Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don't Help Him

from the hmmm dept

So, a lot of people are talking about Kim Dotcom’s latest gambit, which was to point out that he holds a patent (US 6,078,908 and apparently others in 12 other countries as well) that covers the basics of two-factor authentication, with a priority date of April of 1997. While interesting, he goes on to point out that he’s never sued over the patent because “I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society.”

But… he says he may sue them now. Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent. He points out that his actual funds are still frozen by the DOJ and (more importantly) that his case actually matters a great deal to Google, Facebook and Twitter, because the eventual ruling will likely set a precedent that may impact them — especially around the DMCA. That’s actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don’t like Dotcom at all and don’t want to be associated with him. Bad cases make dangerous caselaw, so having a good defense would be useful.

That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don’t fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire. Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook, google, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don't Help Him”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
175 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Silver lining?

As stupid a move as I find trying to squeeze funds out of three very large companies to be, a possible side-effect from something like this is that any argument made, either by the government or the companies, against this instance of ‘pay me or get sued’ would also work just as well against patent trolls, and anything that makes their lives more difficult is all for the better.

out_of_the_blue says:

"I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."

But what he ACTUALLY does is steal the income stream from the work of others, and funnel it into his OWN pocket. Geez, that’s just sickening coming from a grifting millionaire.

But I hope Dotcom does sue over this alleged patent! What a bunch of tangles for Mike! He’d have to choose between Dotcom and Google, and whether Dotcom is just a patent troll! And this is VERY MUCH like extortion.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
If you’re against copyright, quit putting your name on posts! You don’t own the idea!
02:00:36[c- 1-0]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."

You do know that for normal, well-adjusted people it’s possible to be behind a person on one issue but against them on another right? It’s really not tangled at all, Kim is right on the Mega ‘conspiracy’ fight and wrong on patent trolling. It’s really that simple.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."

But what he ACTUALLY does is steal the income stream from the work of others, and funnel it into his OWN pocket. Geez, that’s just sickening coming from a grifting millionaire.

What, and record labels don’t?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110404/12211913771/record-labels-may-owe-artists-close-to-2-billion-lawsuits-ramp-up-with-rick-james-lead.shtml

Besides, Mike regularly calls them both out when they do something wrong or stupid, as Dotcom just did.

But don’t let your unrequited passion for Mike cloud your judgement or anything!

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."

What he does is run a file locker, it is as simple as that. For a thousand USD and people to spread the news anyone could out do Kim Dotcom and the pirate bay. To do this is simple. Onion routing, distributed search, and a simple file listing. All of it available on GitHub or Sourceforge.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."

“Yes, and John Gotti was just a simple businessman and carpenter.”

Gotti was tried and convicted, boy.
Dotcom hasn’t even been tried.
Are you an un-American scumbag who doesn’t follow the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, ass with no brain?

Anonymous Coward says:

Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.

I’m sure the prosecutor is grateful to Dotcom for his assistance in his own prosecution.

Kenneth Michaels (profile) says:

Re: Dotcom Can't sue

Well, Dotcom can sue, but the moment a defendant is ordered to pay, the DOJ would step in and order seizure of the proceeds. All Dotcom can do is sell full interest in the patent to a bona fide buyer at arms length – and in a foreign country.

That is why Dotcom has asked for anyone who is interested in buying the patents to contact him.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Is that it?

I read the article. What the fuck does this mean:

That’s actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don’t like Dotcom at all and don’t want to be associated with him.

To me, it implies that it’s OK for these companies to capitulate to a patent troll because the ends justify the means.

Arthur Treacher says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Read for comprehension!

You didn’t read and understand the article either, did you? I’ll explain, perhaps that will help.

The reason for tech companies to support Kim Dotcom is because the legal theory behind the prosecution would end up gutting DMCA protection of entities running web sites with cusomter-provided content. The tech companies should do this in spite of Kim Dotcom’s repulsive personality and flagrant behavior.

