3 ms·

If this is trivial, it should be rejected. I also don't find this to be obvious -- there is a reason it took decades of working on end to end encrypted chat alg

by lucb1e 7y ago

If this is trivial, it should be rejected. I also don't find this to be obvious -- there is a reason it took decades of working on end to end encrypted chat algorithms before they came up with something that has all the desirable properties of the double ratchet algorithm. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of or against software patents, I know too little about the topic. I just wanted to say that this isn't that trivial, and if it were, it would not be patentable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability

maqp 7y ago
Double ratchet was built on top of 2004 OTR's Diffie-Hellman ratchet. From what I understood the difference was using different, post-quantum, algorithms for this patent. The thing is, post-quantum algorithms haven't even been standardized yet: NIST competition is currently on round 2. Generalized patent for using post-quantum cipher together with double ratchet takes two hard things that have taken a ton of hard work and basically makes the claim they were the first ones to discover they are compatible and that it's a good idea -- which is not the case, key exchange algorithms are trivial to plug into protocols. They are implemented separately to be used together. It's like trying to patent portable music player, but with open design headphones! It took the industry a lot of time to come up with portable music players, and good headphones also took time and effort, but a generalized patent for using them together is just nonsense.
- hcknwscommenter 7y ago
  This patent does not derive its patentability from using different, post-quantum, algorithms. You have not read all elements of claim 1. Moreover, even if you were correct in your understanding that this patent is directed to using different, post-quantum, algorithms, you still fail to understand the impact of that. To whit, it doesn't matter that such algorithms have not been standardized. At that stage, different entities can patent whatever their preferred method is, and if one takes over the industry, then they can maybe receive some licensing revenue for having developed the best method.
cortesoft 7y ago
I think a lot of the complaints about our parent system is that a lot of trivial things have been granted patents. We aren't complaining about the system as it is supposed to work, but rather how it works in practice.

by lucb1e 7y ago

maqp 7y ago

Double ratchet was built on top of 2004 OTR's Diffie-Hellman ratchet. From what I understood the difference was using different, post-quantum, algorithms for this patent. The thing is, post-quantum algorithms haven't even been standardized yet: NIST competition is currently on round 2. Generalized patent for using post-quantum cipher together with double ratchet takes two hard things that have taken a ton of hard work and basically makes the claim they were the first ones to discover they are compatible and that it's a good idea -- which is not the case, key exchange algorithms are trivial to plug into protocols. They are implemented separately to be used together. It's like trying to patent portable music player, but with open design headphones! It took the industry a lot of time to come up with portable music players, and good headphones also took time and effort, but a generalized patent for using them together is just nonsense.

hcknwscommenter 7y ago
This patent does not derive its patentability from using different, post-quantum, algorithms. You have not read all elements of claim 1. Moreover, even if you were correct in your understanding that this patent is directed to using different, post-quantum, algorithms, you still fail to understand the impact of that. To whit, it doesn't matter that such algorithms have not been standardized. At that stage, different entities can patent whatever their preferred method is, and if one takes over the industry, then they can maybe receive some licensing revenue for having developed the best method.

cortesoft 7y ago

I think a lot of the complaints about our parent system is that a lot of trivial things have been granted patents. We aren't complaining about the system as it is supposed to work, but rather how it works in practice.