Lucky Green vs. Palladium

CodeTrap writes "Wired has an interesting story "Can a Hacker Outfox Microsoft" on a fellow named Lucky Green that is attempting to force the issue surrounding MS's Palladium Gambit using a very creative method involving patents. If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions. Very clever indeed."

i think

[Gavitron_zero]

it's been proven time and time again that a hacker can outfox Microsoft. Look at all the copies of windows and office and other MS products out there that have product activation. There were hacks and cracks for that technology out before the software's release date.

Re:i think

[harks]

These copies of Windows XP you see pirated are an edition released for large businesses so they would not have to do win xp verification for thousands of computers, not the result of hackers.

Re:i think

[gallen1234]

What makes this interesting is that the hacker's are now taking them on in the business arena as well as the technical one and it looks like they may win the day there as well.

Re:i think

[mla_anderson]

That's because Microsoft is not a technology company. So outfoxing them in the technical arena is not difficult.

Now a hacker is moving into their turf, the legal arena, here is where Microsoft is very competent.

Re:i think

[The Fanta Menace]

Competent, or just wealthy?

It's very easy to win legal cases by either buying the enemy, buying the lawyers, buying the judges or just by buying the government.

Speaking of buying governments...

[Corvaith]

That makes me wonder. Why hasn't MS gotten around to buying themselves a small country yet? (Or, possibly, just buying an island and delcaring sovereignity, which might make them one of the first to do that and become actually recognized, as far as I know...) You'd think it'd be easier for them. They could just make up their own laws. (Open Source is illegal! Everyone must upgrade every product they own as soon as the next one comes out! )

Soft Island Resorts...

[DamienMcKenna]

LOL! Buy their own island, and force its two inhabitants to upgrade to XP Second Edition because, um, (flips Excuse-Of-The-Day card).. they live on the East side and not the West side - if they had lived on the west side they would have gotten free upgrades for life. :)

Re:Speaking of buying governments...

[WGR]

They already have bought the United States (see election of George W. Bush and the dropping of the anti-trust case). So why hould they buy anything smaller?

Re:Speaking of buying governments...

[pythorlh]

But... by being a US corporation, they have an easier time selling to US government agencies, as well as not having to deal with import taxes. And with their clout and money, they don't really have any trouble with our laws, anyway.

MS benefits from MS Waerz

[Planesdragon]

MS's monopoly is based on software installation. Even if you don't send MS one red cent for their software, you still contribute to upkeeping their monopoly.

As long as this doesn't affect their bottom line, and they're taking "reasonable actions" to combat it, they don't need to care.

Re:i think

[Anonvmous Coward]

"it's been proven time and time again that a hacker can outfox Microsoft. Look at all the copies of windows and office and other MS products out there that have product activation. There were hacks and cracks for that technology out before the software's release date."

Heh yeah, script kiddies are executing DoS attacks with patents instead of packets.

Follow the money...

[Bonker]

Why would Microsoft every want to challenge the patents when they have enough money to buy this guy's soul outright?

If a potential patent challenge does ever get to court, who do you think is going to win? MS's $40bln dollar lawyers who have honed their skills playing delay games vs. the DOJ's anti trust suit or this guy and whatever pro-bono legal defense he can drum up?

Re:Follow the money...

[susano_otter]

You missed the plan:

1. File patents on methods for using Palladium-like solutions to enforce software licensing.
2. If the patent is not challenged, then Palladium cannot be used to enforce software licensing.
3. If the patent is challenged, then Microsoft's true intentions become obvious.

Note that this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.

Oh, I almost forgot:

4. Profit!

5. abuse patent system

[tbird20d]

You missed another goal, which is to abuse the patent system. The patent system should be used to protect long years of research and work, or truly dramatic insights (which often occur only following longs years of research and work). They should be a means of rewarding investment in research.

Something you can think of off the top of your head just after a conference really ought not to be patentable. It's a weakness of the system if it is.

Abusing the patent system by obtaining ridiculous patents is one way of demonstrating how broken the system really is. My all-time favorite is Method of Swinging on a Swing [uspto.gov] I laughed so hard when I read it that I cried!

Re:5. abuse patent system

[slow_flight]

Of course, there is the "fight fire with fire" course of logic that would easily defend this guy's actions. I think there's a difference between defensive patents and trivial patents.

Re:5. abuse patent system

[verloren]

Of course, there is the "fight fire with fire" course of logic

Well, I guess we could try patenting that, but I'm pretty sure people will stick with using water or foam. And I don't think MS will care either way.

Re:5. abuse patent system

[drinkypoo]

Something you can think of off the top of your head just after a conference really ought not to be patentable. It's a weakness of the system if it is.

This doesn't make sense. Something I (or you, for that matter) can think of off the top of my head (or yours) may not be obvious to others. If you're the first one to think of it, and then to come up with a method to do it, you deserve to be able to patent it.

This is of course providing that it's genuinely non-obvious (which this probably isn't) and that there is no prior art, which there may be in the land of console gaming.

The real problem with patent law is that you can get a patent on almost anything but to challenge a patent costs money, and to defend a challenge against your patent costs money, so it still comes down (in many cases) to who has more money, and the answer there is obviously Microsoft.

Re:5. abuse patent system

[wandernotlost]

You missed another goal, which is to abuse the patent system. The patent system should be used to protect long years of research and work, or truly dramatic insights (which often occur only following longs years of research and work). They should be a means of rewarding investment in research.