There, that was easy, wasn’t it? Maybe with a little work you can live up to the “average” part of your moniker, instead of being “4th quartile joe” in reading comprehension.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Read for comprehension!

LOL! It’s one thing to ask for another’s help, but quite another to threaten to sue another for patent infringement if they don’t cave into your demand for money. There’s a name for that. Oh yeah, patent trolling. If IV trolled someone but then pointed out that they should cave in because it was in their best interests on some unrelated matter, do you think Mike would think it was a good idea then? Of course not.

Besides, what precedent vis-a-vis the DMCA will be set here? I don’t think the DMCA applies in criminal cases, but even if it did, what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google? They are already protected by the DMCA. Dotcom isn’t going to affect that in any way I can think of. Maybe you can spell out the details for me? I mean, I’m stupid and you’re smart, so it should be simple for you.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!

what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google? They are already protected by the DMCA

So was Megaupload, they followed the DMCA, still had the safe harbors, the only reason they didn’t take down one file was because law enforcement told them not to.

So, by following the law, they got screwed over by the law.

You think that wouldn’t be something Google, Facebook or Twitter should worry about?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!

Of course it’s patent trolling (assuming the patent as granted is not 100% valid and correct or has obvious prior art – that has yet to be seen). But, Mike hasn’t denied that it is. AJ and his ilk are just busy creaming themselves because he didn’t write that specific phrase. They’re so used to lying about the points he’s made about Dotcom in previous articles, they’ve deluded themselves into thinking he supports everything he does.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!

I don’t want to put words in his mouth but the article doesn’t read like Mike thinks trolling is a good idea here either.

The DMCA doesn’t apply in criminal cases? The safe harbor is for criminal charges too. For a wannabe lawyer that’s a pretty stupid thing to say. Any case over the DMCA has the potential to set bad precedent (or good) what tilts this towards bad is that Kim isn’t a particularly sympathetic case. And it would absolutely be bad for the ‘tech’ industry as a whole if a bas precedent was set on the DMCA just because a court didn’t like Kim very much (a very real possibility).

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Read for comprehension!

The DMCA doesn’t apply in criminal cases? The safe harbor is for criminal charges too.

Why’s it stupid? I don’t say things unless I have some basis for thinking it. See, for example, Copyhype: http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/megaupload-and-the-dmca/

Even if the safe harbors were possible, there would be no protection for a person who otherwise would meet of standard of a criminal infringer.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Read for comprehension!

As I said before, Megaupload was protected by Safe Harbors as they followed the DMCA in taking down any file that was said to be infringing.

The only reason they left that one up was because law enforcement said to not take it down.

They got screwed over by the law for following the law.

So, even if you think that other companies would be unaffected because they have Safe Harbors, remember that Megaupload did as well, and look at what happened.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Read for comprehension!

If IV trolled someone but then pointed out that they should cave in because it was in their best interests on some unrelated matter, do you think Mike would think it was a good idea then?

Does Mike think it’s a good idea now?

No. He called it “a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire.” Admittedly, I’d like him to use stronger language too, but what can you do.

On the other hand – if it were IV doing this sort of trolling, you would be on their side, saying that they’re just “protecting their property,” and that anyone who is against it just hates patent law and loves patent piracy, or some such nonsense.

Then, spam the comments with some misreading of unrelated case law, or misstatements of the Founders’ opinions, or multiple “Y u no debate meeeee!” posts at Mike, or some other idiotic attempt to derail the conversation. Just like you always do.

I don’t think the DMCA applies in criminal cases, but even if it did, what’s going to happen that would affect others like Google?

That’s not the only issue, of course, but even if it were, then it would mean that the government could seize Google (or whoever the next Google is), even though they are completely compliant with the DMCA.

