Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security Patent, Work With Me (opens in new tab)

Had trouble getting your last paragraph right, double negative makes it harder to read. Agreed with what you said though, he knows there is no trial possible over it.

We've well established at this point that the archaic US Patent System and software patents in general are not good for inventors, consumers, or the economy in general.

They are good for lobbyists and entrenched megacorporations, however, which means we can ignore all that and it's good for the public. Now go take your medicine, slave.

Don't confuse commonplace with simple. I think lots of people argue that a patent is trivial, because the idea has gained adoption and become universal. At the time of invention something might be totally groundbreaking, but a critical part of every household 10 years on.

I'm not saying that is the case here (A quick Google search finds SecurID was released in ~1994-1995), but the dismissive attitude of patents in general because you've come to rely on the technology really irks me.

1. Patent system is broken, you said it. So is copyright and many other systems or maybe nearly all of them.

2. Now, the guy just wants to fight it according to the broken system and if nothing else then at least the double standard (of authorities/govt) will come out evident.

Having said these, his patent is just too generic but then so are many "touch", "pinch", "zoom", "rectangular computing devices" patents and we have had very interesting verdicts from around the world.

I read it yesterday.

The patent refers to authorisation, not authentication. They are different. The usage described is distinct from 2-factor authentication as practiced by Google et al.

IMO he's just grandstanding and will be rightly ignored.

IANAL, TINLA.

I think this is very, very clearly abuse of the patent system, and kim dotcom knows this. every time there's a highly-public and totally absurd abuse of the patent system it erodes the system a little bit more. I would never suspect apple or oracle of attempting to erode the patent system by bringing absurd lawsuits, but it certainly sounds like the sort of thing that kim dotcom might do. I won't be so quick to judge him, given his stance on IP in general.

of course, i could be wrong and maybe he's just a massive hypocrite.

I wouldn't have called this as patent abuse, he came up with a neat idea, and applied for a patent. He didn't use it, but that doesn't invalidate that he came up with the idea, he just moved on. He hasn't sold it to anyone, he's never used it aggressively. He's being a dick now and saying "I might have to sue you!", but it's not patent abuse in the way Intellectual Ventures approaches it.

Edit; Actually, I don't think it's patent abuse as much as it is good old fashioned extortion.

But let's be careful and not attribute opinions from different individuals as incoherence by the whole community. Not everyone here agrees with the prevailing opinion on the patent system.

I think this is more a case of "give them a taste of their own medicine," or at least that Kim Dotcom wants it to be viewed that way.

[Edit: OR maybe not, should have read the entire article first...]

Uhm, I'm for changing patent law and I'm also for patents being abused as much as possible. The latter is linked to the former. People are never going to change patent law unless it hurts them.

I don't want people not to do it - some people are always going to do it and the longer it goes on the greater the damage - I want it not to be doable, have a decisive engagement, so to speak, and have the problem put to bed for a while.

I am a proponent of changing IP laws, but this does not seem to run a muck of the type of abuse typical of most patent trolls. KIM obviously developed this system, because he is/was intimately involved in the industry and he likely invented the patent in question, and actually used or intended to use the same in commerce.

Whereas your typical patent troll buys IP for the sole purpose of shaking people down, trolls usually did not invent or file the patent themselves, and they usually never have any intent to utilize the IP in the market. Additionally, patent trolls usually hold patents on patents that should not have been registered in the first place (they were obvious or the technology was already in the stream of commerce before the registration).

Disclaimer: I emailed KIM with interest in researching the issue, performing due diligence, and maybe enforcement per the article. Though any response will be maintained confidential. I also have a track record of supporting KIM on the underlying legal problem, including a few posts/comments here on HN.

On the other hand, this sort of high-profile strong arming could be helpful in changing opinions about software patents. Someone using software patents to blackmail companies into pouring money into a case against the US govt might be exactly what we need to change the opinions of some congresspeople...

At the end of the article:

“Want to buy the worldwide license to my two-factor-authentication patent? (13 countries incl. US & China) Email: twitter@kim.com,” he concludes.

edit: I may be wrong, is buying "the worldwide license" different from buying the patent?

Some other group who buys the patent from him, paying his bills and then some, would sue to enforce the patent rights.

He's a smart guy, you'd think he'd try to broker these deals through more discrete channels if he were actually serious. All this theatre ensures the companies Kim's trying to court won't touch him with anything like a $50m pole. He's fun to watch but a bit of a trainwreck.

Why? Do you favor extortion?

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"?

The patent clerk has about 7 hours on average to examine prior art. The clerk may not be technologically savvy.

Aaron Swartz needed a few million dollar for his defense (probably the main cause of suicide).

I don't think $50 million for someone like Kim who was probably at the top of the list of the Obama administration along with Osama Bin Laden, is that outrageous.

Actually, that's only 50x more than a person would need to spend to defend a federal criminal suit in the US. It is a big number, but not completely outlandish, especially for someone the government has it in for.

Probably includes a public relations team, campaign contributions and other favors in kind. Given the about-face by the NZ gov't (in a short time too) I can believe $50 million.

Do you speak with any experience or have any information that might be able to back your claim? I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to see an informed discussion.

It's Kim DotCom. He's both figuratively and literally larger than life.

But no worse than what large companies and the US gov't routinely do.

That doesn't mean it's illegal. He's just trying to right a wrong.

> Don't you have to actively defend your patent?

No, you don't. You may be thinking of trademarks, which you do have to defend or license to avoid dilution.

You may say that this is a problem with the patent system. But here on HN, we already know how broken the patent system is, don't we?

I could see a company or investor group buying this patent from him at $50M+. It's worth more even at a penny per authentication.