6 ms·

While very cool and seemingly well-designed, this seems like a derivative of the lock developed by the YouTuber StuffMadeHere. A little strange to see someone a

While very cool and seemingly well-designed, this seems like a derivative of the lock developed by the YouTuber StuffMadeHere. A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design.

subtract-smiles 4y ago
I agree, it seems a little strange. I also seem to recall that the LockPickingLawyer was able to break that lock using two separate methods that I didn't see addressed in the article, so I wonder how much this person just copied StuffMadeHere..
- dcow 4y ago
  LPL “cheated” when picking SMH’s lock but still provided valuable feedback. Both weaknesses he found are easily fixed. In one case he could walk the deadbolt back because of a precision error/oversight in SMH’s lock. The other he stuck a small shim between the door and the lock to tension the second tumbler which is not an issue with this lock and easily fixed on SMH’s lock by closing the back with a plate.
  - subtract-smiles 4y ago
    Oh, I see. I'm no expert but at least I understand the things LPL did a but better now.
threeseed 4y ago
> A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design. Apparently it's common depending on the country you live. Some countries have a first-to-file versus a first-to-invent patent system. And so you end up with people (often inventors or retired lawyers) who spend their days filing patents for other people's inventions. The idea being that they only need one or two of the patents in their lifetime to result in a massive payday for it be all worth it.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Even in the US, which is first to file, your patent can be invalidated by published prior art that makes it obvious. The stuff made here video is a textbook example of an invalidating piece of prior art.
  - mNovak 4y ago
    It might invalidate aspects of the patent, but the two are different enough that certain aspects of this one are still patentable. Bottom line, you don't always patent the whole device, sometimes just the small unique implementation details are valuable enough.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I assume they are going for a design patent, which they may well get (and doesn't protect against much other than direct copies). A method patent or a utility patent is a lot harder in light of the prior art.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    The problem is that the patent system tends to just approve anything that meets a certain quality threshold. And then they leave it up to the courts to adjudicate whether a patent is invalidated due to prior act. And so rather than litigate, roll the dice and potentially strengthen the patent's standing sometimes it's easier just to negotiate a deal with them.
  - rasz 4y ago
    and it will only cost you >$100K to invalidate
    - TheRealPomax 4y ago
      It feels like you never looked at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2215.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2215.html and it might be worth giving that a quick read before pulling a number out of thin air. Yes, it costs money to get a patent invalidated based on prior art. But: an amount that even a single person who stands to actually gain from having a patent overturned should have no problem with. You're asking the USPO to spend time redoing work, literally halting any other patent work they could be doing instead. So it's not a trivial amount, but it's also hardly a prohibitive amount if you actually want a specific patent revoked.
infogulch 4y ago
The principle is the same, but this design is different and better in some ways. Depending on the generality of the claims a patent may be reasonable. The Enclave design is more refined/compact, but I'm skeptical of the longevity/durability of the wedge mechanism. The underlying principle that's common between the StuffMadeHere and Enclave designs is 1. Decouple setting the pins from testing them, and 2. Do not allow the keyway access to physically manipulate the set pins while testing them. Interestingly this same principle is used throughout cryptography, e.g. in constant time comparison algorithms. Basically, any partial success information leak can be used to reduce the search space exponentially. And that's what single-pin picking is all about, so it's cool that this idea has (finally?) migrated to physical security.
- petra 4y ago
  If the core ideas are already in the public domain, it likely means that designs that bypass the enclave patent are likely.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Except this isn't a constant time comparison. You still reach the "no more turning" angle at whichever pin is incorrect first. This is more like forcing the password to be fully retyped after each failed attempt. A good feature, but not a feature which eliminates side channels which might be there.
  - infogulch 4y ago
    There's still no direct way to detect which pin blocks it from opening. Maybe you could determine if the failed pin is the same as a previous attempt by listening with a stethoscope, or very finely measuring the turning angle, but you can't directly feel out which pin. So there may still be a way to reduce the search space in theory, but that attack still seems very difficult to pull off, and for the complexity it seems vastly better than previous locks.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      Well, it didn't advertise itself as a "very difficult to pull off lock", or a "vastly better than previous lock". It advertised itself as an "unpickable lock". That's a very strong claim to be making. I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a proof that it is impossible to reduce the search space down to sub-exponential. Building a lock which does not leak any information about what's happening inside is equivalent to building a mechanical, room temperature quantum computer. For if that information isn't leaking to the environment in some way, there is no mechanism to decohere a superposition state. Hence in principle a mechanical lock which is secure in the information theoretic sense is impossible. It is still theoretically possible to make a computationally secure lock (eg a mechanical implementation of a hash function). But there's currently no real proof that one-way functions are actually one-way. The security of such a lock is subject to a foundational guess in cryptography.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
analog31 4y ago
Need to see the patent or published application, and in particular the claims. I've got a few patents under my belt, but I'm not a patent lawyer. Typically when prior art is found during the preparation or processing of a patent application, the inventor can either argue for why their thing is new and different, or narrow their claims to the point where what's left satisfies novelty. Now at that point, one is left wondering if their idea is still worth patenting. But that's another matter. Even as an inventor with some experience in the patent process, I still find it hard to second guess the patent office on what they will accept or reject as prior art. The lawyers are better at it than I am. More than once I've rushed breathlessly to the lawyers with screaming hot obvious prior art, and they say: "Meh, it's not prior art because of X, Y, and Z, nice try."
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
The concepts employed in the StuffMadeHere video were derived from techniques used in other pick-resistant locks. His implementation is unique, of course, but he also derived his lock from other existing techniques. There’s a big world of lock design and research out there, and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber.
- girvo 4y ago
  > and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber. While you’re likely right, YouTubers are massive in terms of reach and popularity, and there are heaps of cases where companies have done exactly that…
causality0 4y ago
A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design I'm pretty sure 95% of patent applications and 50% of granted patents are attempts to steal someone's invention out from under them.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Like Steve Jobs famously Said - something about stealing
  - retcon 4y ago
    I actually think Zaphod Beeblebrox got there earlier. As he willonhavedone by whenever he followed through.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      Ironically I'm wearing one of my hitchhikers guide shirts today
- Hellbanevil 4y ago
espadrine 4y ago
It is even closer to the design I published a year ago: https://github.com/espadrine/lock-designs/blob/main/commitment-plate-lock.jpg https://github.com/espadrine/lock-designs/blob/main/commitme... I don’t see how this patent has any legs to stand on.
- leeoniya 4y ago
  would likely depend on whether the filing date was before or after this, but yeah, this would likely invalidate any claims for the most interesting improvements over the SMH designs
- dmoy 4y ago
  > don’t see how this patent has any legs to stand on. Well USPTO did move to first-to-file under Obama. Is there a patent filed before this one?
  - rocqua 4y ago
    That is for independent simultaneous discovery right? Which is a separate matter from 'does prior art exist' I would imagine.
  - espadrine 4y ago
    My understanding of MPEP 2126-2128[0] is that prior art published to a website can be disqualifying. I don’t like patents, because given the world population, any idea was had by someone that didn’t have the resources to file it. Publishing a timestamped design is, I believe, one of the least expensive ways to create prior art without creating patents. [0]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      If I am not mistaken, there have been many cases where prior art was available (and in some cases quite well known within the field) but did not come to the attention of the examiner (or the examiner did not recognize its relevance), and the patent was granted anyway. In fact, there was one such case on the HN top page today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31881973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31881973 Once that happens, getting it revoked is no easy task.