All they would have to do is take Viacom’s accusations (or whoever the next equivalent of Viacom is), claim that shows probable cause for criminal infringement, and boom! Instant seizure, shutdown, and arrest. No DMCA defense, no advance notice, no prior chance to defend their actions. And all their assets would be frozen, so no money to mount a legal defense.

That’s exactly what happened to Megaupload.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Read for comprehension!

The reason for tech companies to support Kim Dotcom is because the legal theory behind the prosecution would end up gutting DMCA protection of entities running web sites with cusomter-provided content. The tech companies should do this in spite of Kim Dotcom’s repulsive personality and flagrant behavior.

That may be true. But they’re not being asked. They’re being told. As Masnick states above:

“Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent.”

Again, the ends are being used to justify the means. As long as you know what a stupendous hypocrite you are, I’m fine with this.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Read for comprehension!

Here’s Masnick’s headline, in case you missed it:

Kim Dotcom Threatens To Sue Google, Facebook And Twitter Over 2-Factor Authentication Patent If They Don’t Help Him

And here’s a later line from his story:

“Specifically, he’s asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent.”

That is Msasnick parsing words, not me. I see it for the extortion it is: Fund Dotcom’s defense or be sued for an unrelated matter.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Is that it?

Of course he’s a patent troll (or acting like one in this case at least). Nothing in the article denies that.

“Is that it?”

Yes, apparently Mike has to use very specific language in his articles, else morons will come and attack him. Do you have a problem with any of the points in the article, or are you just the latest in a long line of people to whine whenever Mike doesn’t write what you want him to like? You certainly seem to be using the same tactics as the other idiots rather than address anything actually said. “Not a regular commenter” my ass.

horse with no name says:

Re: Re: Is that it?

Do you have a problem with any of the points in the article, or are you just the latest in a long line of people to whine whenever Mike doesn’t write what you want him to like?

Yup, I have a problem with this. This article makes patent trolling sound like a wonderful and acceptable way to do things, as long as it’s someone on the “good guys for piracy” list. If anyone else was doing this (and I mean anyone not in the anti-copyright anti-patent side of things) the article would be a huge swipe at the nasty patent trolls who were abusing the system for profit and trying to scam money. I am sure there would be some insinuations of forum shopping and perhaps a sideways joke about it being an “East Texas patent” or something like that.

Eliminate Kim from the discussion, and this would be a standard patent troll story with angry assumptions. Why go so soft on Kim?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Is that it?

And you average-joe by making comments on this website you tooo are worshiping Mike, you may not think you are but you are doing so. Every comment is a worship to Mike didn’t you know that so if you don’t want to worship Mike then don’t comment on this site, simple enough really.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Is that it?

If this was any one else except the sainted Kim Dotcom, you would be all over them for being weasels and patent trolls.

Is that it?

Bingo. The only problem Mike perceives here is that this might hurt Dotcom in his upcoming legal case. The patent trolling itself is not a problem, and in fact, he thinks it’s a good idea that these companies capitulate to his ultimatum. Incredible. Yet, not. Because it’s Mike.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is patent trolling at its finest, not even thinly veiled:

I have this patent, see, and you infringe on it. It would be a shame if I had to go to court with you over it… why don’t you just cooperate with me?

Where, with most patent trolls, “cooperate” means “fork over some money”, in this case it means… fork over some money.

Akari Mizunashi (profile) says:

Well, as unpleasant as the demand looks, it’s a sad state of affairs that those who are in this world have to use threats like this all the time.

Personally, I see this as no different than Google’s buyouts of patents. “Don’t sue us or else!”

I mean, by now everyone should know these laws aren’t about protection of “rights”.

