| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTimfV4qzsCpj91ky5=uaaVXcj2ZnuTnJ+wvsvn0Z@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:04:49 -0300 From: "M.B.Jr." <marcio.barbado@...il.com> To: quanticle@...il.com, Shawn Merdinger <shawnmer@...il.com> Cc: Full-Disclosure mailing list <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk> Subject: Re: Patent Absurdity - How software patents broke the system I'm sorry, Rohit. Chances are you're gonna face some problems in the US. On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Shawn Merdinger <shawnmer@...il.com> wrote: > check this out: > > United States Patent 7,743,281 > Conger , et al. June 22, 2010 > Distributed file fuzzing > Inventors: Conger; David J. (Issaquah, WA), Srinivasamurthy; Kumar > (Redmond, WA), Cooper; Robert S. (Woodinville, WA) > Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA) > Appl. No.: 11/734,970 > Filed: April 13, 2007 > > United States Patent 7,594,142 > O'Leary , et al. September 22, 2009 > Architecture for automated detection and analysis of security issues > Inventors: O'Leary; Arthur J (Redmond, WA), Fly; Robert C (Redmond, WA) > Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA) > Appl. No.: 11/427,923 > Filed: June 30, 2006 > > cheers, > --scm > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, M.B.Jr. <marcio.barbado@...il.com> wrote: >> Hi Rohit, >> sorry for such a delay in this reply. >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Rohit Patnaik <quanticle@...il.com> wrote: >>> Now here's a question that should bring this thread back on-topic. How >>> patentable are security tools? >> >> >> Your point alludes to one very generical concept but it is interesting >> for it gives the chance to extirpate some confusion people make in >> this subject. >> >> See, maybe you don't clearly understand the difference between a >> license and a patent. >> >> A license is a contract between a licensor and a licensee. These 2 >> parties could be 2 commercial companies for example. >> >> So, if your company's employees write some code, licensed under >> proprietary premises, then your company won't have to make the sources >> available to its customers, because they accepted the license. The >> relationship is between your company and the one buying software from >> it. >> >> Now, a software patent, say, in the US, is a government rule which >> gives a patentee, exclusive rights in a process, which often involves >> math. >> >> Suppose your software's algorithms make use of a patent you have never >> heard of. I mean, you know the process, obviously. Though, you didn't >> know it was patented. The patentee can sue you because of that. When >> the relationship becomes clear, you see it is between your company and >> some party you didn't know until that moment. >> >> And then, if your company wants to keep selling the software its own >> employees wrote, it will have to pay cash for the referred party (the >> once unknown patentee). >> >> The point is, trivial algos often represent patents. >> >> You know stupid people? Well, sometimes they think, and when they >> think, they get amused and sassy with that, like: >> >> "OMG! am I an inventive smart badass or what?!" >> >> they presuppose originality based on the environment they live in. And >> sometimes, they manage to turn that trivial math stupidity into a >> government rule. >> >> But math constitutes a public domain group of sciences. >> >> Security is exactly there, where your software, based upon public >> domain mathematics, is threatened by discontinuation or modification, >> which risks your company's stability and your customers' businesses. >> >> If one wants to protect his "inventive" equations, he can do it >> through a proprietary license contract between his represented party >> and his customers. Though, the State must be aware of some other >> thinking-capable people's presence in the world, which means, >> different people may get to similar equations/algos. >> >> Capiche? >> >> Don't worry about your fuzzers. License your tools the way you think >> it's reasonable to you. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM, M.B.Jr. <marcio.barbado@...il.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> Patent Absurdity explores the case of software patents and the history >>>> of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done >>>> to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a >>>> series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court's review of in >>>> re Bilski — a case that could have profound implications for the >>>> patenting of software. >>>> >>>> http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marcio Barbado, Jr. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >>> >> >> >> >> Marcio Barbado, Jr. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > Marcio Barbado, Jr. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists