Re: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote:

> Date sent:            Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:33:04 -0500
> From:                 "Kyle Quest" <Kyle.Quest () networkengines com>
>
> > I'm amazed how these two guys have the guts to patent something like
> > this. John Selep is a product marketing manager, so it's possible he
> > has no clue about security and the intrusion prevention industry, but
> > Mauricio Sanchez is a network security architect at HP... It's hard
> > to believe that he didn't know about a technology that's been out for
> > many years.
>
> Submarine patents are a major business, at least in the US.  There are, for 
> example, at least two patents on broad ... well, *I* would just call them "ideas," 
> but you're not supposed to be able to patent ideas, in the virus detection realm.  
> I've been contacted by various law firms, over the years, working for companies 
> that are either being sued or are under threat of suit from the guys holding these 
> patents.

As the original inventor and publisher (but not patenter) of a great many 
of these, I have a nice little sideline in demonstrating the invalidity of 
patents on antivirus stuff. I *know* what was in Dr Solomon's Antivirus 
Toolkit :-)

> As well as being extremely vague, these patents refer to concepts that I can prove 
> were known prior to the application for the patent, let alone the issuance.  In 
> some cases I can even prove that there were actual products created using these 
> ideas, prior to the application for the patents.  (When I first got into virus 
> research I archived a lot of email, and I was also one of the first to get into 
> reviewing antivirals in a big way.)  Apparently, though, once a patent has been 
> issued, it is almost impossible to get it reversed.  (I suspect that a complete lack of 
> willingness to admit that any branch of the government could *ever* be wrong 
> may be involved.)
>
> I'm not party to the actual lawsuits or negotiations, of course, but I suspect that 
> the process may be something like the following:
>
> - patent holder tells big company it owes him $100M 
> - big company gets legal firms on the case
> - legal firm finds me
> - I provide evidence of invalidity of patent
> - big company goes back to patent holder, tells him that they *could* win if they 
> wanted to but it would be a pain, here's $100K
> - patent holder moves on to next victim company
>
> ======================  (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
> rslade () vcn bc ca      slade () victoria tc ca      rslade () sun soci niu edu
> They say to the seers, `See no more visions!' and to the
> prophets, `Give us no more visions of what is right!  Tell us
> pleasant things, prophecy illusions.  Leave this way, get off
> this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!'
>                                                    - Isaiah 30:10,11
> http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.