OldGeezer (profile) says:

My bank’s web site has been doing this for some time. I would think that the fact that this is such a common practice shows that there is nothing unique or patentable. Patents on such general concepts can only be used for one thing: trolling. I seriously doubt that anyone was even aware of Dotcom’s patent and made a decision to steal it. This is not going to help him in his legal problems. It just makes him look so hypercritical.

twilightfog says:

I feel for this guy, standing alone and fighting against the corrupt prosecution funded by an entire country. He had this patent since 1997 and if he wanted to sue to make profits, he would have done it already. Instead he chose to compete in the open market by launching innovative services. When DOJ shut him down because their MPAA bosses didn’t like him, it is any wonder that he’s using the patents he owns to get money for his defense. Google, Facebook should be on his side already as this case would indeed decide the future of tech business in US.

DannyB (profile) says:

Prior Art

The book Applied Cryptography, an extensive work on the subject describes multiple-factor authentication.

The book describes that at the most basic level, you can prove your identity three ways:
1. Something you know (eg, password, PIN, etc)
2. Something you have (eg, building key, electronic fob, etc)
3. Something you are (eg, retina scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, etc)

Banks have used two factor authentication for years. An ATM wants something you Know (PIN) and something you have (plastic card).

The military often uses something you Are and something you Know. The guard must personally recognize you and you better know the password of the day. Failure may result in getting shot — especially around nukes.

Google uses something you Know (password) and something you have (your mobile phone with a pre arranged app).

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Prior Art

Just to add a bit more, the book describes why people use cryptography. One of the uses is to ensure privacy from government intrusion. The author even describes that one day this may be necessary even for citizens in the United States.

It’s been a long, looooong time since I read the book, but I seem to recall it is on about page 100 (maybe 99, or 101), and it is long before September 11, 2001.

He describes that if there were a terrorist attack on the US, perhaps an large attack on, say, New York, that liberties and privacy may be curtailed severely.

Wow. He was quite insightful.

Like I said, it is an outstanding book. Also large, thick and heavy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Prior Art

Correct. Prior art on this exists for a very long time.

For example, to launch a nuclear weapon you (allegedly) have to use two keys – that are given to two different people – simultaneously, and the mechanism is designed so that one person cannot engage the mechanism on his own.

It’s not quite authentication. It’s more of a two-factor failsafe mechanism: no one person can fire a nuclear weapon. But the principle is the same.

In any event. such a thing has existed for decades. Unsurprisingly, some douchebag managed to get a patent on this…presumably because he put “on the internet” on the patent application.

average_joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Prior Art

In any event. such a thing has existed for decades. Unsurprisingly, some douchebag managed to get a patent on this…presumably because he put “on the internet” on the patent application.

But this is Mike’s buddy’s patent, so validity will not be discussed on TD. If IV was waving this patent around, Mike would be going ABSOLUTELY APESHIT. The double-standard is hilarious.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Prior Art

Joe are you really this dense or just trying to compete with blue?

If you actually read what has ben written you’ll see that Mike thinks it’s stupid for Kim to be patent trolling.

He does however make the point that these other companies might be in serious trouble if Km loses his case.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Prior Art

ust like OOTB. AJ doesn’t actually read the entire article. Otherwise he would have noticed that Mike said it was a bad idea. It is much easier to make a stand when you take things out of context.

Here’s what mini-Masnick said about Dr. Evil:

“That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don’t fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire. Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.”

That is in marked contrast from his usual bile over patent and copyright trolls he doesn’t worship.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Prior Art

And you, and other apologists, don’t see the problem if Megaupload loses, do you?

That’s because, unlike other copyright and patent trolls, and I disagree with Dotcom on this issue, but unlike others who only seek to gain money and do nothing else, the Megaupload case DOES apply to other internet companies. If Megaupload loses, it won’t be long before the MAFIAAA decides that if they can take down Megaupload, why not try for Youtube, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, ETC.?

There’s more at stake here than someone being a patent troll, which is unlike other patent trolls which just seek to cause disruption in the market place.

If Megaupload fails in court, then the entire internet community could be in trouble.

Remember how we reacted to SOPA?

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re: Prior Art

Did you even read the article or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass again?