This is why this approach is so ingenious. This is just the kind of thing that could actually correct some of the ridiculous flaws in the patent system. Patent something that someone with tons of cash and powerful lawyers (i.e. Microsoft) needs, and if they want the patent destroyed, they'll fight the patent system to have it nullified. If they win, they set a precedent for stupid patents being overthrown. If they lose, they're bitten by the same mechanism that they usually wield to crush others, and high-profile attention is given to the broken patent process. Justice wins either way.

This could be the little guy's method of exacting justice for all the wrongs that have come out of the patent system in recent years.

There is another alternative

[bagofbeans]

Microsoft can simply implement the patent secretly, ie phone-home software licensing data, without announcing it. Deny they do this if necessary - after all, the data is not for public consumption, just for 'partners'.

Doesn't matter if the patent is granted - the patentee will get nowhere suing MS, and this way round the burden of proof is on the patentee proving MS used the patented technique.

Might even find DCMA covers the encrypted data been phoned-home, so it could be illegal to attempt to prove such patent (if granted) was violated. Wow!

Re:There is another alternative

[Surak]

Might even find DCMA covers the encrypted data been phoned-home, so it could be illegal to attempt to prove such patent (if granted) was violated. Wow!

Nope. There are specific provisions in the DMCA that allow breaking of the ciphers if the data contains your own private information.

Re:Follow the money...

[dcavanaugh]

"Note that this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft."

Microsoft is not discredited UNLESS they intend to use Palladium to enforce software licensing and chose to LIE about it.

IF M$ intentions are as-advertised, then the patent is meaningless, since it covers something they said was not part of their plan. On the other hand, if M$ challenges the patent they will be discredited because they deserve it.

Re:Follow the money...

[mluton]

This assumes that MS cares about what is legal and what isn't. Most likely they'll just ignore this guy and do whatever the hell they want to do anyway.

Re:Follow the money...

[Tenebrious1]

He should exclusively license it to Larry Ellison...

Re:Follow the money...

[MrResistor]

And what makes you think this guy won't get help fighting MS from, oh say, everybody that would have to pay the MS licensing fees?!

It's a pretty common, and very sad, misconception about the US judicial system that the one with the most money always wins. The guys with the money only fight the battles they can win. If they don't think they can win, they very quietly settle out of court for enough money to keep it quiet, and you never hear about it.

Money talks

[Qrlx]

Doesn't the fact that the guy's name is Lucky Green sort of tip you off that he's playing Patent Lottery?

Microsoft will make him An Offer He Can't Refuse, and they will buy his patent (if they even need to.)

Re:Money talks

[nebenfun]

he's going to need a name like
"Lucky 4-leaf Clover Horseshoe Green"
in order to defeat Microsoft.
poor, poor bastard
nbfn

Buy him out

[goldspider]

As seen on The Simpsons [snpp.com] , all Bill Gates has to do is "buy him out".

Re:Money talks

[oolon]

If microsoft does make him that offer he will have achieved his objective of making Microsoft show there colours. I kind of feel that if it when to court he might have a problem because he patented an idea after it was mentioned in a conference, if it was mentioned in a conference it is already in the Public Domain so not patentable, but just having the case in the first place would prove his objectives.

As a block it might work it is to high a risk to bring a product to market then worry about the patents, and example of a company who ignored patents feeling they could challege them after they got there product to market was Kodac v Polaroid. The whole affair cost kodac so much that no one else even tried to produce instant film. Of course they missed the ball on digital cameras ;-)

Yes microsoft could also try to patent the same thing, however this would also show there colours.

Personally i feel there is something really quite objectionable of patenting an idea so it cannot be used, the point of the system is to get ideas used but thats patents for you.

James

Re:Money talks

[oolon]

I took it that he patented the idea after the Microsoft representatives stated they were not going to use it for this. Of course that depends on if they say could not or would not. If they said could not, and he has come up with an idea which means they could that I would agree that is novel and new. If he patented what people feared they would do, but didn't say anything about then your right that would be covered.

Having said all of that it, thats not what the patent is about as what he really wants to know is what are microsofts long term objectives, and I have to admit this has got to be one of the better ways of finding out.

I do look forward to seeing how this one plays out.

James

Re:Money talks

[astrashe]

Lucky Green is a well known cypherpunk, a guy who has been around for a long time. He might lose, but he won't sell out.

It's kind of strange seeing the name pop up, especially after seeing Perry Metzger's name yesterday, in connection with the OpenBSD privilage elevation. The old Cypherpunks are still out there fighting the good fight.

Re:Money talks

[Qrlx]

I realize that your comment is a jab at Microsoft's Licensing 6.0, which got them a ton of profits, but it should be pointed out that your scheme is actually much worse than what Microsoft is doing.

Here's how the MS deal works: Let's say you buy Office -- you get a license which lets you run whatever versions of Office are available over the next two years.

When the two years are up, you can still run Office, you just don't get any new versions. You could still run the Office XP you have five years from now, three years after your subscription has expires. What Microsoft is counting on is that once you're on this treadmill, you never get off. You just renew your contract every two years, not buy new upgrades every time a new version of Office comes out, which is a less predictable cycle.

I'm really amazed so many people signed up for it, but most of them were probably on Office 97 or 2000. I bet they dont' sign up again in two years, because they'll then be at the bleeding edge with Office 2003 or Office Palladium or whatever and people like me on XP will wait for the release past that to uprgade. (OMG how will I live without XDocs??)

Yeah Right

[Junky191]

Warning: excessively realistic and cynical comments follow

Sorry buddy, but you will not get justice in this country unless you have the money for a team of attack lawyers. Anything that may cost Microsoft money will be dealth with swiftly and efficiently, and unless you can match them benjamin for benjamin on legal fees, it's not going to work. Think I'm wrong? Look at the prosecution and conviction rates for poor people compared to rich people for the exact same crime and similar evidence.

