U.S. Navy Patents the Firewall? 206
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a post by Bruce Schneier on his site indicating that the U.S. Navy may be patenting the Firewall. Whether or not it is their intention to do so is unclear. From the patent description: "In a communication system having a plurality of networks, a method of achieving network separation between first and second networks is described. First and second networks with respective first and second degrees of trust are defined, the first degree of trust being higher than the second degree of trust. Communication between the first and second networks is enabled via a network interface system having a protocol stack, the protocol stack implemented by the network interface system in an application layer."
Ya ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ya ha! (Score:3)
It's all about bits on the ground.
Re:Ya ha! (Score:2)
The Military is going to patent "bringing people back to life", so then the above statement will actually be legit.
I think I have prior art in my D-link (Score:5, Insightful)
Proxy firewalls (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Proxy firewalls (Score:2)
Re:Proxy firewalls (Score:2)
Re:Proxy firewalls (Score:3, Informative)
I do not want to go into the depth, but any protocol recognition/etc is already intellegent. And after some time spent in industry, you would have known that there is no such thing as "intelegent proxies". It's all PR myth. What they really do is look at TCP/UDP port numbers. Nothing more. And there is nothing else you can actually do.
Simple example some time ago used to crash experimental demo of
Re:I think I have prior art in my D-link (Score:2)
The Military Gets Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's a sad attempt to prove that they're on the cutting edge of technology by patenting some newfangled idea that the rest of us have been using for years? I guess they probably have some catching up to do since EDS has been "working" on their IT infrastructure for years (That's why their stock price fell by half and never recovered don't you know? Well that and lying about the revenues that were coming in from it...)
Might not be a bad thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if someone in the Navy really did have a novel idea, it's not hard to imagine that they might want to get it patented, just as a defensive measure.
My big question is: if the government patents something, wouldn't the invention automatically be in the public domain, provided that it wasn't classified? Normally all products produced by government employees in the course of their jobs are in the public domain, so I would think that a patent held by the Navy would be impossible to use aggressively.
In that situation -- assuming that's true, and the Navy can't collect royalties -- then having the Navy (or other government agencies) patent stuff might be a very good idea. For the small taxpayer expense that it takes to file and maintain the patent, the country might be saved millions of dollars a year of royalties and litigation costs.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:3, Informative)
The end result is it's public domain. Patented it costs 3-5 grand vs a PDF on a website.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would vote for cheap insurance.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
A: Obtained patent on secure network firewall protocols valued at $3 billion
B: Researched secure network firewall stacks. Described implementation with publically available PDF?
Besides which, Navy attorneys are probably a sunk cost, therefore the cost of the patent itself is zero.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
Kidding aside, your last two points are good ones.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
Seeing how tax dollars are paying for that, there are only 2 reasonable options for the navy:
- Don't patent it, but ensure there is enough documentation to easily show 'prior art' in case someone else patents it
- Patent it and give every tax payer a license to use the patent.
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
There's no commercial analogue for that. Shareholders do not automatically get licences to the IP held by their company.
</devil's advocate>
Re:Might not be a bad thing? (Score:2)
But then, companies aren't public services. Last time I looked, the military can invest huge amounts of money without ever making any kind of proffit simply because their purpose is defense, not making a proffit.
So it is entirely reasonable that different rules apply.
Third reasonable option (Score:2)
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:3, Informative)
1) To ensure that no one else can patent the same idea, and then charge the Navy for using it. Personally, I don't buy this, because the Navy could just establish a prior art database for these ideas to achieve the same effect.
2) Being able to license the technology to non-Navy industries. I.e., medical applications. This justification at least seems, albeit distasteful.
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:2)
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:2)
Not to mention the fact that by the time you're sitting around in court trying to prove this, the meter has begun to run on the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to defend yourself from a patent in court.
Definately far better to have the patent in your hand than holding decades of prior art.
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
It may be better in some cases that the Navy(or some other government department) own a patent rather put it into the public domain. If it's in the public domain there is no control on it but if it's patented and licensed then their is a measure of control. Some government non-exclusive licenses are based primarily on proper (and/or limited) usage of the
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't buy that argument unless you can also explain why exactly the government should have such control.
Also, as ITAR and similar treaties show, it is quite possible to have control in specific cases where national or international security becomes a concern.
Some government non-exclusive licenses are based primarily on proper (and/or limited) usage of the device/concept rather
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
For those who are wondering
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
At this moment they have that privilege indeed (and I agree with calling it a privilege)
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
Do you beleive that all companies should just be able to take a government department's work in a particular field and use it without having to pay for it?
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents exist to promote novel and usefull inventions. The method behind this is granting exclusive rights for a limited amount of time to the inventor so (s)he can compensate for investment and make a buck from the invention.
The granting of exclusive rights is how society 'pays' the inventor for his efford and investment.
In the case of a government department however
Re:The Military Gets Patents? Why distasteful? (Score:2)
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:2)
Research payed for by tax dollars should be available to the public without this kind of barrier. Distasteful doesn't come anywhere near describing this.
