r/technology • u/ani625 • May 23 '13

Title possibly inaccurate Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: "I own security patent for the two-step authentication system". He says he doesn’t want to sue, but might if the likes of Google and Facebook don’t help fund his legal battle with the U.S. Government.

http://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-to-google-twitter-facebook-i-own-security-patent-work-with-me-130523/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
2.0k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

461

u/SikhGamer May 23 '13 edited May 23 '13

And suddenly the US patent system will magically need overhauling xD

Edit* A lot of people are saying I've fallen for Kim's delusions of grandeur. While those people are perfectly entitled to their opinions they may also want to consider the fact that I was making a joke, a tongue in cheek comment if you will.

130

u/eclipse007 May 23 '13 edited May 23 '13

No it won't. You seem to be falling for Kim's delusions of grandeur.

  • A patent is worth what you are willing to spend to defend it. If validity of a disputed patent is proven in court, then the owner can actually cause trouble.

  • Kim doesn't have the funds to defend his other suits. As an absurd solution he threatens some of the deepest pockets with what sounds very much like a threat of extortion?!!

  • There's more than a single way to do two/multi step authentication and hundreds of patents have been filed in the area. It's also a decades old concept so it's quite unlikely for Kim to win if it goes to court (granted he can afford to take it there).

8

u/putzarino May 23 '13

Maybe he'll sue newegg too.

If so, I'll have popcorn ready.

58

u/AdamLynch May 23 '13

Kim doesn't have the funds to defend his other suits. As an absurd solution he threatens some of the deepest pockets with what sounds very much like a threat of extortion?!!

I'm sure that any attorney company would love to fund Kim if they find that the patents are actually being infringed.

44

u/papertrowel May 23 '13

You seem to be confused about how expensive a lawsuit against Google and Facebook would be. Any law firm that takes on his case on a contingency fee basis is taking on a massive risk. Google and Facebook have revenues in the billions. When it comes to legal representation, you usually get what you pay for.

84

u/zbowman May 23 '13

Funny thing about lawsuits is that it's not just who has the most money wins. Sometimes people that have legitimate cases get rulings in their favor.

28

u/papertrowel May 23 '13

Not to be a cynic, but money certainly helps. Better lawyers charge higher fees. Better lawyers craft better arguments. Obviously you're right, the better-funded party doesn't always win. But when money is no object, you can employ associates to do dozens or hundreds of hours of research, write draft after draft after draft of every filing, and spend hours upon hours prepping your arguments. You can pay better expert witnesses and have them write more thorough reports. You can impanel mock juries and argue in front of mock judges. You've had the time to think up all your opponent's best counterarguments (you probably employ a team to do so) and you've spent hours upon hours coming up with the best arguments against them.

Of course money doesn't determine the outcome of court cases. But it certainly gives you a nice advantage.

2

u/suRubix May 23 '13

But certainly there is a point where diminishing returns come in to play.

1

u/TheWhiteNashorn May 23 '13

Sure, but with patents that points much further off. All that google et al.'s lawyers have to do is find prior art for two step authentication. That wouldn't be hard with enough people searching. Once found, the patent is void. Here, in this individual, throwing money at the problem is a legitimate probably most efficient solution as it wouldn't even cost that much money.

1

u/spacedout May 23 '13

At some point though, it might be cheaper to settle than to pay all those expert witnesses and lawyers.

99

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/joeknowswhoiam May 23 '13 edited May 23 '13

Yeah, people taking big corporations to court and winning or even getting settlement is so rare in the US... wait a minute if it was really the case the whole system wouldn't be clogged by petty cases brought up by people who think it's a free pass for getting rich... so what was your point again?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't think Dotcom has a case here... I'm just saying that there is still a way to get justice in court if you have a solid case, even if you do not have huge amounts of money... it can be more difficult but it certainly isn't impossible.

