzzing
> Inventors: Conger; David J. (Issaquah, WA), Srinivasamurthy; Kumar
> (Redmond, WA), Cooper; Robert S. (Woodinville, WA)
> Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
> Appl. No.: 11/734,970
> Filed: April 13, 2007
>
> United States Patent 7,594,142
> O'Leary , et al. September 22, 2009
> Architecture for automated detection and analysis of security issues
> Inventors: O'Leary; Arthur J (Redmond, WA), Fly; Robert C (Redmond, WA)
> Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
> Appl. No.: 11/427,923
> Filed: June 30, 2006
>
> cheers,
> --scm
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, M.B.Jr. <marcio.barbado [at] gmail> wrote:
>> Hi Rohit,
>> sorry for such a delay in this reply.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Rohit Patnaik <quanticle [at] gmail> wrote:
>>> Now here's a question that should bring this thread back on-topic. How
>>> patentable are security tools?
>>
>>
>> Your point alludes to one very generical concept but it is interesting
>> for it gives the chance to extirpate some confusion people make in
>> this subject.
>>
>> See, maybe you don't clearly understand the difference between a
>> license and a patent.
>>
>> A license is a contract between a licensor and a licensee. These 2
>> parties could be 2 commercial companies for example.
>>
>> So, if your company's employees write some code, licensed under
>> proprietary premises, then your company won't have to make the sources
>> available to its customers, because they accepted the license. The
>> relationship is between your company and the one buying software from
>> it.
>>
>> Now, a software patent, say, in the US, is a government rule which
>> gives a patentee, exclusive rights in a process, which often involves
>> math.
>>
>> Suppose your software's algorithms make use of a patent you have never
>> heard of. I mean, you know the process, obviously. Though, you didn't
>> know it was patented. The patentee can sue you because of that. When
>> the relationship becomes clear, you see it is between your company and
>> some party you didn't know until that moment.
>>
>> And then, if your company wants to keep selling the software its own
>> employees wrote, it will have to pay cash for the referred party (the
>> once unknown patentee).
>>
>> The point is, trivial algos often represent patents.
>>
>> You know stupid people? Well, sometimes they think, and when they
>> think, they get amused and sassy with that, like:
>>
>> "OMG! am I an inventive smart badass or what?!"
>>
>> they presuppose originality based on the environment they live in. And
>> sometimes, they manage to turn that trivial math stupidity into a
>> government rule.
>>
>> But math constitutes a public domain group of sciences.
>>
>> Security is exactly there, where your software, based upon public
>> domain mathematics, is threatened by discontinuation or modification,
>> which risks your company's stability and your customers' businesses.
>>
>> If one wants to protect his "inventive" equations, he can do it
>> through a proprietary license contract between his represented party
>> and his customers. Though, the State must be aware of some other
>> thinking-capable people's presence in the world, which means,
>> different people may get to similar equations/algos.
>>
>> Capiche?
>>
>> Don't worry about your fuzzers. License your tools the way you think
>> it's reasonable to you.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM, M.B.Jr. <marcio.barbado [at] gmail> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> Patent Absurdity explores the case of software patents and the history
>>>> of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done
>>>> to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a
>>>> series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court's review of in
>>>> re Bilski — a case that could have profound implications for the
>>>> patenting of software.
>>>>
>>>> http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marcio Barbado, Jr.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcio Barbado, Jr.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
Marcio Barbado, Jr.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
|