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:2)
And 4) When someone asks what 'all that money' spent on government research went to, you have a nice
Re:The Military Gets Patents? (Score:2)
And having some crack-smoking Wall Street analyst "accidentally" downgrade EDS stock is completely irrelevant, right?? After all, he *did* apologise *after* the stock tumbled, but somehow "wups, didn't mean it" just doesn't cut it.
How to take action? (Score:2)
That being said, how does one submit prior art for this application? This thing really needs to die last Tuesday.
Answered my own question (Score:2)
The USPTO's toll-free number is 800 786-9199 (free call anywhere in the US). They're really friendly people, and you'll get a human waaaay faster than you can, even in person, at the USPS.
The patent examiner for this application is Syed Zia, and their phone number is 571-272-3798.
This patent is about to be issued, ACT QUICKLY, DAMMIT!. You need to file a protest as [uspto.gov]
Ah HA! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, what's this about networks?
Re:Ah HA! (Score:2)
Like it or not... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Like it or not... (Score:2)
I may be wrong, but (Score:2, Interesting)
IP = Intellectual Property
Re:I may be wrong, but (Score:2)
They don't have any "Intellectual Property"
Re:I may be wrong, but (Score:2)
From Wikipedia:
So, yeah, it seems the gov't can patent stuff.
Government patents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know of a solid legal reason that the government shouldn't be able to obtain patents?
Re:Government patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
Well, it could spark an arms race where everybody loses except the patent mafia.
If the government is patenting then other players will feel the need to patent simply as a preemptive defensive measure in case the government changes it's mind and starts charging. Just like has already happened with public universities. Meaning the players will want to cross-license. Could create idea ghettos and major market distortion. Not to mention bureacratic overhead.
To break a competitive vicious circle like this yo
May be a good premption strategy. (Score:2)
prevent others coming along later to claim it as their own.
There would be no need to fight about prior arts and such.
As long as it's freely licensed, this could be a good thing.
Two possible justifications (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If a non-American entity (person, company, etc.) wants to use the technology, then it would basically be the American people selling the right to use the patented technology to non-Americans. In that way, Americans, who funded the research, win.
2) In some sense, something that benefits the Navy does benefit Americans in general. When the Navy licenses a patented technology to a private company, this (hopefully) causes some
Re:Two possible justifications (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Government patents? (Score:2, Informative)
Here it is, in Article I, section 8:
"Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
Paraphrase a bit: "We want people to invent things so we'll jigger the market to enhance the profit motive for inventing. Monopolies are bad but the cost of temporary monopolies is justified by getting more inventions from profit-motivated people".
The government isn't profit-motivated. The government won't be spurred to invent more things by the prospect of having a mon
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
There is no need to apply for a patent to achieve that. You do however need to publish your invention in a way that is publicly available and can be dated reliably. Prior art will do fine as long as the PTO can find it easily.
If the government ever st
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
Yes, and redistribution of wealth (socialism) is also key to many totalitarian regimes... but we will conveniently ignore the w
Re:Government patents? (Score:2, Funny)
Surely not everything? For example, I thought that most of the work of writing new laws was paid for privately by corporations and lobby groups.
Re:Government patents? (Score:2)
Keeping a military secret for the purpose of national security does not and never did require a patent.
Rather, patenting the H-bomb would mean publicly documenting its workings in exchange for temporary exclusive rights. If anything, this would make it easier for outsiders to also create a H bomb.
In other words, very bad example.
Kabooom! (Score:5, Funny)
Landlocked! (Score:2)
Prior art (Score:2)
Errr... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Errr... (Score:2)
Re:Errr... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Errr... (Score:3, Informative)
Once a patent application has been published (usually at 12/18 months after filing), it then gets passed on to the patent office in each country to be examined. It is entirely possible that a patent has got to this stage without anyone "official" actually
Re:Errr... (Score:2)
The Navy, along with many other government agencies, tracks secrecy of certain information by grades: Classified, Secret, Top Secret (or some such arrangement). If you create a new document and it includes some information from a classified document and some information from a Top Secret document, the new document is graded as Top Secret due to the most secure
A multilevel secure OS does this internally, (Score:2)
This is a hard enough problem to be worth a patent, if it's even possible. Such a system has to block both a "read up" in which a system cleared for Secret asks for Top Secret information, it also has to prevent "write down", in which a Top Secret system which has been Trojaned or operated by Aldrich Ames tries to send information to a Secret or unclassified system.
Sound easy? Stop and think about covert channels.
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
It's really "multilevel security" (Score:3, Interesting)
The future of warfare (Score:3, Funny)
Countries possessing patents of mass destruction (PMD) will be sanctioned first, and later sued by the Air Force.
If other countries think we kick ass now, wait until they meet our legions of lawyers.