First of all, if you read it, Mike’s not condoning this behavior at all.

Secondly, if Megaupload does go to trial and loses because Dotcom can’t get the finances to fund his defense properly, how long until Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites start getting hit with the same problems that Megaupload got hit with? I’d assume not very long.

So, even if it’s something that none of us really like (and if it was anyone BUT Megaupload, you would be cheering for them suing Google, Facebook and Twitter), the fact is, the alternative of Megaupload losing the case is BAD for the rest of the internet.

Or is your brain too alcohol-inebriated to understand that?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Prior Art

“Correct. Prior art on this exists for a very long time.”

If that was the case that prior art should have been patented, and Kim would not have been issued with the patent in the first place.

Fact is!!! He was given a patent for it, and without any challenges to prior art, Kim would have also been required to do a patent search for prior art, as would the patent office.. That’s how you get patents, and why patent searches when applying for a patent is necessary.

So the argument of prior art does not even come into this case, oh btw: point to some prior art that has been patented that makes this patent void please.

otherwise STFU, you don’t know what your talking about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Prior Art

Last I checked, the prior art requirement doesn’t require that a previous patent exists. It just requires that a device that performs the functions stated in the patent in the same or a similar manner exists.

Take the wheel as an example. The wheel (in it’s traditional form, not the strange/wacky modern reinventions of the wheel) was never patented yet, you can’t just go to the USPTO and say “I want to patent the wheel”. You can’t because prior art exists.

Of course, IANAL, if anyone wants to pitch it, please do.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Prior Art

you can’t just go to the USPTO and say “I want to patent the wheel”. You can’t because prior art exists.

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.

Then once someone “infringes” by making a wheel of their own, they get sued by the patent holder. It is now the defendant’s burden to show that the patent is invalid, as an affirmative defense.

That actually happened in the Apple v. Samsung case. Apple’s “rubber banding” patent was invalidated as prior art – after the jury had awarded a $1-billion judgement against Samsung.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Prior Art

Quote:

you can’t just go to the USPTO and say “I want to patent the wheel”. You can’t because prior art exists.

Hmmm…I don’t think he ever searched the USPTO for anything, you definitely can patent a wheel, see how many omni-directional-wheels or wheels with some different arrangement there are.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Prior Art

If that was the case that prior art should have been patented,
and Kim would not have been issued with the patent in the first place.

That is outright not true in two different ways.

1. The prior art does not need a patent to prevent subsequent patenting. The prior art only needs publication.

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?

AndyD273 (profile) says:

Racketeering

Seems like it might depend a bit on the approach.

Something like “hey guys, so I have this patent, and I really don’t want to use it to sue anyone, but I have these legal bills and no money. Now, if I lose, it could hurt you too, so why not help me out, I’ll license it to you at a very reasonable rate, and we can keep the lawyers out of it.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication

See my Prior Art post above. It covers all three of the most basic ways that you can authenticate.

Four, Five and other Poly-Factor authentication is just re-using one or more of the basic three factors.

1. Something you know (password, PIN, passphrase)
2. Something you have (ATM card, RSA fob device, building key, passport, etc)
3. Something you are (fingerprint, retina scan, voiceprint, DNA, how you type, pressure patterns of your handwriting, etc)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication

well done idiot, you listed 3 “ways” to do something, but nothing ON THE FUCKING METHOD INVOLVED in making them a reality.

and as you should well know, (but clearly do not) patents are A METHOD to achieve a result, NOT THE FUCKING result itself.

This one apparently is “A METHOD OF PASSWORD” authentication.

Notice it is not THE method, or the only method possible, but it is simply A METHOD.

for example, “A method of supplying fuel to an internal combustion engine” Might describe the method of using a type of carburettor, ANOTHER METHOD might be using a form of FUEL Injector.

You don’t patent ‘feeding fuel to an engine’ you patent A METHOD of feeding fuel into an engine.

