5 ms·
Kim Dotcom has a patent on 2-step authentication
- tracker1 13y agoTrigger cease and desist letters to banks, and online record/movie stores in 5...4...3...2..1 (payback is a bitch)
- damncabbage 13y agoNone of this would benefit anyone other than Mr Dotcom. (Payback to who for what exactly?)
- pyre 13y agoThe implication is that the tactics used against Kim Dotcom were done so at the behest of Hollywood pressuring the US government to 'do something,' who then in turn leaned on the NZ government to 'do something.' That's the Hollywood part of the comment. I guess the 'banks' part is because Kim's assets were frozen, but that's not the fault of the banks. There's no need for revenge against them.
- tracker1 13y agoKind of.. I actually spouted it off as a joke, but several people didn't like it apparently, or didn't see it as so. The Hollywood part is spot on... the bank part was me confusing some bits of the actions against wikileaks with kimdotcom/megaupload.
- damncabbage 13y agoSorry. I think was Poe's Law[1] in action again. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law
- dubcanada 13y agoHe's had this patent for 13 years, and he hasn't done it yet. Why would he start now?
- IvyMike 13y agoIn his twitter feed: "I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me"
- alan_cx 13y agoNo idea what his finances are, but it could be way to raise money for defending himself.
- IvyMike 13y agoYou might be right. Another recent tweet from him: "All of our assets are still frozen without trial. Defending our case will cost USD 50M+. I want to fight to the end because we are innocent."
- bdcravens 13y agoBanks ignore. It goes to court. As he's the sole named on the patent, the judge requires his presence in US courtroom. I think it goes without saying that he will never come to the US.
- jacques_chester 13y agoWell it appears on the surface to cover cases where an SMS message is sent to a mobile phone. But it wouldn't cover stuff like having a swipe card + password, or having two passwords etc etc. Edit: OK, further reading reveals that it's about per-transaction authorisation (eg bank to bank transfers), not authentication. So actually it's quite different from the SMS passcode usecase that Google, Facebook etc are doing. The equivalent would be getting an SMS with a passcode before sending an email. Not getting it before you log in. (IANAL, TINLA)
- rdl 13y agoPlenty of prior art, though.
- __sam 13y agoHis twitter account could be of some interest. He seems to primarily considered with the whole MegaUpload thing and is using this patent as evidence of his contributions to tech. (see https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337358180914982912 https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337358180914982912) His most recent tweet is him selling this patent: https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337410056859566080 https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337410056859566080
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jacques_chester 13y agoThe problem is that he's spruiking it as two-factor authentication, but the patent itself talks about authorisation. In the body of the patent itself, authentication is mentioned in passing only: * That there's an authentication server which knows a password; * That mobile phones are one channel mentioned in the patent and DES is used in the mobile phone system (at the time) for, among other things, authentication. * That an authentication server could blacklist a lost identity card. And that's it. He's grandstanding. (IANAL, TINLA)
- revelation 13y agoHe might have just bought it from someone. A modern L'Hopital, if you will. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Bernoulli#L.27H.C3.B4pital_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Bernoulli#L.27H.C3.B4pit...)
- zobzu 13y agothanksfully there's some prior art to 1997, but still. patent system is such a pile of crap :/
- denzil_correa 13y agoFor people to understand more on the context of this link posted, "Kim Dotcom accuses Google, Facebook, and Twitter of violating his two-step security patent" [0]. You may also find his Twitter feed interesting [1]. I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me Google, Facebook, Twitter, I ask you for help. We are all in the same DMCA boat. Use my patent for free. But please help funding my defense. [0] http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4357500/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-step-verification http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/22/4357500/kim-dotcom-claims-... [1] https://twitter.com/KimDotcom https://twitter.com/KimDotcom
- bdcravens 13y agoPatent for free if they fund his defense? Pretty sure that's not my definition of "free"
- netshroud 13y agoOne dose of extortion coming right up!
- jacques_chester 13y agoI think he's about to learn that these companies have more and better patent lawyers than god and more money than the devil to pay for an unending trial. If a schmuck like me can pop that balloon, I hate to think what a half-competent patent lawyer could do.
- denzil_correa 13y agoThe article on The Verge says While there are likely many who could lay claim to an innovation such as two-step, Dotcom's patent — filed under his birth name, Kim Schmitz — appears to hold some water. It claims priority back to 1997, which would make it difficult to invalidate, and has wide coverage. Despite its age, it illustrates the current concept of two-step authentication by detailing how a secondary access code could be sent via pager or SMS. I'm not sure what to believe. A patent lawyer's opinion on HN would help perhaps?
- fmax30 13y agoHmm I am pretty sure that he can sell this patent to a patent troll , which could in effect sue these companies.
- legalbeagle 13y agoHe has effectively announced that he won't enforce the patent and he has apparently not attempted to do so in all these years. The patent means nothing (except that it could serve as prior art to defeat a subsequent patent claim).