US Navy Stock Price Up (Score:4, Funny)
Might stop patent trolling (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all in the claims (broad vs. specific) (Score:5, Informative)
See claim 3 for example - What they are describing implies a machine with two dedicated processors with shared memory, one for each network. Note that for what they are describing, a typical SMP or dual core system does NOT count - It seems that they are effectively describing two seperate machines in one box that can communicate via shared memory.
Also other claims imply that the patented system will be talking to each network at the application level, so it's more of a special form of proxy server rather than a firewall.
I don't have time right now to read further details, but keep in mind that even specific patents can appear much broader than they are in the abstract. For example, one can't patent the wheel or a tire, but when patenting a tire with a specific tread pattern, it might appear in the abstract that the applicant is trying to patent the tire in general even when they're not.
Re:It's all in the claims (broad vs. specific) (Score:2)
This is Slashdot, where a patent on a device that cures every known type of cancer by pushing a button is obviously invalid because I had a device with a button on it YEARS ago.
jesus harold christ. (Score:3, Informative)
here's a tip: an application aint a patent.
Re:jesus harold christ. (Score:3, Insightful)
Warning! (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the claims. Read them in light of the description of the patent. And learn patent terminology. Then you can make some general statements. And if it's only a publication (like this navy one), not a patent, don't even bother with that.
If you must draw a conclusion, and you're sure this is about a firewall, then at least go the step to know they are claiming a type of firewall. Which is perfectly legit (as long as it contains a new, non-obvious element). If you think otherwise, go learn about patents, come back, and then we'll talk.
PS:plurality is a very common patent term. It means more than one (duh!). Not even worth making a comment about, but someone felt compelled to jabber about it.
Re:Warning! (Score:2)
Does Marcus J. Ranum know about this (Score:3, Informative)
Trusted networks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before everyone goes insane... (Score:2)
my brain is screaming... (Score:2)
How can the patent office allow anyone to get a patent on anything that has already been in general use for ages?
It's a firewall - THRU SHARED MEMORY (Score:4, Interesting)
This puts the firewall smack into the hardware, not on the extension cord going out of the building. This is a firewall between computers that are in the same cabinet, not on the same internet. It also provides for loadleveling in Claim 6:
"...via an interprocessor communication channel;
Further claims in the patent app show that the data is not transferred by just any program, but by an API on the firewall CPU and the boxen on either side of the firewall. This looks like some seriously secure stuff here.
Also, your normal firewall allows inside ("your" computer) to talk outside (the internet) freely, but prevents outside from getting in. This patent app specifies that the outside can talk freely to the inside, but the inside can't just blab to the world. This keeps the worms in the can. It also randomizes time signatures so that form of black box analysis won't tell you anything.
Re:It's a firewall - THRU SHARED MEMORY (Score:2)
Is that what happens when you plug your cables in your router/firewall backwards? No, really, help me here, why is that secure?
Smoothwall? (Score:2)
I've got it running at home. It's got 3 NICs, Green, Orange and Red. Red is Internet (not trusted), Green is local private network (trusted), and Orange is local webservers, etc (partially trusted).
It's got a built in IDS, Snort proxy, packet and connection logging, etc.etc. and addon modules give things like web content filtering and bandwidth management.
Does this count as an application level firewall? I'd think with the IDS it does, but
Re:Smoothwall? Can't tell (Score:2)
I looked over the smoothie website quickly and didn't see a list of features. The main page talks about the history of the project, not features of the product.
This is epidemic among open source projects and Linux distros.
So in answer to yer question, after reading the smoothie website, I can't tell if it's some newfangled firewall or an ice cream fruit drink.
The Chinese already did it (Score:2)
No one's said it yet? (Score:3, Funny)
*ducks*
My Counterpatent: (Score:2)
Re:Time to patent my own idea (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Time to patent my own idea (Score:2)
If I had a nickel for every time I heard a stupid pat... wait... If I just patented the stupid jokes, I could earn a nickel for every time I heard a stupid joke. To the Lawyer Cave!
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2)
The way that I see it, it already is a trend. There are more and more junk patents out there that exist for the sole purpose of lawsuits. There are companies whose entire property is IP. They make money by sueing others when they feel that something conflicts with their incredibly broad claim.
Re:I was... (Score:4, Informative)
The link below is just one of those things.
NSA PCMCIA Card Connector [nsa.gov]
Here is a page [nsa.gov] about how the NSA specifically creates and licenses these technologies and invention to the public.
Your tax dollars at work, helping to generate more revenue with those tax dollars.
Government patents are usually made public domain (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Government patents are usually made public doma (Score:2)
Seeing how this is being payed for by tax dollars, option 3 is really the only acceptable option.
NMCI Sucks! (Score:2)
Re:US Government Body cannot Patent or copyright (Score:2)
Re:Who cares if they do? (Score:2)
This will, hopefully, prevent yet another patent troll.
Re:Will they patent the non-blank password next? (Score:2)
They can't patent the password "eatme" because I have prior art on that. Oh wait ... what's that beeping sound ... uh oh ...