3 ms·

The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=.

The patent is here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents/US6857067?printsec=abstract#v=... I'd encourage you all to read it. The majority of the summary, related art and claims are related to "smart cards". That is: a user plugs a smart card into their computer, which has one half of a licence key on it, and it then verifies this with a server either over LAN or the web. There are a couple of broad claims which could, if upheld, cripple many systems which work like this (log in to installed software over the web, essentially). I think (think) they might go on to claim that the SIM has a UID (it does) which is somehow involved in the process of authing a user for Google's store. If that's the case, or Google is indeed passing identifiable information from your phone to your Google account for auth purposes, then that appears to be covered by the patent, which specifically mentions SIM cards as one potential alternative "smart card". What really pisses me off about this is the fact that the patent holders so clearly conceived of a really terrible piece of technology. It was filed in 2005 at a time when a lot of music software came with hardware decryption (i.e. an anti-piracy USB key you had to stick in to your computer when using the software) and they apparently thought that "smart cards" were the way forward. Turns out they were shit out of luck on that, but in passing they mentioned something so vague that it inevitably came to pass.

stonemetal 14y ago
Does anybody know where to report prior art. The US announced they were going to use CAC(common access cards) for security in 2000. CACs are smart cards you have to use to log in to military websites among other things.
- georgespencer 14y ago
  Sorry, I made a mistake in my summary: the patent was granted in '05 but filed in 2001.
- invisible 14y ago
  Sending this to Mojang wouldn't hurt.
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  Here are some I've bookmarked: https://www.eff.org/patent-busting https://www.eff.org/patent-busting Crowd-sourced prior art patent busting: http://www.articleonepartners.com/ http://www.articleonepartners.com/ There's also PeerToPatent, but it appears to be oriented toward preventing a patent being granted than busting them after the fact: http://peertopatent.org/ http://peertopatent.org/
DannyBee 14y ago
While you may be correct that the system was designed for/with/about smart cards, none of the claims relate specifically to smart cards, and are quite broad. Stay out of the summary, description, and abstract when reading a patent, and just skip to the claims. Read the independent claims (the ones that don't start with "the .... according to claim X"). If you find that there are reasonable definitions of each term in the claim that you might fall under, you are gonna have a bad time. (IE Spend a lot of money trying to get it invalidated)
- georgespencer 14y ago
  Hence: > There are a couple of broad claims which could, if upheld, cripple many systems which work like this (log in to installed software over the web, essentially).
Natsu 14y ago
Wow, this is crazy. Basically covers nearly any way of phoning home to see if someone is a licensed user, so long as you provide updated license data (whatever that means). Look at claim #1: > A system for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data on an electronic device, the system comprising: a portable licensing medium configured to communicate with the electronic device and to store license data, the license data configured to be used by the electronic device to determine whether to allow access to the electronic data; and a registration authority configured to communicate with the electronic device, the registration authority having verification data for verifying the license data stored on the licensing medium, wherein the registration authority provides updated license data for the licensing medium. So an infringing device must contain all of the following: a 'portable' licensing medium (dependent claims 20 & 23-26 make it clear that anything from CDs to RAM qualify for that medium; though RAM is really stretching the "portable" requirement) which stores license data, it must use the license data on there to decide whether or not you can access the data, there must be a registration authority that communicates with the device, that authority must have verification data that allows it to verify the data from the client device, and the authority must provide updated license data. Funny thing is that I can find a lot, if not all, of the elements in a computer virus from 1986. I wonder if they mentioned it as prior art? :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/23533212868/one-earliest-computer-viruses-was-really-drm-gone-wrong.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/23533212868/one-ea... Problem is this patent was filed in Feb 26, 2001, and there wasn't as much phoning-home to licensing servers/updating license data done back then, though I'd imagine someone can find something.
csense 14y ago
I don't remember the details, but I read somewhere that a US court has ruled that only patent attorneys can understand patents. If you're not a patent attorney, and you read a patent, and determine that you don't violate it, and later the court finds out that you did, then you're on the hook for 3x the damages you would be if you hadn't read the patent. Needless to say, this is totally f'ed up. But that doesn't change the ruling. As a consequence, it's probably better for us techies to bury our head in the sand when it comes to searching out patents that exist. Assume that if you're somewhat successful, patent trolls will attack you, and the best option you have may be treating the "protection money" as a cost of doing business. Practical things we can do: (1) Bring the issue to the attention of your Representatives/Senators. Focus on your role as a small-business job creator; politicians love that particular turn of phrase. (2) When you're Google- or Facebook-successful, remember what the little guys are going through, and go after the patent trolls to improve things for our entire industry! (3) Donate to people like EFF. (4) If you pay "protection money", try to make sure the deal includes clauses that let you back out later when you have more resources. For example, a clause that says you'll pay the troll, but neither admit nor deny that you violate the patent. That way, when you're small you pay them to go away; when you're successful enough, you might be able to sue them and recover your protection payments. (5) Become a patent troll yourself. It seems like a foolproof business model, at least until the law changes.