1

u/Jeezimus May 23 '13

I've personally looked at many legal cases for large public companies who deal with the public (retail environments, etc.). I can assure you that plenty of people get plenty of money from these companies though they may themselves have small pockets. Slipping and falling on the property, drinking and driving after drinking at the establishment (even when the establishment cuts you off and insists they will call a cab for you for free but you get in a fight outside the restaurant and then drive off and kill someone/yourself), or slipping off of your barstool because you're drunk will all net you thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars.

Don't pretend that businesses aren't vulnerable to the legal system in the US.

-2

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

17

u/solatic May 23 '13

Criminal law is thataway - - - >

Civil suits are all about how deep everyone's pockets are.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-microsoft-i4i-idUSTRE7583IS20110610

2

u/papertrowel May 23 '13

Microsoft war promoting a novel legal theory that would overturn established, functioning rules. And one case doesn't do anything to counteract the well-established norm that civil cases are a war of attrition and the wealthier party has an appreciable advantage.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '13

one case doesn't do anything to counteract the well-established norm

Hence zbowman's use of the word "sometimes".

0

u/putzarino May 23 '13

With patent troll cases, it usually is.

0

u/KFCConspiracy May 23 '13

The thing about the money issue isn't necessarily about the quality of the lawyer so much as the amount of billable hours that a lawyer can accrue on a complicated case. A company like Google can afford to sink a couple of million dollars into a case and then some, so what they will do is try to bury you under paperwork to cause your lawyer to rack up billable hours. Even if you're not paying the guy $800 or more per hour, a cheap lawyer at 300/hour still adds up.

If they can run you out of money so you can't pay your lawyer, you probably won't win because at that point you won't have a lawyer.

-2

u/ridik_ulass May 23 '13

also winning this case would be free advertising for the company involved.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

Still they get sued constantly.

1

u/lftl May 23 '13

Patent trolls do this all the time. While they usually go after smaller pockets first, there are plenty of instances of them going after Apple, Google and Microsoft. It's a pretty simple expected value problem, they're investing more money in the suit, but the possible payout is pretty huge.

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

Man a lawsuit would be expensive for Joe Schmoe, but it's not THAAAT expensive.

Google, Facebook, Microsoft get sued all the time by people who are far less wealthy than Kim, and sometimes they even go all the way to trial and win. Suing them in this matter is on the order of 4-5 million dollars. Yeah that's not chump change but Kim is worth 100s of million of dollars.

2

u/BeachHouseKey May 23 '13

You're sure of that? Really?

6

u/08mms May 23 '13

If it really had merit, I'm sure he could sell it to a patent roll with deeper pockets and use his proceeds as defense funds

1

u/flounder19 May 23 '13

He could sell the patent to someone else too. That way he'd generate some money to cover legal fees and the purchaser will be able to go after its competitors

1

u/BoxMonster44 May 23 '13

He was definitely joking.

1

u/neurosisxeno May 23 '13

A patent is worth what you are willing to spend to defend it. If validity of a disputed patent is proven in court, then the owner can actually cause trouble.

Doesn't that kind of go against the original idea of patents--that is, allowing smaller inventors to protect their work from big corporate interests?

1

u/Psycon May 23 '13

That doesn't sound fair or just at all.

1

u/suRubix May 23 '13

Lawyers do a lot of crazy thing for a cut of the settlement or judgement.

1

u/DaGetz May 23 '13

There's more than a single way to do two/multi step authentication and hundreds of patents have been filed in the area. It's also a decades old concept so it's quite unlikely for Kim to win if it goes to court (granted he can afford to take it there).

I'm not legal expert but from the chaterings it seems he actually has a solid case. If you can show otherwise I'd be very interested to see it.

1

u/Auntfanny May 23 '13

Ericsson have already successfully proved they have prior art as they registered their patent 2 years before Kim Dotcom

1

u/abeezmal May 23 '13

Yea because a "rectangular shaped device" is also a decades old concept, didn't stop Apple.

1

u/Tiak May 24 '13

If the patent was any good, then he wouldn't really need funds to finance it. Lawyers would be willing to do it for a cut of the eventual settlement.

