4 ms·

Why not correct my interpretation, rather than make a snide insinuation?

by andrewfelix 14y ago

chris_wot 14y ago
I second this. I'm very interested in any clarifications!
- saurabhnanda 14y ago
  The first independent claim from the patent: "1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID." Here's my take at translating this into plain English: They're claiming a software system (let's call this the "DRM system") consisting of a client & server which work in tandem to figure out whether a piece of software installed on the user's machine (let's call this the "controlled software") is allowed to run in a specified mode (note, this is important). The DRM system consists of a way to switch the mode in which the controlled software can be used (eg, demo mode, new-user mode, etc [1]). Also, the DRM system & the controlled system implement the same algorithm to generate the "licensee unique ID". However, there's another independent claim #12, which says: "12. A registration system attachable to software to be protected, said registration system generating a security key from information input to said software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said software is to be installed; and wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority and used for the purposes of checking by the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system. " Claim #12 is fairly easy to read & understand. It basically claims any method to generate a unique key for each user + machine combination of the "controlled software", wherein the unique key can be generated, both locally & remotely using the same algorithm. Curiously, this does not claim the mode-switching aspect claimed in #1 above, making it even broader in scope. [1] This is not described in the first independent claim, but in subsequent dependent claims and embodiment descriptions.
monochromatic 14y ago
I have no interest in opening myself up to spurious malpractice suits by paraphrasing the claims of this patent. It does appear, however, at a first glance, that they likely require more than "check[ing] a unique serial number securely, either over the phone or net."
- andrewfelix 14y ago
  So having only glanced at the patent yourself, you felt confident enough to criticize me? Do you honestly feel like you're adding to the discussion?
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    My comment started a discussion about what the claims mean. It got the people away from vague, incorrect allegations about what "the patent" covers. I'd say that contributed.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      No, no it didn't. I would say what contributed was a few of us asking for further clarification. I don't believe your above comment really contributed anything at all.

Why not correct my interpretation, rather than make a snide insinuation?

chris_wot 14y ago

I second this. I'm very interested in any clarifications!

saurabhnanda 14y ago
The first independent claim from the patent: "1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID." Here's my take at translating this into plain English: They're claiming a software system (let's call this the "DRM system") consisting of a client & server which work in tandem to figure out whether a piece of software installed on the user's machine (let's call this the "controlled software") is allowed to run in a specified mode (note, this is important). The DRM system consists of a way to switch the mode in which the controlled software can be used (eg, demo mode, new-user mode, etc [1]). Also, the DRM system & the controlled system implement the same algorithm to generate the "licensee unique ID". However, there's another independent claim #12, which says: "12. A registration system attachable to software to be protected, said registration system generating a security key from information input to said software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said software is to be installed; and wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority and used for the purposes of checking by the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system. " Claim #12 is fairly easy to read & understand. It basically claims any method to generate a unique key for each user + machine combination of the "controlled software", wherein the unique key can be generated, both locally & remotely using the same algorithm. Curiously, this does not claim the mode-switching aspect claimed in #1 above, making it even broader in scope. [1] This is not described in the first independent claim, but in subsequent dependent claims and embodiment descriptions.

monochromatic 14y ago

I have no interest in opening myself up to spurious malpractice suits by paraphrasing the claims of this patent. It does appear, however, at a first glance, that they likely require more than "check[ing] a unique serial number securely, either over the phone or net."

andrewfelix 14y ago
So having only glanced at the patent yourself, you felt confident enough to criticize me? Do you honestly feel like you're adding to the discussion?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  My comment started a discussion about what the claims mean. It got the people away from vague, incorrect allegations about what "the patent" covers. I'd say that contributed.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    No, no it didn't. I would say what contributed was a few of us asking for further clarification. I don't believe your above comment really contributed anything at all.