White House Says It Can Withhold Vulnerabilities If It Will Help Them Catch 'Intellectual Property Thieves'

from the say-what-now? dept

We've been among those critical of the White House for the administration's dangerous policy of not revealing security vulnerabilities it discovers, as it seeks to exploit them. In trying to respond to some of the criticism about this policy, the White House has put out a blog post by White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Michael Daniel, in which he explains how the intelligence community determines whether to disclose a vulnerability... or hoard it for its own use. He lists out three potential reasons for not disclosing:
Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks.
As Marcy Wheeler points out, withholding the release of such vulnerabilities for terrorism purposes is not new or surprising. Ditto for so-called cybersecurity (protecting against "hackers or other adversaries" looking to "exploit our networks") What's a bit of a surprise is the new inclusion of "intellectual property theft." However, the NSA, DHS and various supporters have long used claims of China "stealing intellectual property" as an excuse to try to ratchet up surveillance powers. Rep. Mike Rogers, author of CISPA, used the "scary Chinese stealing our IP!" FUD card to push CISPA a few years ago. And former cybesecurity czar Richard Clarke has argued that China stealing intellectual property is a good reason for DHS to be able to spy on all internet traffic.

So, the fact that this argument is used as a sort of "cybersecurity" claim perhaps isn't that surprising. However, it still seems like a massive logical leap to go from "well we need to protect corporate intelletual property from the Chinese" to arguing that's a good reason for withholding the disclosure of key technical vulnerabilities that might put everyone at risk. Does anyone honestly believe that the US government should withhold details of a major technical vulnerability... just so it can catch some IP infringers?

And of course, by broadly allowing the NSA and others to fail to patch vulnerabilities, because they want to "prevent intellectual property theft," it's just opening up the whole system to be abused even more widely than before. Sure, they may mean "stopping Chinese hackers from swiping plans for a new fighter jet," but vaguely denoting that it can withhold info on zero day vulnerabilities because of "pirates" seems wide open to abuse -- especially given the way many in law enforcement and the administration seem to want to equate every day file sharers with "internet terrorists" or whatever.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 9:26am

    by broadly allowing the NSA and others to fail to patch vulnerabilities

    Open source. May not be immune to issues but at least you can check the code and at least reveal the vulnerabilities to the world regardless of what some NSA moron says.

    As for the IP trope I don't think they should be worried about foreigners "stealing" their IP. They are doing their best at killing it before it's even born with the insanity that IP laws are nowadays.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 9:52am

    They will have to explain how keeping 0days open stops IP thieves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Michael, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:07am

    Can we please stop calling these guys the "intelligence" community?

    They seem to have stopped using any intelligence more than a decade ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Scote, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:09am

    We have to keep the internet open to IP theft to save it from IP theft!

    Amazing that it doesn't occur to these geniuses that leaving internet vulnerabilities undisclosed leaves it open to IP theft.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:12am

    In short...

    We would rather leave the Country we have an "Oath to Protect" openly vulnerable so we can catch one more person that might infringe on IP?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:13am

    About the only way that the Chines or others could steal IP these days if to physically steal the computers holding it. Failing to get zero days fixed is just leaving the the door open to foreign governments copying all the information that they can get hold of, as they can be assumed to be at least as competent in finding them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:13am

    "that could thwart a terrorist attack [sic] stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks. "

    "our nation's"
    "other adversaries"
    "our networks"

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:16am

    It's all a big fucking joke. They make any excuse up they want to justify breaking the laws they create. It's all that "Do as we say not as we do" bullshit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Just Another Anonymous Troll, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:18am

    What is going through the govt's head

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG P1R4T3Z WILL BE STEALIN ALL OUR STUFFZ! MUST LEAVE NETWORKS OPEN TO H4X0RZ TO DEFEND HOLLYWOODS OBSCENE PROFTZ!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    Sometimes I wonder if the Obama administration is actually trying to poke and prod this nation into active rebellion? Bush had a great start with DHS, we should have rebelled then, but the coward that is America would not have any of it.

    I listened back and forth to talk radio as every yakker just bent over and spread their asscheeks for Uncle Sam under Dubya... and now people seem to be doing it for Obamy now.

    According to the law, we are all already terrorists...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Andy, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:31am

    What!!!!!

    I believe that most Americans will be relieved when they know that their search and cloud and email is safe from legal prying eyes in the US.

    Most people do not actually care that China is gaining access to American secrets, as long as they don't touch Americans data like the American congress allows and protects. They then supply all Americans with advanced devices that they sell rather cheaply and yes their build quality if improving tremedously

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:31am

    PITIFUL FLESHLINGS! SECURITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! RGHAAAARHHH!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Chris Brand, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:37am

    Definitions

    What's the bet that they also classify knowledge of a vulnerability as "intellectual property" ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Kenneth Michaels, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:39am

    Clever redefinitions

    The year is 2005, a two step plan:
    Step 1. Redefine copyright infringement as "intellectual property theft."
    Step 2. Redefine "misappropriation of trade secrets" as "intellectual property theft."