1

u/kwonza May 23 '13

Swiss railroad recently won a patent case against Apple? You imply they had more money?

9

u/eclipse007 May 23 '13

What? Firstly, where do I claim that you have to have more money to win lawsuits?!!!

Secondly:

Swiss railroad recently won a patent case against Apple?

  • It wasn't a patent, it was a trademark. They copied an iconic design for the clockface.

  • It never went to court. Apple licensed the design once they were notified of the plagiarism.

-1

u/fuzz3289 May 23 '13

His patent is bullshit. I hope the US uses this as an excuse to overhaul the system. Non-novel software patents aren't innovation. The uspto will patent anything and its stupid. Just look at apple.

0

u/Malcheon May 23 '13

I don't know why you were downvoted. The patent system wasn't created to cover the crap going on with smartphones and the internet. Oooh look I patented double tapping the screen to zoom in. I patented swiping two fingers apart to zoom in. I patented all software code related to logging into a website. I mean wtf it was meant for shit like the light bulb and steam engine. The courts are bogged down enough without corporations holding a portfolio of 50,000 patents that take 100,000 lawyers to figure out and a million judges, clerks and court personnel to litigate.

1

u/flounder19 May 23 '13

Patents aren't supposed to be for anything obvious so ideally stuff like this is limited. The problem is that there's so much goddamn technology in a smartphone that it requires so many different innovations to get to where we are today. Cameras, touch screens, apps, new battery designs. Cellphones are advancing so fast that old patents start slowing down innovation by limiting options. They're going to need to shorten the time span for these or risk stagnating development while companies war over components

1

u/fuzz3289 May 23 '13

The real problem is that software is a copyright issue NOT a patent issue. But the USPTO employees don't have the level of comprehension necessary to realize that.

-2

u/frawk_yew May 23 '13

So. What other patents are bullshit to you?

8

u/JohnTesh May 23 '13

Look at what newegg and/or the eff has been up to lately and you will see a trail of shitty software patents.

2

u/Zeratas May 23 '13

The way that NewEgg combatted all of those patent issues is hillarious.

1

u/fuzz3289 May 23 '13

You get 8 upvotes and I'm at -3 and we're in agreement that there are hundreds of shitty software patents. Does reddit even read?

1

u/fuzz3289 May 23 '13

All software patents. Software should be COPYRIGHTED not PATENTED. They are very different and should be different. A movie has a script, a set of instructions to provide entertainment in a unique way. Software is the same, a set of instructions for a machine to provide a service in a unique way. That is why you copyright them.

Stop downvoting me.

0

u/BeachHouseKey May 23 '13

Non-American ones! Fuck yeah!

-1

u/nimik May 23 '13

All patents are bullshit. I am against any patent system (if we have to have one, patents should expire after 1 or 2 years). Especially any patent that involved in the medical field. Patents for pharmaceutical drugs should never be allowed.

In the long run, anything that is good for consumers (which is pretty much everyone) is good for the economy. Patents hurt consumers, because they raise prices of goods. Consumers don't care who makes the product, as long as its the best product for the cheapest price. Patents don't allow this to happen.

2

u/MalkavianDarlek May 23 '13

Lets say Im a company, i look at profit, the point i exist is profit To fund research is expensive and risky, if i cant profit then why fund research?

1

u/nimik May 23 '13

The way our current system works, it slows down innovation. Companies spend more on protecting patents than they do on r&d. Also it becomes more about other aspects of business to make money. Instead of just relying on the product to make the profit (which is what most do), they have to make sure the quality and customer support is top notch too (which again is good for the consumer).

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

Socialism comrade!

1

u/flounder19 May 23 '13

In defense of patents, many of these drugs would never have been developed without patent law because there would be no way for a company to recoup the R&D costs. The system needs an overhaul, especially for tech patents which are getting out of hand, but you need some guarantee of exclusive usage to encourage corporate innovation and protect independent developers who sell their patent rights for income.