Re:Yeah Right

[Glytch]

You're not getting it. He doesn't need to defend it. He just needs to have it either attacked or not attacked.

Re:Yeah Right

[Vireo]

But before anything, the patents must be granted, which is the tricky part. The article mentions a similar tactic used in biotech (where two guys patented some kind of animal-human hybrids in order to either forbid anyone of doing so or force the USPO to re-evaluate its policies concerning biotech patents). The biotech patent was not granted -- which is fine for them since the goal was to see if the patent would be granted or not -- but for Lucky Green's tactic to work, the patent must be granted first, and if MSFT gets the patent first, it will fail.

Re:Yeah Right

[agedman]

You're not getting it. He doesn't need to defend it. He just needs to have it either attacked or not attacked.

Not quite. He needs to have it attacked head-on by MS in particular.

I think this is an interesting approach, but I'm not going to hold my breath on seeing interesting results. If a third party were to attack it, either from a feeling of outrage over abuse of the patent system or with MS's surreptitious help, he (we) would be no better off than before.

Well, except for time and money spent. But money's cheap, right?

Or MS may be able to go to their Congressperson and ask for rules limiting "frivolous" patent applications. We might extrapolate from that MS's interest, but it would be murkier.

If I can spend a few seconds thinking of ways to muddy the view, I'm sure well paid lawyers taking their time could bury him under a lot of ... um, ... dirt.

where is this going?

[twitter]

If I can spend a few seconds thinking of ways to muddy the view, I'm sure well paid lawyers taking their time could bury him under a lot of ... um, ... dirt.

Can we conclude that you are not a well paid lawyer? Your lack of fundamental grasp would indicate this is so. Let me help you think a little more.

The article and this tread miss the point, which is that Palladium will be used to squash other people's IP and rights. Who cares if M$ enforces their software licenses? Who cares if the RIAA can keep people from making more useless coppies of Britiany Spears? I have software and music that have nothing to do with M$ or the RIAA. The danger is that M$ will use this gimp to take ownership of all computing. If they can keep my general purpose computer from makinging a copy of a file and I can not, they own my computer and can censor it's content. If their goofey system requires hardware to get sofware certs from M$ or not run, free software won't run. If free software does not run on my hardware then my hardware belongs to someone else. Loathsome! other people's work will be broken and M$ will own all publication that is not completely manual.

Re:Yeah Right

[Alien Being]

you will not get justice in this country unless you have the money for a team of attack lawyers

It's worth pointing out that justice cannot be bought. The idea that it can is oxymoronic. What they are buying is injustice.

</pedantic>

Re:stats?

[zenyu]

Where does someone get stats on "exact same crimes" differentiated only by poor vs rich?

There is a law school (I think in Michigan) that has analysed this for murder cases. There are also various studies done by Social Science schools. Those don't actually look at every case, but instead sample the population. I tend to yawn when one of these studies comes out, who really thinks that a white kid gets the same punishment for drug use or petty crime as a black kid? Who thinks that a competent defence lawyer has no effect on your chances of a lesser sentence?

But if the solutions were simple then we'd have already implemented them, juries discriminate, what can you do if they don't even know they are prejudiced? Prosecuters treat people differently, what can you do? How can you can ensure everyone gets a good lawyer? If you give everyone a state supported lawyer, you would probably have even less justice since a really good lawyer can change the interpretation of the law so that everyone accused of a crime benefits, and we already know state supported lawyers can't represent their clients very well. (They aren't all or even mostly bad, but they have large caseloads so they can't spend the time needed. I'm not talking about pro-bono work where a for pay lawyer takes a case on a no pay basis, this wouldn't exist in a all state supported system. At least as that system exists today and probably would in the future.)

I'm very pessimistic this system will ever be reformed. Those that get bad results usually lose their right to vote, and those who get good results won't have as much reason to force reform. And, most of are lucky enough to never be accused of a crime.

As for Lucky, he might get some support from non-Microsoft owned companies if he has to fight for his patents.

palladium, passport, .NET, etc...

[_ph1ux_]

Is there anything online that details in concise clear terms what exactly all of these things are - features etc...

I mean something that is maybe just a couple paragraphs per item - not some super verbose explaination.

Or does anyone here have enough information that they could jsut give me a real fast rundown on each thing.

I think I know what passport is about - meybe not the whole depth - but i dont know what palladium is - and I am not too sure about where .NET wants to take me tomorrow.

thanks

Re:palladium, passport, .NET, etc...

[Chromonkey]

Here is Passport [passport.net]

And here is .Net [microsoft.com]

last but not least
Palladium [microsoft.com]

Enjoy

Interesting Spin

[Quasar1999]

I see this as a ploy to get Microsoft to buy him out, for his patents...

Or am I just seeing what I would do in his situation?

Two simple questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

1). When has microsoft ever paid any attention to whether or not what they were doing violated the law?

2). If Microsoft violates Mr. Green's patent, and Mr. Green sues, what makes you think that suit will ever actually terminate in court?

Re:Two simple questions:

[GypC]

When has microsoft

ever paid any attention to whether or not what they were doing violated the law?

Well there was that time they decided not to go ahead with that "ActiveKiddiePorn Explorer" project... not to mention the shelving of that whole "DirectAnimalSacrifice API" thing.

Re:Two simple questions:

[nightsweat]

The DirectAnimalSacrifce API is fatally flawed and Patent encumbered. Use GnuSacrificer instead.

