<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Latest Techdirt Comments</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<description>Easily digestible tech news....</description>
<item>
<title>Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1339</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DannyB]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:07:01 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1339</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[See my Prior Art post above.  It covers all three of the most basic ways that you can authenticate.<br />
<br />
Four, Five and other Poly-Factor authentication is just re-using one or more of the basic three factors.<br />
<br />
1. Something you know (password, PIN, passphrase)<br />
2. Something you have (ATM card, RSA fob device, building key, passport, etc)<br />
3. Something you are (fingerprint, retina scan, voiceprint, DNA, how you type, pressure patterns of your handwriting, etc)]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: &quot;reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c509</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lord_Unseen]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:06:32 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c509</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[You know that doesn't really contradict his claims, right? It could be considered trademark infringement if the character in question is trademarked. Sadly, nearly all of Disney's characters are trademarked.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Prior Art</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1329</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DannyB]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:03:11 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1329</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[&gt; If that was the case that prior art should have been patented,<br />
&gt; and Kim would not have been issued with the patent in the first place.<br />
<br />
<br />
That is outright not true in two different ways.<br />
<br />
1. The prior art does not need a patent to prevent subsequent patenting.  The prior art only needs <i>publication</i>.<br />
<br />
2. Even if the prior art were patented this doesn't mean the broken USPTO wouldn't grant more patents on it.  The more the merrier right?]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1311</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:03:10 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1311</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<i>It is being discussed on TD you troll.</i><br />
<br />
Where in the article does Mike suggest the patent might be invalid? Seems like you're the one trolling by pretending like Mike said something he didn't.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>provided a FAQ that details everything purchasers can and can't do with their purchased movies.</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/10290323174/vod-service-acetrax-shuts-down-germany-customers-movies-are-lost-due-to-drm.shtml#c3</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[weneedhelp]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:02:32 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/10290323174/vod-service-acetrax-shuts-down-germany-customers-movies-are-lost-due-to-drm.shtml#c3</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Um any time you need to provide an FAQ for what you can and cant do with legally purchased content... the pirates have won again.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Prior Art</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1292</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DannyB]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:00:58 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1292</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[&gt; so validity will not be discussed on TD.<br />
<br />
It is being discussed on TD you troll.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1289</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 09:00:10 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1289</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[What is the practical implication of "the tech industry to think about participating in the case,"? <br />
<br />
An amicus brief won't be worth a bucket of warm spit in the absence of a vigorous defense. Clearly, the implication is that the 'tech industry' (Google, Facebook, Twitter) should fund Fat Bastard's litigation. Which is exactly what he is demanding in exchange for not suing them for patent infringement.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: &amp;quot;I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society.&amp;quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1287</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[DannyB]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:58:06 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1287</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[That.<br />
<br />
That right there.  It shows that those who love copyright so much don't even know what it is and what it is not.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c168</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jessie]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:54:58 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c168</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Well, I tried it out for everyone.  Siri does not understand "I'm going to kill my wife".  So don't worry, it's still safe to use Siri to help you plot your next murder.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c161</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Muir]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:54:08 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c161</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[The last thing we need is the 911 call centers clogged up with even more "non-emergency" calls.  It is already a real problem when people dial on purpose and want to complain about their neighbor's dog barking for the last three hours.  Of course it's okay if the nature of the call is: "If that dog doesn't shut up I will kill myself and then the rest of the neighborhood. Or something."]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1264</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[average_joe]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:52:33 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1264</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[While we're talking about Kim D., Mike, any chance that you can directly and honestly admit that there is in fact an allegation of specific criminal infringement in the indictment (for "Taken")? You've denied this in the past even though it's undeniably true. Any chance you could just admit it? Thanks.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: &quot;reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law&quot;</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c492</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:51:17 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c492</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Figures. This bullshit comes from Peter Keel of the Pirate Party. Obviously, he's confused wishful thinking with fact.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1247</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:51:06 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1247</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<em>then you said that his victims should consider paying up and playing along</em><br />
<br />
Except he said no such thing. He said it was a good idea for "the tech industry to think about participating in the case," <strong>not</strong> that it was a good idea for them to "pay up." Not once did he say that the tech companies should give in to the patent trolling, just that they have an interest in the outcome of the case.<br />
<br />
Once again, you're lying. What a shocker.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re:</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1228</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:50:18 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1228</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[It's not different <i>at all</i>.  It's a fucking stupid move by Dotcom.<br />
<br />
<i>However</i>, I can understand why he's gone down that route, even if I think it's a massively idiotic move.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Unlimited Talk</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130521/20101423164/att-says-you-can-use-any-video-streaming-app-you-want-just-as-soon-as-it-can-get-meter-running.shtml#c345</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[kitsune361]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:49:44 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130521/20101423164/att-says-you-can-use-any-video-streaming-app-you-want-just-as-soon-as-it-can-get-meter-running.shtml#c345</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[What's funnier is how we've been paying a premium for SMS messaging all these years.  Newsflash, those SMS messages are typically piggybacked on existing "heartbeat" transmissions to the cell towers.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>not so unusual</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c129</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Griffdog]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:47:54 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c129</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[I carry my blackberry in my front pocket with the keyboard locked, and I still manage to butt dial 911 nearly every month.  The phone allows making an "Emergency Call" even when it's supposed to be "locked", a feature that cannot be disabled.  Doesn't require pushing any of the keyboard buttons, just the big roller ball.  I'm sure it's supposed to be a "feature," but it's sure embarrassing when a very loud voice comes from my pocket asking me the nature of my emergency.  Happened three times in one hour, once.  I've since learned of a second way to lock the phone, but it gets disabled after receiving a call, so I still make an occassional accidental call to 911 when I forget to re-engage the lockout.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hustler</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1224</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[slick8086]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:46:14 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1224</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Kim Dotcom is the Larry Flint of file lockers.  Instead of throwing oranges at the the judge he's throwing them at Google et al.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>otcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies &quot;give me money or I'll sue&quot; isn't the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1221</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous Coward]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:44:19 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1221</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[Actually, DotCom could be providing the world with an invaluable service if he does get slapped with racketeering charges for being a patent troll.  Good precedent, that, useful in umpty-ump million other patent troll cases, if it goes that way.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title>Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art</title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1218</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karl]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:44:07 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c1218</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<em>you can't just go to the USPTO and say "I want to patent the wheel". You can't because prior art exists.</em><br />
<br />
Actually, yes, you could. The patent examiner would do a cursory search for prior art, but patent examiners are notoriously lousy at this, because a) they're not experts in the field, and/or b) they're swamped, and/or c) they're under pressure to approve as many patents as possible.<br />
<br />
Then once someone "infringes" by making a wheel of their own, they get sued by the patent holder. It is now the <em>defendant's</em> burden to show that the patent is invalid, as an affirmative defense.<br />
<br />
That actually happened in the Apple v. Samsung case. Apple's "rubber banding" patent was invalidated as prior art - <em>after</em> the jury had awarded a $1-billion judgement against Samsung.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c107</link>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon]]></dc:creator>
<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 08:42:53 PDT</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130523/01030023182/man-butt-dials-911-while-discussing-murder-plot.shtml#c107</guid>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[His phone is probably password locked, but allows emergency calls (to 911) even if the phone is locked. I've accidentally dialed 911 on other phones before (which is why I don't keep my phone in my back pocket anymore). Fortunately I was at work, and not discussing murder plans.]]></content:encoded>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>