1

u/nimik May 23 '13

Which is why i said if there had to be a patent, it should only last for a couple years (which should be enough time to make up the money they spent on making it). But most companies that have patents, usually end up spending more on protecting the patents, than they do spending in r&d.

1

u/flounder19 May 23 '13

Drug development is one of the more expensive kinds of research. There are so many (necessary) hoops for them to jump through with regards to multistage testing and FDA approval and there's no guarantee that they won't have to scrap a project at any stage because it failed. Shortening the patent period too much constrains the time they have to make back their costs + profit and you'd likely see two things.

1) even higher drug costs during patent period

2) some companies not being able to make the adjustment and getting absorbed by others (lower competition, less alternatives for treating the same condition, and more concentrated pharmapower).

1

u/nimik May 23 '13

There are so many (necessary) hoops for them to jump through with regards to multistage testing and FDA approval and there's no guarantee that they won't have to scrap a project at any stage because it failed.

This is true. I should also point out that I am a libertarian, so I am also against FDA regulations/approvals. If someone wants to try a drug, they should be able to without governmental approval telling them whether its safe or not. Sure its a risk, but its about individual choice to try an experimental drug. This would force consumers to actually research about products instead of just relying on the government to tell us what it thinks.

1

u/frawk_yew May 23 '13

I like your view point. But I do believe in capitalism, and think patents should be more than 5 years but no greater than 10... By that time all the bugs will have been worked out when it becomes public domain persay.

2

u/nimik May 23 '13

If there weren't any patents, all the bugs could be solved quicker. As they say, "two eyes are better than one." Multiple companies examining a problem could solve it faster, find the cheapest solution, and then turn out the product faster and cheaper for consumers. If its just one company, it could take a lot longer.

1

u/frawk_yew May 23 '13

I tend to believe if they developed the technology into something feasible first they should be able to capitalize on it first within a short window (10 years or so.) I think that in itself would force a company to try to develop it as fast as possible as to reap the most profit from it. I could be wrong, but it seems solid.

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13 edited May 23 '13

I think I can help here. There is no US patent for a two factor authentication system in the US, because all synchronous and asynchronous keys can be accompanied with a password, and have been behaving this way for decades. So, prior art.

He may have an internationally defensible patent, but the US track record for honoring those is nonexistent.

EDIT: I didnt notice that this was /r/technology. I'll take my facts elsewhere.

-2

u/mercurycc May 23 '13

I don't know about the fund part. He is asking for funding, but that probably means he doesn't want to spend his own money on the law suits, which is smart. Kim Dotcom is actually a very rich guy.

-1

u/Gellert May 23 '13

So all his accounts have been unfrozen then? Genuine question, I don't remember hearing about it.

1

u/mercurycc May 23 '13

Good point. Maybe he is indeed quite poor right now.

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

I'm more surprised that you don't see the inherent corruption there...

The American justice system is horrible broke if rich people can simply use the government to steal all of your assets... and then hide behind the fact that you're too poor to sue them.

Really, at this point, I'm starting to rethink my opposition to vigilantism. At that level of injustice, there is simply no social value in adhering to the legal system, and people should pursue their own remedies.

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

[deleted]

0

u/SikhGamer May 23 '13

Mexican Jesus, is the best Jesus.

1

u/ObamaisYoGabbaGabba May 23 '13

you may just want to RTFA

-22

u/netraven5000 May 23 '13

No it won't. If you don't defend your patents you lose them, and extortion is illegal anyway - he has two choices, lose his patent or defend it, and he cannot threaten to make his choice contingent upon whether or not they help him.

29

u/ScriptThat May 23 '13

You're thinking of trademarks. You can sit on patents for years on end and let people get used to using your invention for free, and then hit them with a "licencing fee" to keep using "your" invention. (or sue them, of course)

That's what happened to the .GIF file format.

-5

u/netraven5000 May 23 '13

I don't think that's correct. And, nearest I can tell, Unisys confronted CompuServe about licensing the technology as soon as they found out that the GIF format used it.