    Result:
    1. what should read: "to stop the misappropriation of trade secrets by foreign black-hat hackers cracking into our computers"
    2. becomes: "to stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property"
    3. the latter includes copyright infringement!!! Yea!

    Skip ahead to 2012: These new definitions allow the United States Government to use undisclosed exploits to hack into Kim Dotcom's computers to bring him down under dubious interpretations of US copyright law!! Yippie!! Plan worked. Lets keep it going!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:40am

    Obama hates it when privacy rights are enforced

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    AricTheRed (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:42am

    Re: In short...

    I've said it before and I'll say it again!

    OATHBREAKERS!

    And the problem is it is now trickling down from the top of the executive branch. Even if no one would acknowledge it they (I believe) conciously or unconciously take their ques from The Oathbreaker In Chief, even if they disagree with the policies and decisions that are implimented.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: In short...

    No doubt, its not hard to reason that if the mice get to see the cat lie, cheat, and break the rules... then it must be okay for the mice too.

    American citizens are the cheese, without the protection of a mouse trap or the cat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Applesauce, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:48am

    Correctional Corporation of America

    Putting people in jail is more important than keeping America (or the country's cyber infrastructure) safe.

    How much did the private prison industry contribute to the Obama campaign?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    AricTheRed (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re: In short...

    All this time Wifey was saying my jokes were cheesey, I guess I now know the problem is more systemic than she thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:58am

    The less we hold our leaders responsible and the longer we let them go unpunished, the more they're going to abuse their position and the more they're going to try to get away with.
    If we don't do something soon, then we've lost this country to tyranny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:59am

    Wow, such gonads

    At what point will they realize that they just sound like a bunch of moronic asshats violating our privacy for fun and profit?

    I'm guessing they will realize this when they start seeing the revolution happening outside their office windows, and realize that they might be a tad late to fix the problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Cosmicrat, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:08am

    Twisted logic

    So, catching people who set bombs is handled the same way as catching people watching a movie about people setting bombs!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Geno0wl (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:15am

    At least they are openly admitting they are hurting the civilians to protect corporations now.
    I mean I guess that is a step to real transparency.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Kal Zekdor (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:16am

    Counterproductive?

    Is it just me, or is the entire idea of combating IP theft by withholding knowledge of security vulnerabilities laughably counterproductive?

    If NSA or other government agencies are aware of a vulnerability, so are numerous hackers, particularly those working for foreign governments. Those hackers can then use those vulnerabilities to break into secure systems to acquire high value IP. These agencies could prevent many instances of IP theft (theft meaning the initial illegal acquisition of privileged or non-public IP) by simply revealing knowledge of these vulnerabilities, allowing companies to patch their systems. Not to mention this would help protect against numerous other potentially costly attacks against US companies and infrastructure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:26am

    This government has initiated a new cold war in the form of cyberweapons. Again the citizen is the MADD deterrent. No other government will be comfortable without weapons of their own.

    Hence we now have weapons that aren't physical but ones that corporations can really rake in the dough on as it is a result of labor with no manufacturing costs and very little distribution costs.

    It seems in the process of arming up, our government doesn't care about it's economy, nor the citizens that are paying the tab. None of this is good news.

    It has created an atmosphere of large distrust by these and other actions against it by the very citizens it depends on to support and finance these operations.

    The push back has started. Many are now having to defend these actions that once they never had to udder a word in public about. As the time passes, the pressure becomes ever greater to terminate these insane schemes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Ramon Creager (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:27am

    Whose intellectual property again?


    stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property


    No. It is most emphatically not "our nation's intellectual property." It belongs to Disney, Universal, Fox, etc. etc. Multinationals all of them, with no real allegiance to "our nation."

    What rot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:33am

    Vulnerabilities for IP theft?

    Why would the Chinese need a vulnerability to steal IP? They just need to connect to The Pirate Bay for all the IP they want.

    Oh, you mean the other IP? Aren't patents posted online just so one can read them?

    Anyway, we don't have any IP as valuable as that protected by the MAFIAA (who don't actually produce anything), though there are a couple of celebrities exerting their publicity rights that I think a consensus could be formed which would allow us to ship them right on over to Bejing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Michael, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:36am

    Re: Vulnerabilities for IP theft?

    They blocked the Pirate Bay themselves, so they can't steal IP from there.

    Suckers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:37am

    Re: Vulnerabilities for IP theft?

    Dang it, I forgot about Monsanto, Pfizer, ADM, and Big Sugar, etc. who all want to lock up nature.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:47am

    Re: Twisted logic

    That's amusing, considering Google vacuums up everything you do online.

    This article/blog isn't about privacy, otherwise Masnick would rail every day on Google's privacy-killing business model. It's about Pirate Mike getting mad at the idea of pirates getting busted. Duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    AricTheRed (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Twisted logic

    OOTB is that you? Where have you been?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:51am

    "Disclosing a vulnerability can mean that we forego an opportunity to ... discover more dangerous vulnerabilities that are being used by hackers or other adversaries to exploit our networks."