Re:Two simple questions:

[rgmoore]

Well, MS has lost in court on patent cases before and been forced to pay up. Remember the Stac (sp?) case, where they were found to have violated the patent on filesystem compression. Of course they weren't such a juggernaut back then, but there are limits to how long you can stretch a case out in court. If Mr. Green gets a lawyer who's willing to work on contingency (which seems likely if he has a good case), he can last a good long time.

Re:Two simple questions:

[poot_rootbeer]

2). If Microsoft violates Mr. Green's patent, and Mr. Green sues, what makes you think that suit will ever actually terminate in court?

Just because Microsoft CAN pay for endless court proceedings doesn't mean they WANT to.

It would probably be cheaper for MS to buy some legislation that invalidates of software patents such as Mr. Green's. In which case, the public wins anyway!

is it worth it?...

[MarvinMouse]

It is definitely an interesting idea to patent the device to prevent implementations, but the question would be is it worth it?

If the patent is not approved, then Green just proved that Microsoft lied... again... which wouldn't surprise anyone, and Microsoft will continue with its initiative to create paladdium based security on its products so it can continue to charge you.

If the patent is approved, then Microsoft will just find a loophole or another way to use Paladium to implement security to enforce it's licences.

Never doubt the power of money. If Microsoft wants to use Paladium to enforce it's software licences, then it will be able to, because Microsoft can afford to buy anyone or anything needed to get that ability.

just MHO, of course though.

Just another example

[HackHackBoom]

This just proves how far patent law is out of control. I mean come on guys!

You have one guy filing a patent on a method of using someone elses patended something-or-other to do something else to prevent the other person from doing something you don't want them to do?

I look at that guy and all I have to say is that while I'm glad someone is shafting Microcrap, I don't agree with his methods. Down with Dumbass Patents, up with the shotgun legal system (:P)

The whole ploy...

[CodeTRap]

Is a rather interesting way to get to the bottom of MS's intentions with Palladium. True, patenting like this is commonplace in industrial circles, and legal battles about due to them. But, has anyone (read single person) ever taken it upon themselves to force the issue like this? The guys' doing us all a favor, and even IF MS challenges his patents and he fails to defend them, we still find out the truth.

Just my humble opinion...

So we really care about piracy?

[91degrees]

I don't think we in general have that much of an issue if it is used to prevent piracy. We're more concerned with will it prevent fair use in doing so, will it spy on us.

Perhaps the two patents actually cover these ideas, or perhaps it just prevents them from tieing a a product to a user. perhaps he plans to allow licencing for a subset of anti-piracy actions.

I just hopoe he doesn't make it too personal. His ethics may not be the same as all of ours, and he may end up causing more damage than he solves.

A few other possibilities.

[FreeLinux]

In order of likelyhood.

1.) Microsoft has already filed patent applications for this process (pretty likely, I think), in which case Lucky Green will be too late.

2.) Green gets patent. Microsoft uses Palladium for license enforcement. Green gets rich!! Consumer is stuck with Palladium licensing.

3.) Green gets patent, enforces cease and desist on Microsoft, Microsoft finds another way.

Re:A few other possibilities.

[elmegil]

Since granted patents are public, we shall see as the paperwork progresses whether or not Microsoft has filed any. Which has the same effect as Lucky Green's attempts, and therefore is probably quite welcome to him.

Re:A few other possibilities.

[Marillion]

The patent approval process is quite lengthy. A common critisism of The System (tm) is that it's easy to drag the process on for some time until someone else has built something that might be infringing. The approval processes suddenly speeds up so that the patenting company can torpedo the "infringing" product.

This is known as a Submarine Patent.

Re:A few other possibilities.

[Sludge]

What happens if entity A has a patent pending on something, and during this period, entity B files for a patent, or infringes on what would eventually become a patent?

As a software developer, I came up against the latter a couple years ago, and I wasn't sure what to do. I was coming up with software that had similar results to a large company's software, but through different means. I asked them for a reference to the patent so I didn't infringe, and they pointed out that the patent is pending.

I was too poor to get legal advice,but I was able to find it a fact that patents that are pending are not publically available works.

Does anyone know how the intellectual property is safe during this period?

Re:A few other possibilities.

[FreeLinux]

What happens if entity A has a patent pending on something, and during this period, entity B files for a patent, or infringes on what would eventually become a patent?

When two parties file for patents on the same technology, the patent is awarded to whomever filed first, unless prior art can be proven.

As for infringement, the proud owner of the new patent has their lawyer send the infringer a cease and desist order. If the infringer honors the order hopefully, that is the end of it. If however, the infringer has made significant moneys AND the patent holders lawyers are good there may be some punitive damages awarded against the infringer.

IANAL

[bhsx]

As far as I know, patent pending is a legal tactic to stretch-out a patent's time of exclusivity. When a company has a 'patent pending' it pretty much means everyone who is using the not-patented-yet technique is screwed. IIRC, Colgate used this technique with its Total toothpaste that leaves some kind of layer of chemical protection on your enamel(sp?). It allows that 'patent' (which isn't really a patent yet) to be stretched out to about twenty years. Someone please correct me or elaborate further...

Reputation?

[GypC]

"He thinks that a challenge by Microsoft to his patents is unlikely: It would discredit Biddle and damage the company's reputation for truthfulness..."

Hmmm... I didn't realize there was one to be damaged.

Dystopia still possible

[leandrod]

Even if he successfully prevents MS from enforcing only licensed software on its OSs, it still does not addresses the issue raised by RMS in The Right to Read [gnu.org.], namely that copyright enforcement thru technology can turn all the World in a global police state in copyright owners' benefit.

Yeah right..