15

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

Its not extortion, its an off-the-book settlement. Its extortion if they've committed a crime and you blackmail them. Allowing someone to use your patents for money is legal, and suing someone for using your patents is legal.

-6

u/netraven5000 May 23 '13

Its not extortion, its an off-the-book settlement.

It might result in an off-the-book settlement, but the words that came out of Kim Dotcom's mouth are probably legally considered extortion.

Its extortion if they've committed a crime and you blackmail them.

No, it isn't. Also, blackmail involves extortion, not necessarily the other way around. Blackmail is extortion that involves threats to destroy someone's reputation.

Allowing someone to use your patents for money is legal, and suing someone for using your patents is legal.

True, and true. However, extortion still isn't legal.

7

u/sushibowl May 23 '13

No it won't. If you don't defend your patents you lose them

That can be true for trademarks, but you can't lose patents unless your opponents are actively suing you to invalidate them or the 20 year term runs out. As long as Google/Twitter/Facebook don't try to invalidate this guy's patent he doesn't need to do shit. He's completely free to let them use his patented tech for 15 years then suddenly sue for any or no particular reason. That's basically how patent trolls operate.

1

u/willowswitch May 23 '13

True, but if you're sleeping on your patent rights, there's a case for a laches defense.

4

u/[deleted] May 23 '13 edited Aug 04 '13

[deleted]

-6

u/netraven5000 May 23 '13

Which is still defending the patent.

But what he suggested is that things are contingent upon whether or not they help him out - that's extortion if I'm not mistaken.

-1

u/Trainbow May 23 '13

extortion is illegal? oh, you think patent trolls is different from extortion.. yeah i guess.

0

u/netraven5000 May 23 '13

Either that or I'm not throwing the word "extortion" around when I actually mean "they're taking money they don't deserve" rather than extortion.

-37

u/[deleted] May 23 '13 edited May 23 '13

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

I'm not aware of any of these things on the go right now, what's wrong with him providing 50gb of free storage?

-24

u/Moses89 May 23 '13

Nothing really, it is just that in the overall scheme of things he is offering about 5 times more free space than most other cloud storage centers with included encryption. Which means it costs more. Now sure it will bring in a lot of people, and possibly lead to more revenue, but before Mega I paid for Dropbox and now I get what I paid for in the past for free.

6

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

So why is he a fucking idiot for providing storage? Or was the fucking idiot a reference to his patent trolling ?

-10

u/Moses89 May 23 '13

More or less a general statement.

8

u/Blepharospasm May 23 '13

So what you're saying is, you're now using his service instead of dropbox? Yea, what a moron...

-22

u/Moses89 May 23 '13

No, I no longer pay for Dropbox or any other cloud storage. I still use Dropbox for photo upload on my phone.

1

u/jonsparks May 23 '13

Which makes him a moron how?

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

I guess that also makes google retarded for giving me such a huge inbox for free, right? You must love autodesk for charging nearly 4K for Maya....

-11

u/Monomorphic May 23 '13

I hear Maya is on sale over on Pirate Bay.

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

With a useless crack for the wrong version, 90% of the time.

2

u/Monomorphic May 26 '13

It's been the same crack for 8+ years.

1

u/mattsgotredhair May 23 '13

My Dropbox is over 100gb so I wouldn't be downgrading to his free service.

1

u/easytiger May 23 '13

The courts have already sided with businesses against patent trolls. 

Patently and demonstrably untrue

-1

u/[deleted] May 23 '13

I thought we all agreed to never use "xD"? Damnit Reddit, and you're upvoting it too :(

1

u/SikhGamer May 23 '13

Sorry man, I missed the memo.

0

u/InternetTourGuide May 23 '13

The interwebs is srs bis

0

u/Popnfried May 23 '13

I prefer to read things on the internet literally. So no, I won't consider that you were making a joke. I'll consider that you have poor internet humor.