stonemetal 14y ago

Does anybody know where to report prior art. The US announced they were going to use CAC(common access cards) for security in 2000. CACs are smart cards you have to use to log in to military websites among other things.

georgespencer 14y ago
Sorry, I made a mistake in my summary: the patent was granted in '05 but filed in 2001.
invisible 14y ago
Sending this to Mojang wouldn't hurt.
SkyMarshal 14y ago
Here are some I've bookmarked: https://www.eff.org/patent-busting https://www.eff.org/patent-busting Crowd-sourced prior art patent busting: http://www.articleonepartners.com/ http://www.articleonepartners.com/ There's also PeerToPatent, but it appears to be oriented toward preventing a patent being granted than busting them after the fact: http://peertopatent.org/ http://peertopatent.org/

DannyBee 14y ago

While you may be correct that the system was designed for/with/about smart cards, none of the claims relate specifically to smart cards, and are quite broad. Stay out of the summary, description, and abstract when reading a patent, and just skip to the claims. Read the independent claims (the ones that don't start with "the .... according to claim X"). If you find that there are reasonable definitions of each term in the claim that you might fall under, you are gonna have a bad time. (IE Spend a lot of money trying to get it invalidated)

georgespencer 14y ago
Hence: > There are a couple of broad claims which could, if upheld, cripple many systems which work like this (log in to installed software over the web, essentially).

Natsu 14y ago

Wow, this is crazy. Basically covers nearly any way of phoning home to see if someone is a licensed user, so long as you provide updated license data (whatever that means). Look at claim #1: > A system for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data on an electronic device, the system comprising: a portable licensing medium configured to communicate with the electronic device and to store license data, the license data configured to be used by the electronic device to determine whether to allow access to the electronic data; and a registration authority configured to communicate with the electronic device, the registration authority having verification data for verifying the license data stored on the licensing medium, wherein the registration authority provides updated license data for the licensing medium. So an infringing device must contain all of the following: a 'portable' licensing medium (dependent claims 20 & 23-26 make it clear that anything from CDs to RAM qualify for that medium; though RAM is really stretching the "portable" requirement) which stores license data, it must use the license data on there to decide whether or not you can access the data, there must be a registration authority that communicates with the device, that authority must have verification data that allows it to verify the data from the client device, and the authority must provide updated license data. Funny thing is that I can find a lot, if not all, of the elements in a computer virus from 1986. I wonder if they mentioned it as prior art? :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/23533212868/one-earliest-computer-viruses-was-really-drm-gone-wrong.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/23533212868/one-ea... Problem is this patent was filed in Feb 26, 2001, and there wasn't as much phoning-home to licensing servers/updating license data done back then, though I'd imagine someone can find something.

csense 14y ago

I don't remember the details, but I read somewhere that a US court has ruled that only patent attorneys can understand patents. If you're not a patent attorney, and you read a patent, and determine that you don't violate it, and later the court finds out that you did, then you're on the hook for 3x the damages you would be if you hadn't read the patent. Needless to say, this is totally f'ed up. But that doesn't change the ruling. As a consequence, it's probably better for us techies to bury our head in the sand when it comes to searching out patents that exist. Assume that if you're somewhat successful, patent trolls will attack you, and the best option you have may be treating the "protection money" as a cost of doing business. Practical things we can do: (1) Bring the issue to the attention of your Representatives/Senators. Focus on your role as a small-business job creator; politicians love that particular turn of phrase. (2) When you're Google- or Facebook-successful, remember what the little guys are going through, and go after the patent trolls to improve things for our entire industry! (3) Donate to people like EFF. (4) If you pay "protection money", try to make sure the deal includes clauses that let you back out later when you have more resources. For example, a clause that says you'll pay the troll, but neither admit nor deny that you violate the patent. That way, when you're small you pay them to go away; when you're successful enough, you might be able to sue them and recover your protection payments. (5) Become a patent troll yourself. It seems like a foolproof business model, at least until the law changes.