[grub]

Bill G. Hey 'Lucky', can I license your patented process?
Lucky Pound sand Gates, I 0wn j00!
Bill G. Here's 100 million dollars.
Lucky I'm your b1tch.

Sell out, pay back

[phorm]

It's not such a bad thing. If he sold out the patents, lucky would still likely support the anti-corporate anti-MS community.

Which leaves us with what: A guy with brains, who likes the hacker community, and has a lot of money to donate...

If he gets the patents, even if he sells out we're not really losing anything. If the attempt wasn't made, MS would have pushed the Palladium software licensing button anyways.

Re:Yeah right..

[grub]

for 100 million dollars, i'd sell out :(

I wouldn't sell out, even if you tempted me with the tastiest sub in the world [subway.com] and wash it down with the best damn beer in the world [fortgarrry.com] then handed me the keys to the nice car you delivered it all in. [bmw.com]

on second thought...

Re:Yeah right..

[operagost]

What if the Subway sub came with LETTUCE?

Something that comes to mind

[A Cheese Danish]

It sounds like a very sound plan, and it does put M$ in a intesting position as far as the Palladium initiative is concerned.

However, my readings from /. have told me that the main issue with Palladium has always been to secure digital entertainment content (ie. movies, music, etc) However, there is nothing saying that M$ could not develop another "technology" separate from Palladium to work on software licences (therefore negating the "patent protection" this has bought us)

I can't really give too informed an opinion without reading the actual patent filed (and I find it interesting that Lucky Green's website [cypherpunks.to] hasn't been updated since the symposium), but I can see M$ being able to honor this and still work around it, should they choose to.

If all else failed, they could go back to the ??IA for the political power to pull it off. "We scratched your back with Palladium. Now, you scratch ours."

Of course, this may be all a bunch of paranoid M$ bashing. Maybe they will do the right thing about it all. It's just interesting to think of the possibilities...

Re:Something that comes to mind

[Angry White Guy]

I haven't read the patent, however I believe that the patent will effectively lock MS out of using the hardware aspect of Palladium. If it's all software, it could be broken easier than the hw/sw combo.

Am I wrong here?

[NitsujTPU]

I don't really care if MS uses Palladium to stop people from pirating software, good on them. The REAL problem is them using Digital Rights Management to control what software you can run on your computer regardless of license.

Without the right signature for DRM, you can't run a piece of software that isn't licensed to run on that hardware. IE, not "I don't have my 30 day license," but "I wrote some software, and didn't pay the company that made the OS so I could write it." In other words, bye bye Linux.

The article doesn't seem to cover if his patents cover this, since thats what I THOUGHT they were talking about until the last few lines where they talk about piracy.

Re:Am I wrong here?

[mla_anderson]

"I wrote some software, and didn't pay the company that made the OS so I could write it." In other words, bye bye Linux.

If the DRM is in the OS then Linux should not be affected by it. I thought Palladium was a HW/SW implementation so the OS would have to be verified by the hardware...and that could cause problems for Linux.

Re:Am I wrong here?

[Linux_ho]

Without the right signature for DRM, you can't run a piece of software that isn't licensed to run on that hardware. IE, not "I don't have my 30 day license," but "I wrote some software, and didn't pay the company that made the OS so I could write it." In other words, bye bye Linux.

Yeah, you're wrong on the "bye-bye linux" part. What makes Winders so popular? Lots of applications. What OS do you think small app developers will prefer if Winders enforces this stuff?

Besides, the only way this could affect Linux is if somebody made a Winders-only BIOS, and none of the x86 hardware vendors would get on board with that - they know that Linux users are their fastest growing market for their high-end hardware. Even if someone did use a Linux-unfriendly BIOS, it would just be a big growth opportunity for Linux-friendly hardware vendors.

Re:Am I wrong here?

[ivan256]

I don't really care if MS uses Palladium to stop people from pirating software, good on them. The REAL problem is them using Digital Rights Management to control what software you can run on your computer regardless of license.


Yep, you're wrong here. You can still use Palladium capable machines to run arbitrary code. Palladium enables software to require restrictions management to be enabled, and specify the restrictions; It doesn't enforce anything that the running software doesn't ask it to. If you don't put Palladium support in the software you run then Palladium has no effect on your code.

Re:Am I wrong here?

[be-fan]

I'm not worried so much about the can't run Linux issue as the can't view open file formats issue. Palladium is a method of taking any file format, even an open one, and turning it into a closed one. Wheras Linux users today can basically take any document out there, even a Word document, and view it on their Linux machines, Palladium might make that impossible. And by tying Palladium to major software applications like Office, Microsoft and lock Linux users out of a huge amount of content in a way that has nothing to do with software piracy or DRM. What do you think will happen when all those morons running Word 2005 or Frontpage 2005 (all with Palladium integrated goodness) decide to "publish" their work on the internet. Suddenly, Linux users either a) submit to Palladium, or b) lock themselves out of that content, even if Linux could technically read those file formats normally.

European Patent Office

[delphi125]

If he is granted the patent in the U.S., then if he also applies for it from the EPO, he would be able to contest it in Europe too. Although I hate Dutch lawyers as much as any others, MS will not be able to buy a Dutch judges decision quite as easily as in USA.

IANAPE, but his claim in the states should count as prior art for some period for him in Europe, both in applying himself and stopping MS doing so. And MS does target the global market, so they cant do it in USA but not elsewhere....

Interesting Links (MLP)

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some interesting links. Remember kids, it's not whoring if you're doing it anonymously!