subtract-smiles 4y ago

I agree, it seems a little strange. I also seem to recall that the LockPickingLawyer was able to break that lock using two separate methods that I didn't see addressed in the article, so I wonder how much this person just copied StuffMadeHere..

dcow 4y ago
LPL “cheated” when picking SMH’s lock but still provided valuable feedback. Both weaknesses he found are easily fixed. In one case he could walk the deadbolt back because of a precision error/oversight in SMH’s lock. The other he stuck a small shim between the door and the lock to tension the second tumbler which is not an issue with this lock and easily fixed on SMH’s lock by closing the back with a plate.
- subtract-smiles 4y ago
  Oh, I see. I'm no expert but at least I understand the things LPL did a but better now.

threeseed 4y ago

> A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design. Apparently it's common depending on the country you live. Some countries have a first-to-file versus a first-to-invent patent system. And so you end up with people (often inventors or retired lawyers) who spend their days filing patents for other people's inventions. The idea being that they only need one or two of the patents in their lifetime to result in a massive payday for it be all worth it.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Even in the US, which is first to file, your patent can be invalidated by published prior art that makes it obvious. The stuff made here video is a textbook example of an invalidating piece of prior art.
- mNovak 4y ago
  It might invalidate aspects of the patent, but the two are different enough that certain aspects of this one are still patentable. Bottom line, you don't always patent the whole device, sometimes just the small unique implementation details are valuable enough.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I assume they are going for a design patent, which they may well get (and doesn't protect against much other than direct copies). A method patent or a utility patent is a lot harder in light of the prior art.
- threeseed 4y ago
  The problem is that the patent system tends to just approve anything that meets a certain quality threshold. And then they leave it up to the courts to adjudicate whether a patent is invalidated due to prior act. And so rather than litigate, roll the dice and potentially strengthen the patent's standing sometimes it's easier just to negotiate a deal with them.
- rasz 4y ago
  and it will only cost you >$100K to invalidate
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    It feels like you never looked at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2215.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2215.html and it might be worth giving that a quick read before pulling a number out of thin air. Yes, it costs money to get a patent invalidated based on prior art. But: an amount that even a single person who stands to actually gain from having a patent overturned should have no problem with. You're asking the USPO to spend time redoing work, literally halting any other patent work they could be doing instead. So it's not a trivial amount, but it's also hardly a prohibitive amount if you actually want a specific patent revoked.

infogulch 4y ago

The principle is the same, but this design is different and better in some ways. Depending on the generality of the claims a patent may be reasonable. The Enclave design is more refined/compact, but I'm skeptical of the longevity/durability of the wedge mechanism. The underlying principle that's common between the StuffMadeHere and Enclave designs is 1. Decouple setting the pins from testing them, and 2. Do not allow the keyway access to physically manipulate the set pins while testing them. Interestingly this same principle is used throughout cryptography, e.g. in constant time comparison algorithms. Basically, any partial success information leak can be used to reduce the search space exponentially. And that's what single-pin picking is all about, so it's cool that this idea has (finally?) migrated to physical security.

petra 4y ago
If the core ideas are already in the public domain, it likely means that designs that bypass the enclave patent are likely.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Except this isn't a constant time comparison. You still reach the "no more turning" angle at whichever pin is incorrect first. This is more like forcing the password to be fully retyped after each failed attempt. A good feature, but not a feature which eliminates side channels which might be there.
- infogulch 4y ago
  There's still no direct way to detect which pin blocks it from opening. Maybe you could determine if the failed pin is the same as a previous attempt by listening with a stethoscope, or very finely measuring the turning angle, but you can't directly feel out which pin. So there may still be a way to reduce the search space in theory, but that attack still seems very difficult to pull off, and for the complexity it seems vastly better than previous locks.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    Well, it didn't advertise itself as a "very difficult to pull off lock", or a "vastly better than previous lock". It advertised itself as an "unpickable lock". That's a very strong claim to be making. I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a proof that it is impossible to reduce the search space down to sub-exponential. Building a lock which does not leak any information about what's happening inside is equivalent to building a mechanical, room temperature quantum computer. For if that information isn't leaking to the environment in some way, there is no mechanism to decohere a superposition state. Hence in principle a mechanical lock which is secure in the information theoretic sense is impossible. It is still theoretically possible to make a computationally secure lock (eg a mechanical implementation of a hash function). But there's currently no real proof that one-way functions are actually one-way. The security of such a lock is subject to a foundational guess in cryptography.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

analog31 4y ago

Need to see the patent or published application, and in particular the claims. I've got a few patents under my belt, but I'm not a patent lawyer. Typically when prior art is found during the preparation or processing of a patent application, the inventor can either argue for why their thing is new and different, or narrow their claims to the point where what's left satisfies novelty. Now at that point, one is left wondering if their idea is still worth patenting. But that's another matter. Even as an inventor with some experience in the patent process, I still find it hard to second guess the patent office on what they will accept or reject as prior art. The lawyers are better at it than I am. More than once I've rushed breathlessly to the lawyers with screaming hot obvious prior art, and they say: "Meh, it's not prior art because of X, Y, and Z, nice try."

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

The concepts employed in the StuffMadeHere video were derived from techniques used in other pick-resistant locks. His implementation is unique, of course, but he also derived his lock from other existing techniques. There’s a big world of lock design and research out there, and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber.

girvo 4y ago
> and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber. While you’re likely right, YouTubers are massive in terms of reach and popularity, and there are heaps of cases where companies have done exactly that…

causality0 4y ago

A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design I'm pretty sure 95% of patent applications and 50% of granted patents are attempts to steal someone's invention out from under them.

iancmceachern 4y ago
Like Steve Jobs famously Said - something about stealing
- retcon 4y ago
  I actually think Zaphod Beeblebrox got there earlier. As he willonhavedone by whenever he followed through.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    Ironically I'm wearing one of my hitchhikers guide shirts today
Hellbanevil 4y ago

espadrine 4y ago

It is even closer to the design I published a year ago: https://github.com/espadrine/lock-designs/blob/main/commitment-plate-lock.jpg https://github.com/espadrine/lock-designs/blob/main/commitme... I don’t see how this patent has any legs to stand on.

leeoniya 4y ago
would likely depend on whether the filing date was before or after this, but yeah, this would likely invalidate any claims for the most interesting improvements over the SMH designs
dmoy 4y ago
> don’t see how this patent has any legs to stand on. Well USPTO did move to first-to-file under Obama. Is there a patent filed before this one?
- rocqua 4y ago
  That is for independent simultaneous discovery right? Which is a separate matter from 'does prior art exist' I would imagine.
- espadrine 4y ago
  My understanding of MPEP 2126-2128[0] is that prior art published to a website can be disqualifying. I don’t like patents, because given the world population, any idea was had by someone that didn’t have the resources to file it. Publishing a timestamped design is, I believe, one of the least expensive ways to create prior art without creating patents. [0]: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2128.html
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    If I am not mistaken, there have been many cases where prior art was available (and in some cases quite well known within the field) but did not come to the attention of the examiner (or the examiner did not recognize its relevance), and the patent was granted anyway. In fact, there was one such case on the HN top page today. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31881973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31881973 Once that happens, getting it revoked is no easy task.