funsec mailing list archives
Re: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent
From: "Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah" <rMslade () shaw ca>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:34:48 -0800
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 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.
Current thread:
- Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Kyle Quest (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Richard M. Smith (Mar 29)
- Re: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah (Mar 29)
- Re: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Drsolly (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Richard M. Smith (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Drsolly (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Richard M. Smith (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Roger Thompson (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Nick FitzGerald (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Richard M. Smith (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Nick FitzGerald (Mar 29)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Drsolly (Mar 30)
- RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Richard M. Smith (Mar 30)
- Re: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent Drsolly (Mar 29)