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@wasabisys tems.com/msg02554.html [mail-archive.com]: Lucky Green discusses this issue

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcryp to/2002-June/019444.html [greenend.org.uk]: Palladium and TCPA.

Google should yield even more interesting documents

Patents

[Halo1]

I don't know how things are in the US, but here in Blegium if you patent something but don't "use" it (e.g. implement the stuff you describe in your patent and market it) for a number of yearts (I thought it was two, but I'm not sure), the patent office can force you to license it to third parties who are interested in actually bringing to market what you patented.

This regulation is there to make sure companies don't invent something that's better than anything that's out there, but wait with actually using their invention because e.g. they already have most of the market and as such aren't inclined to improve their product, but at the same time they don't want this technology to be used by their competition. So it's some kind of consumer protection (within X years, the consumer will have access to the invented stuff if it's usefull and marketable).

So if this rule also exists in the US, this guy could actually be forced to license his patents to Microsoft (or anyone else) if they want it. They even don't have to challenge it. It'll still show the licensee's "true intentions" of course, but still...

Nothing to see here

[WildBeast]

First off, I really don't think that Microsoft wants to stop software piracy, it's not in there best interest to do so. So this whole thing is just a waste of time.

Hell, many people in Afghanistan use Windows XP. If MS was to put anti-piracy measures, those people would be forced to switch unless they like paying a whole years salary just to buy Windows.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Jhan]

Hell, many people in Afghanistan use Windows XP. If MS was to put anti-piracy measures, those people would be forced to switch unless they like paying a whole years salary just to buy Windows.

Switch?

I used to have a Windows machine. I would try to get the latest nuclear modeling programs to run, but they were like "duh".

Then I got a Macintosh, and the modelling programs I got where just like "yeah!"

I'm only sad I didn't switch earlier. I'm Omar Sadii, and I'm a nuclear weapons specialist.

Of course, if you can't afford to pirate Windows, you sure as hell can't afford to pirate MacOS (or buy the hardware).

Hmmmm......

[frozenray]

From the article:

"Biddle insisted that the impetus behind Palladium was solely to secure digital entertainment content and that he knew of no way that it could be used for the enforcement of software licensing."

Now, according to El Reg [theregister.co.uk], Microsoft recently published a job ad for a position within the Palladium group which contained the following sentence:

"Our technology allows content providers, enterprises and consumers to control what others can do with their digital information, such as documents, music, video, ebooks, and software. Become a key leader, providing vision and industry leadership in developing DRM, Palladium and Software Licensing products and Trust Infrastructure Services."

Contradiction city, I say.

from the horse's mouth

[Quetza]

Lucky's description of why he did it [mail-archive.com]

--
"Bill Gates: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!" [snpp.com]

Re:I hate to split hairs, but...

[symbolic]

Novelty: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Peter Biddle, Product Unit
Manager for Palladium, very publicly and unambiguously stated during
Wednesday's panel at the USENIX Security conference that the Palladium
team, despite having been asked by Microsoft's anti-piracy groups for
methods by which Palladium could assist in the fight against software
piracy, knows of no way in which Palladium can be utilized to assist
this end

The words knows of no way, if they describe exactly what Biddle said with respect to Palladium and software licensing, creates an easy-out for Microsoft. Let's say that M$ has been working all along on a scheme that incorporates Palladium in a way that can be used to manage software licensing (which, given M$' track record, is more likely than not). Come the day it's thrust on an unsuspecting consumer public, they can point to this very statement and maintain that Biddle was, in good faith, representing the thruth - that he didn't know of any effort like the one mentioned. Whether he actually did, of course, is another matter entirely. Pointy-haired corporate executives use this gem all the time to elude personal responsibility: "I'm sorry judge, I had no idea the board authorized a personal loan for $300 million."

Either way . . .

[buzzdecafe]

Whether or Lucky Green intends to "sell out" to Microsoft or hold his patents to frustrate them, this is an object lesson in how broken patent law is. At least they're apparently catching on down at the patent office. Declan McCullagh [com.com] reports that "The head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acknowledged on Tuesday that many business method patents had been wrongfully awarded in the past, but predicted a more careful approach in the future." Time will tell, I suppose. In the meantime, no need for an actual product, or even a plan for a product, or even a clearly defined idea for a product. Patent first, ask questions later.

What type of logic was used?

[ehiris]

If his patents are granted, MS will be unable to use Palladium to enforce software licensing. If MS challenges his patent, then we all know thier true intentions.

What about Microsoft sues him just because they can and they are pissed at him for trying to show off as a geekero? Would that mean Microft's intentions are to use Paladium to enforce their licenses? It just does not make sense.

As much as I don't like Microsoft, I still believe that they can and are going to enforce their copyright however they can. It is their right to do so.

On a second thought I don't believe Lucky Green really has enough technical details about Palladium to be able to create a foundation for his patent. You have to describe how you do it not only that you do it. For example you can't patent a levetating car if you don't know exactly how you are going to do it.

This is GREAT!

[JordanH]

We on /. already know what Palladium is all about. What needs to happen is for the mass media to cover this story. If Lucky Green pulls this off, the mass media (Disney/ABC, AOL/TW, Fox, NBC/GE), will be all over this story, revealing how this technology is all about screwing the consumer in favor of the IP moguls.

Uh, wait a minute...

Maybe its just me....

[LordYUK]

But "lucky green" sounds like a cleaning agent and "palladium" sounds like some moldly crap growing on my sink... so "lucky green" vs "palladium" sounds like some commerical where a frustrated house wife is tired of scrubbing, so she sprays on the cleaner and voila, its brand spanking new...

then again, maybe its just me...

