3 ms·

I don't understand: the patent mentions that this is currently "ubiquitous" in the form of the Signal protocol. Isn't that basically telling the patent office t

by lucb1e 7y ago

I don't understand: the patent mentions that this is currently "ubiquitous" in the form of the Signal protocol. Isn't that basically telling the patent office there is prior art, i.e. they undermine their own patent application? The relevant part of the patent application: > The Axolotl Ratchet aka the Double Ratchet Algorithm is modeled on the Diffie-Hellman asymmetric ratchet in the Off-the-Record (OTR) messaging system and symmetric key ratchets used by the Silent Circle messaging protocol, resulting in the currently ubiquitous Signal Protocol. It goes on to say "While there are a limited number of security proofs of specific implementations, there are none for the generalized protocol". So even if the patent were to be granted on the basis of that this is general instead of specific, then the specific Signal protocol should not be in violation of this patent.

tialaramex 7y ago
I think what they're going for is a "But X" variant where this time X is post-quantum cryptography. You might remember "But X" patents from when they were all for the Internet. You know "It's a bookshop but Internet" or "It's paying for a magazine subscription but Internet". Some of these patents were subsequently invalidated, many made their "Inventors" plenty of money anyway. Most of today's sensible crypto designs can be mechanically transformed into something safe for a post-quantum world by sprinkling the right post-quantum ingredients in the right places and putting a XOR somewhere. The "great" thing about patents is that you can be vague about parts that you don't specifically claim, to the point where they aren't even invented yet, and still succeed in the application. You have to guess that the missing pieces will get discovered, doesn't matter who by, before you stop being able to incrementally file modified patents for the same "invention" and then you can collect all the money because your "invention" is essential. So they won't even need to propose a specific post quantum algorithm anywhere, they can leave that as a black box. When something gets invented, their patent covers it being used in the obvious way. This sort of nonsense is another reason patents should be scrapped rather than reformed.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  The main independent claim doesn’t specifically call out quantum algorithms. I’m struggling to see how Signal/Axolotl doesn’t match every element.
  - hcknwscommenter 7y ago
    And I am struggling to see how Signal/Axolotl does match every element of claim 1.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  X is certainly not post-quantumn cryptography. You need to look at all elements of claim 1. IN particular, "wherein the first refresh key is generated on the first device based at least in part on the first public key and the root state, wherein the first refresh key is generated on the first device without requiring a private key corresponding to the first epoch key, and" . . . "wherein the first state is generated on the first device without requiring a private key corresponding to the first epoch key, and wherein, the first state is generated on the second device based at least in part on the first private key, the first epoch key, and the root state;" and . . . "wherein, on each of the first device and the second device, the first message key is generated based at least in part on the first state and the first refresh key;"
analog31 7y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but disclosing prior art is 1) your obligation, and 2) strengthens your patent if it's granted. If an existing method is cited in the patent, and the patent is approved, it means the patent office has declared that the cited method is officially recognized as not being prior art. If you look at a patent and say: "This isn't valid because of patent X," but you see patent X in the list of citations, then it means the patent office has already said: "Oh yes it is."

by lucb1e 7y ago

tialaramex 7y ago

I think what they're going for is a "But X" variant where this time X is post-quantum cryptography. You might remember "But X" patents from when they were all for the Internet. You know "It's a bookshop but Internet" or "It's paying for a magazine subscription but Internet". Some of these patents were subsequently invalidated, many made their "Inventors" plenty of money anyway. Most of today's sensible crypto designs can be mechanically transformed into something safe for a post-quantum world by sprinkling the right post-quantum ingredients in the right places and putting a XOR somewhere. The "great" thing about patents is that you can be vague about parts that you don't specifically claim, to the point where they aren't even invented yet, and still succeed in the application. You have to guess that the missing pieces will get discovered, doesn't matter who by, before you stop being able to incrementally file modified patents for the same "invention" and then you can collect all the money because your "invention" is essential. So they won't even need to propose a specific post quantum algorithm anywhere, they can leave that as a black box. When something gets invented, their patent covers it being used in the obvious way. This sort of nonsense is another reason patents should be scrapped rather than reformed.

matthewdgreen 7y ago
The main independent claim doesn’t specifically call out quantum algorithms. I’m struggling to see how Signal/Axolotl doesn’t match every element.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  And I am struggling to see how Signal/Axolotl does match every element of claim 1.
hcknwscommenter 7y ago
X is certainly not post-quantumn cryptography. You need to look at all elements of claim 1. IN particular, "wherein the first refresh key is generated on the first device based at least in part on the first public key and the root state, wherein the first refresh key is generated on the first device without requiring a private key corresponding to the first epoch key, and" . . . "wherein the first state is generated on the first device without requiring a private key corresponding to the first epoch key, and wherein, the first state is generated on the second device based at least in part on the first private key, the first epoch key, and the root state;" and . . . "wherein, on each of the first device and the second device, the first message key is generated based at least in part on the first state and the first refresh key;"

analog31 7y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but disclosing prior art is 1) your obligation, and 2) strengthens your patent if it's granted. If an existing method is cited in the patent, and the patent is approved, it means the patent office has declared that the cited method is officially recognized as not being prior art. If you look at a patent and say: "This isn't valid because of patent X," but you see patent X in the list of citations, then it means the patent office has already said: "Oh yes it is."