5 ms·

So do you expect everyone to understand how the ssl handshake occurs?

by jdubs 13y ago

SwellJoe 13y ago
No, and that's one of the problems with our patent system. But, in this case, all they had to do was judge the difference between the inventor of public key encryption and a paid shill for patent trolls. The expert witness on the side of the troll is a guy who does this for a living; the expert witness on NewEgg's side was Whit Fucking Diffie. The "Diffie" in "Diffie-Hellman". There's a reason patent trolls have all set up shop in this backward little Texas town. It's biggest industry is stifling innovation for the rest of the country.
- vidarh 13y ago
  No, that is not what they had to judge. I disagree with the outcome too, but the case was more complex than that. As far as I understand, part of the problem was whether or not this patent or RC4 had priority based on timing, which hinged on when RC4 and the method in the patent under litigation became known by enough people to be considered publicly known.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I wonder if that ever gets flagged in courts? You know, people who appear to be "professional expert witnesses", i.e. they make their living being an "expert witness" in court?
- droopybuns 13y ago
  The average American is going to find Whit Diffie to be an ass. I mean no disrespect to the man. I hold him in high regard. But watch an interview with him and tell me that you think most people are going to find him to be a humble and appealing man.
  - sgift 13y ago
    This statement (thanks for providing a concise version of it) sums up the problem with the whole idea of a jury trial. It is completely irrelevant if someone thinks he is an ass. He is there to provide expert knowledge, nothing else. "Lack of evidence? Who cares? He looks evil, must be a killer .."
FiloSottile 13y ago
I, for one, expect juries to listen to Whitfield Diffie even if a lawyer keeps saying "but you don't have a master piece of paper".
aethr 13y ago
No, but I would expect jurors in a patent validity case to understand the concept of "prior art", which was demonstrated quite conclusively for this "invention".
- walid 13y ago
  This was my opinion too. I'm shocked that they didn't take it into consideration. Ironically the plaintiff tried to discredit Diffie by mentioning that the GCHQ "invented" the encryption even before Diffie did (this was mentioned in a previous Ars Technica article) which makes it prior art to the alleged patents too. A sad day :(
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
oddball28 13y ago
Therein lies one of the problems with software, patent law, and our judicial process: if the jury doesn't understand the underlying technologies, how can they possibly make an informed and responsible verdict? I'd also be curious to see the results of an unbiased survey covering the public's awareness and understanding of patent trolls. If only I could change careers and go into patent law... And help fight the good fight.

So do you expect everyone to understand how the ssl handshake occurs?

by jdubs 13y ago

So do you expect everyone to understand how the ssl handshake occurs?

No, and that's one of the problems with our patent system. But, in this case, all they had to do was judge the difference between the inventor of public key encryption and a paid shill for patent trolls. The expert witness on the side of the troll is a guy who does this for a living; the expert witness on NewEgg's side was Whit Fucking Diffie. The "Diffie" in "Diffie-Hellman". There's a reason patent trolls have all set up shop in this backward little Texas town. It's biggest industry is stifling innovation for the rest of the country.

vidarh 13y ago
No, that is not what they had to judge. I disagree with the outcome too, but the case was more complex than that. As far as I understand, part of the problem was whether or not this patent or RC4 had priority based on timing, which hinged on when RC4 and the method in the patent under litigation became known by enough people to be considered publicly known.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I wonder if that ever gets flagged in courts? You know, people who appear to be "professional expert witnesses", i.e. they make their living being an "expert witness" in court?
droopybuns 13y ago
The average American is going to find Whit Diffie to be an ass. I mean no disrespect to the man. I hold him in high regard. But watch an interview with him and tell me that you think most people are going to find him to be a humble and appealing man.
- sgift 13y ago
  This statement (thanks for providing a concise version of it) sums up the problem with the whole idea of a jury trial. It is completely irrelevant if someone thinks he is an ass. He is there to provide expert knowledge, nothing else. "Lack of evidence? Who cares? He looks evil, must be a killer .."

FiloSottile 13y ago

I, for one, expect juries to listen to Whitfield Diffie even if a lawyer keeps saying "but you don't have a master piece of paper".

aethr 13y ago

No, but I would expect jurors in a patent validity case to understand the concept of "prior art", which was demonstrated quite conclusively for this "invention".

walid 13y ago
This was my opinion too. I'm shocked that they didn't take it into consideration. Ironically the plaintiff tried to discredit Diffie by mentioning that the GCHQ "invented" the encryption even before Diffie did (this was mentioned in a previous Ars Technica article) which makes it prior art to the alleged patents too. A sad day :(

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

oddball28 13y ago

Therein lies one of the problems with software, patent law, and our judicial process: if the jury doesn't understand the underlying technologies, how can they possibly make an informed and responsible verdict? I'd also be curious to see the results of an unbiased survey covering the public's awareness and understanding of patent trolls. If only I could change careers and go into patent law... And help fight the good fight.