Therefore this is a method of password authentication, it is NOT the method.

Just as prior art does not apply between carburation and fuel injection it does not apply here.

Anonymous Coward says:

what a freak, and freaking JOKE

Extortion anyone, oh but wait, he is the focus of Masnicks Bromance, so it’s ok.

Masnick would not want to do anything to rock the boat of his love affair with Mr Kim. (Bow when you say his name).

Lets watch Mick the nick dance this fine line between reality and Masnicks dream world.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: what a freak, and freaking JOKE

You know, if you guys added clarity and sanity to your comments, you might not look like idiots and people might even agree with you.

You can always tell when the article is essentially correct. Half the trolls try to deflect from the article, while others either attack the author or act like they just ate the strange looking mushroom they found in the back of the fridge.

Anonymous Coward says:

What no one even bothered to consider is how the heck did he manage to get such a ridiculous patent? What patent office on crack approved this patent to begin with? I suppose no one even considers the question anymore, we all take for granted that the patent office approves the most bogus patents and so it’s no longer even worth discussing.

DanZee (profile) says:

It's all blackmail

I think Kim Dotcom is just being honest about something that takes place every day, namely corporate lawyers using legal blackmail to make other companies and individuals do what they want. Here, Dotcom will give Amazon, etc., a license to use his patent in return for joining him on his lawsuit and loaning him money until he can unfreeze his assets. Companies make these sorts of arrangements all the time. Kim’s just being more upfront about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

otcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies "give me money or I'll sue" isn't the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

just read where Dotcom lost the patent in EU because AT&T got it. also read where there is a problem with the same patent in the USA over dates of registration, so he could be in for a swift rebuttal. however, the point about the effect the ‘wrong’ outcome of his case on those three and a lot more, is quite valid. sooner or later the likes of Google is gonna have to step up to the plate and make some sort of stand against the entertainment industries. they have already seen that no matter what a site tries to do to please those industries, it is never enough. they simply keep coming back for more, so you might as well do nothing from day one. on top of that, Google among others are constantly hauled over the coals by Congress. surely it must be getting pissed off with this? i certainly would be and be seriously looking for somewhere else to set up shop where the country/government concerned appreciated having a really, really major employer and tax payer.

average_joe (profile) says:

Here’s coverage of Dotcom’s patent trolling from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/kim-dotcom-claims-he-invented-two-factor-authentication-but-he-wasnt-first/ and Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/23/kim-dotcom-authentication-patents and IPCopy: http://ipcopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/kim-dotcom-and-the-two-factor-authentication-patent-inventor-or-not/

All suggest that the patent may not be valid, and there’s even info about the equivalent patent abroad being ruled invalid in 2011. Funny how Mike, who loves to jump on the invalidity train, instead focuses on how this might be bad for Dotcom’s pending criminal trial. No mention of how terrible trolling is or questions of the patent’s validity. But yeah, Mike, you’re not giving him a free pass. You’re treating him like you would any other troll. Obviously. LMAO!

Sheogorath (profile) says:

Another way of looking at it

Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies “give me money or I’ll sue” isn’t the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.
Yes, Dotcom’s words could imply that, but they could also imply “I could have sued you and didn’t, so now it’s time for you to return the favour.”

metta says:

Is he trolling an individual or net data dealing huge companies?

If he was targeting an individual that would be quite dumbass. But he is asking that to Gloogle, Facebk, Twittr. Like it is said in the article, those are companies having an interest in the ruling. Between, some of them seems to be already deep involved in the patent trolling fight. I am not so sure you can call that racket in our today world.

Anonymous Coward says:

After Michelin filed the patent for the first radial X tire for cars in 1946, the radial tire clearly demonstrated its superiority.

Look Michelin ‘patented the wheel’, except they did not, nor was “the wheel” “prior art”, they patented A METHOD of the wheel.

One day you may work out the difference, but I expect probably not.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...