News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security Patent, Work With Me.

Re:Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security P... by cunac on Thursday May 23, 2013 @10:28AM (#5756969)
I don't see how this is valid patent. He just changed delivery method from mail; as described in prior art section; to more modern (SMS etc..) but he didn't invent any new process. Why change of delivery medium would be sufficient to grant patent?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security P... by dspillett on Thursday May 23, 2013 @10:47AM (#5757087)
You might be right for how the system is supposed to judge validity, but how many patents have been successfully used and abuse that are nothing more than "<insert_old_idea_here> over the Internet"?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security P... by genwin on Thursday May 23, 2013 @10:40AM (#5757039)
The patent clerk has about 7 hours on average to examine prior art. The clerk may not be technologically savvy.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security P... by dtp on Thursday May 23, 2013 @10:52AM (#5757125)
Exactly. And even once the patent is granted, prior art can be re-examined in the courtroom when a lawsuit is brought. I'm not an expert or anything, but I wouldn't expect this patent to stand up in court.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security P... by genwin on Thursday May 23, 2013 @11:11AM (#5757234)
The court is usually in Eastern Texas. Expect the unexpected there.
[ Parent | on HN ]