Companies (including MS) Depend on Piracy

[papskier]

Because without piracy, not nearly as many people would try a product. When people try a product and like it, they recomend it to their employers. When decision makers can't get certain software for free or cheap, they'll try alternatives like StarOffice, see that it works just as well, and recommend to their company that they save thousands of dollars on this free (or cheap) software. Would you actually pay $700 for Office for home? not me. Eliminating piracy will be a shot in the foot - just like the MPAA and Napster - the stats are already rolling in on what a snafu that was to put Napster out of business.

Case in point: a friend of mine who is a decision maker for some of his company's IT purchases used an illegal copy of Dreamweaver for a few months at home. When the company accelerated their online presence, he recommended Dreamweaver, a great product, and the company bought a ten seat license. So Macromedia lost $200 on him, but gained a few grand on his company. Of course, they didn't really lose the $200 on him, 'cause he's a cheap S.O.B. and wouldn't have ever bought it himself.

If Microsoft and other companies implement this, it will be their downfall - not from a consumer backlash (there will be one, but not huge), but rather because many people will lose focus on their product line and try alternatives. They've forgotten the lessons of their success in the browser battle.

Common corprorate strategy

[f97tosc]

This interesting startegy has prallells among corporations competing with each other. I heard rumors that Motorola has pursued this strategy against certain telecom competitors:

If a competitor has a strong patent, and they want to pursue the same technology, then there is an alternative to violation.

They pursue patents on improvements on the original patent. A couple of years down the line, the originator will be compelled to use some of the (perhaps obvious) patented improvements. Then they are in an excellent bargaining position, either for royalites or for rights to the original patent.

Tor

Not gonna work

[Dynedain]

Well, since we all know MS monitors /.:

MS now knows this guy's intent, and probably is already getting the ball rolling on how to thwart it. Most likely, they are already drafting a letter to the patent office on why this is an invalid patent (using whatever legalise they can come up with).

So, thanks /. for screwing over this plan.

Suage

[rpillala]

I'm not sure I understand what legal risks Green takes on by filing for some patents. If the patent office determines that Microsoft has a prior claim on these technologies (or processes or whatever) then Green's applications will be denied, but will anything else happen? I probably just don't know enough about patent law. Ravi

2 comments

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The federal cicuit has been more keen lately on invalidating internet or business method patents due to obviousness [georgetown.edu] problems.

It could be argued that it would be obvious to extend palladium's capabilities to include software registration enforcment.

2. Microsoft is not above patent law on legitimate patents:

Since 1998, Microsoft has been named a defendant in at least 35 patent-infringement cases, compared with seven suits in the prior 22 years. Twenty-one are currently active. - wsj 10/3/02

Using patents to stop other Microsoft problems

[TyZone]

Lucky Green is on to something! I could apply for a patent on, say, techniques for using overwhelming dominance of the software marketplace to enforce monopolistic practices, and then force Microsoft to stop ...

Nope. Wouldn't work. Microsoft can demonstrate prior art.

hp printers and microsoft

[dollargonzo]

an article appeared in Dr. Dobbs about HP printers and their automatic detection of past-expiration date cartridges, etc, and how the system really does not work. HP's whole idea was to make it impossible foir people to by ink refillers, so they would need to throw out $40 on brand new cartridges, and many such tosses while debugging it. eventually, they stopped doing this.

microsoft might try to do the same thing, but remember, if it is transparent, it WILL be hacked, and if it just blocks your system, people will get very annoyed/pissed/angered/dissatisfied, etc. you get the point. it is not naturally possible for m$ to create a technology that is not crackable and yet keeps most people happy.

Obligatory RMS post

[jvmatthe]

In the RMS biography "Free as in Freedom" by Sam Williams, the point is made that Stallman views the legal system as just another system to be hacked upon. There is a complex set of rules to follow, and with a clever, well-made program (e.g. the GPL) you can achieve things people hadn't even thought were possible.

Using the patent system against itself and against Microsoft seems to me to be at least a similar idea, if not the same thing.

Uh..Don't we already know their intentions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider this:

1) Microsoft wants everyone to use their software.
2) Microsoft wants everyone to pay to use their software.
3) Microsoft wants to ensure through techinal means that everyone pay to use their software because users cannot be trusted and we are all villians.
4) Microsoft will use Palladium/ to ensure that everyone pay to use their software.

Joe Blow Public doesn't care about any of this because Joe Blow Public invests in Microsoft shares and are happy when they get a good rate of return. As long as Microsoft makes them money and they can run their birthday card creator program, they don't care. How many non-slashdot readers are going to say "Wow, Microsoft does some things I don't like - maybe I shouldn't use their software"? Yeah right!

I applaud this guy for at least doing something, but this won't prove anything we don't already know.

Clueless Slashdotters strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

For a forum that bitches endlessly about bad patents, most posters here really don't know anything about what they're talking about.

1) LG must first have his patent applicatations successfully examined. This takes time and money (not a lot of money for a single inventor who thinks they have something valuable on there hands, but a fair bit for someone merely trying to make a point. Things become much more expensive if LG wants to apply internationally (requiring foreign patent agents, filing fees, translations, etc). LG must demonstate that his patents are not anticipated and not obvious. Despite all the bad patents that show up on Slashdot (and there are plenty), this is not an easy task, especially if you don't have the services of a patent agent or lawyer. It is also possible that MS has patent applications on these very issues (possibly not published yet), so the whole point is mute.

2) LG having the patents does not prevent MS from doing anything UNLESS LG sues MS for patent infringment. This costs huge amounts of money. Even companies that don't like MS aren't likely to be supporting this cause, since they don't want to antagonize MS or well, waste their money (maybe the EFF?). LG probably has other things to worry about (work, family, mowing the lawn, etc). MS has a division of people paid to worry about little problems like this.

Timing doesn't really work

[SiliconEntity]

Lucky has a nice idea, but I don't think the timing is really going to work. Here's the problem.

He wants to know if Microsoft is going to use Palladium for copy protection. We'd all like to know that. Well, of course, we're going to find out sooner or later, at least by the time they release Palladium, maybe around 2005. And chances are we'll find out sooner than that, because Microsoft will release specs and APIs to the developer community in order to have applications ready when the technology is released. So maybe we'll find out about 2004.

Lucky wants to speed up this process, so he files a patent hoping that Microsoft will either challenge it, or it will turn out that they have a patent of their own. But it's likely to take a couple of years for his patent to go through. So he's not going to find out until around 2004 anyway.

The timing doesn't really work. Waiting to see if Microsoft contests the patent won't give information for a couple of years. And by that time, chances are Microsoft will have revealed enough information about Palladium that we'll know the answer anyway.

The one thing that isn't going to happen, I guarantee, is that Microsoft will say "Oh no! Our secret plan to use Palladium for copy protection is ruined due to Lucky Green! Curses, foiled again!" If Microsoft does plan to use Palladium like this, they'll have the patent protection in place well in advance.

Another "standard" doomed to fail?

[dacarr]

When somebody in the corporate development sector develops something intended to be a standard and it's considered subpar, I've noticed that people generally don't use it and/or develop something that is superior to the other product. Case in point: the internet uses TCP/IP rather than ISO-7 layer, DreckNet, X.25, and other things developed as established "standards", and anybody can implement it, and work around or patch through the "standard" networks out there.

This seems to be another case of this - Microsoft wants to establish a standard method of copy protection and protocols to link all programs into their system given the proper set of keys. That it is a proposed standard by a single corporation tells me that it will fail miserably.

Of course, it's probably just simpler to rant yet again that Copy Protection Doesn't Work(TM).

All I have to ask is :

[__aahlyu4518]

Where do we put a statue for this guy? ;-)

But seriously... If MS fights these patents they show their true intentions you say? Why is that? Maybe they would rather have had those patents themselves? For what purpose ? True... probably the wrong one (wrong in OUR eyes), but maybe to make sure no one misuses THEIR technologie (palladium) ?

Why is no one doubting the intentions of this guy? And maybe if his intentions are good NOW, what if he is granted these patents and realises, maybe not now, but somewhere along the way, what power and possible wealth he could gain with these patents? Maybe at a point that he desperately needs money or whatever, or just because of plain greed.

We always question MS here, but we still need to take a carefull look at the other parties as well ok?

Using stupidity for good purposes

[Tablizer]

Gee, I wish this guy had also patented email spam and pop-up ads.

Re:So I got it exactly the wrong way ?

[adb]

Enforcing software licensing can't work unless it's impossible to run software that isn't signed. Some of us would like to run software that does not come from Microsoft and their friends.

Re:So I got it exactly the wrong way ?

[arkhan_jg]

What is so wrong in enforcing software licensing? Well, here's one thing for starters. Microsoft have been wanting to get out of the business of selling software for years. They want to get into the software rental business. Let's say you use Microsoft Office on Windows. Pretty common. You've bought the software, so you've nothing to fear from TCPA checking your copy of office is legal. If microsoft bring out a new version, you don't have to buy it, you can carry on using your existing copy. That is microsoft's biggest problem, they can't make you buy the new version. You'll always be able to access your existing files. Even if Microsoft change the file format, you don't lose access to your old data. Now, lets zoom forward 10 years. Office TCPA has switched to a licencing model. Instead of buying a CD and the rights to install it on only one machine, you download it from microsoft, and can install it on as many palladium machines as you like, as long as it's only in use on one machine at a time. Hardware backed encryption enforces that. So far so fair. But it's a rental, not a purchase. At the end of the year, unless you cough up that annual licence fee, you can't use office any more. And here's the killer. You can't open your old files any more. Your unbeatably encrypted and trusted palladium machine won't let you open them. And the double whammy? The DMCA and it's worldwide cousins will make it illegal for other products, like open office to even look at your old files, as microsoft will have comingled encryption into that closed document spec, thus making your interoperable product a circumvention device. So sure, you can switch to the competition. But only at the expense of losing access to all the files you have stored (yours and other peoples) in that closed format. Hell, if microsoft were really feeling their oats, they could make every document you ever wrote unaccessible to everyone until you cough up that 'nominal' licence fee. Of course, there's nothing to stop microsoft doing this now - except that without hardware backed encryption and a trusted operating system running on it being the only way to run the software, the file formats and software would be cracked before it hit the public download section. With TCPA and palladium, we'll lose more that just fair use rights, we'll lose ever competitor that even TRIES to fight on microsoft turf. And if you think the US DOJ will step in, I respectfully point you towards the events of the last few years as to how successful that will be.

Re:How does this help?

[benjamindees]

Discrediting Microsoft helps Microsoft's competitors.

Open Source is Microsoft's biggest competitor [slashdot.org].

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:How does this help?

[MrResistor]

It would prevent MS from charging OSS vendors/projects/hackers for a license to boot on a Paladium system.

Licensing fees are the most common reason for things not being implemented or supported in Open Source.

Re:What's more amazing to me

[intermodal]

believe it or not, there are actually groups out there who still call themselves cypherpunks. like it or not, they're real people. your post is like reading the LA times saying "the bloods and the crips are sooo cliche...." and demanding that they be called something else in print.