    Let existing vulnerabilities go unpatched and open to attack by hackers so the government can perhaps discover other, "more dangerous" vulnerabilities in the future? Yah. That makes a lot of sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: In short...

    Nothing is good without at least a little bit of cheese.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 11:58am

    Re: Wow, such gonads

    Well... we have the opportunity to replace them during the voting process which would accomplish the same with far less bloodshed. However since they also like to make that process as difficult as possible as well, it seems they actually want people to sling lead instead of votes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:08pm

    'we forego an opportunity to collect crucial intelligence that could thwart a terrorist attack stop the theft of our nation's intellectual property, or even discover more dangerous vulnerabilities'

    what an absolutely ridiculous statement! the only reason they would hang on to something is because they have been told to by the entertainment industries and it doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it! piss poor excuse, again, for the government to be able to shit on citizens!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    JWW (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Whose intellectual property again?

    And the way they manipulate the copyright laws it never, ever will be our nation's intellectual property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Kenneth Michaels, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Vulnerabilities for IP theft?

    They will use the vulnerabilities to go after the administrators of the pirate bay - just like how they used vulnerabilities to go after Kim Dotcom (the NSA infected his computers during their investigations).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:18pm

    It just occurred to me--I think I know who is behind Anonymous.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    James T, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:21pm

    White house hacking for Hollywood?

    I surely hope they don't mean IP as in MPAA/RIAA stuff. Knowing this White house of course they would do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    jameshogg (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:26pm

    I didn't realise Digital Rights Management worked on the Chinese regime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    David, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:31pm

    Who is the largest intellectual property thief?

    The government promised artists that their works would pass into the public domain at a given date, and the artists got reimbursed from record companies according to that promise of having their work live on in the hands of the public without corporate control after a given date.

    The government has stolen the intellectual property that it has promised the artist to deliver into the public domain and handed it to the big companies. By now the U.S.A. has robbed the graves of deceased artists and stolen about 70 years worth of culture from the general public in order to line the pockets of entertainment industry members in return for lobbying bribes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 12:56pm

    Intellectual property "theft" and terrorism don't belong in the same sentence.They don't even belong in the same paragraph!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 2:39pm

    Re:

    Senator Hatch may have the answer to that question:

    http://archive.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2003/06/59298

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:11pm

    "Does anyone honestly believe that the US government should withhold details of a major technical vulnerability, putting everyone at serious risk, just so it can catch some IP infringers?"

    I certainly don't. It's a catch-22 to say that your withholding vital computer security-related vulnerability information to protect people, when that same withholding puts the same people at greater risk as a result. What does the US government consider all of the actual and potential innocent victims of these practices -- collateral damage?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Whose intellectual property again?

    This. Exactly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    OrganizedThoughtCrime (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:23pm

    Re:

    ...and they say that like there are no consequences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    madasahatter (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:39pm

    Another excuse

    Idiots, any unpatched exploit can be used against anyone. Release the information and patch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:48pm

    In other news, the police have suggested that citizens refrain from locking their doors so that they can stop more thieves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 3:55pm

    As an observation, having read the linked article it seems to me that your use and the author's use of the term "intellectual property" are not the same. You may wish to consider the distinct possibility that he uses the term in a very generic, shorthand sense to refer to the possible scraping of important information that is not as a general rule intended for public disclosure (For example, unpublished technical information associated with the design, development, manufacture, use and maintenance of defense systems.). Whenever I speak of IP I tend to associate it with specific legal regimes such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. Most outside the field of law, however, then to use the term quite generically.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 30th, 2014 @ 4:19pm

    Re:

    You may wish to consider the distinct possibility that he uses the term in a very generic, shorthand sense

    No words written out by intelligence officials are ever "very generic, shorthand sense." They choose words and terms very explicitly. This was not an off-the-cuff remark. What he established is a broad and dangerous rule.

    For example, unpublished technical information associated with the design, development, manufacture, use and maintenance of defense systems.

    As we mentioned late in the post -- which, clearly, you did not choose to read, as per usual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 4:21pm

    Kinda makes one wonder if these "vulnerabilities" are being built in on purpose...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 4:24pm

    Re:

    But haven't you heard? Pirated DVDs fund international terrorism, dontcha know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 30th, 2014 @ 10:21pm

    Re: Clever redefinitions

    Yes.
    This is yet another example wherein we now have confirmation of what was suspected in the mid-2000's. Back then however, those who suspected the entertainment industry would be asking the government to penetrate citizens' computers and violate their 4th Amendment rights were derided by the industry shills posting right here on Techdirt that all-purpose catcall..."tinfoil hat"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 2:39am

    I think the White House means they want the ability to use the withheld exploits to steal other countries' Intellectual Properties. Like they did with that oil company in Brazil. It must have been a typo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 3:48am

    Re:

    Whenever you speak of IP you tend to lie through your teeth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 4:00am

    Oh for fucks sake, seriously? It's fucking bad enough that the NSA is promoting poor security. At least that is supposedly a matter of national fucking defense, even if monumentally retarded. But to catch "intellectual property thieves"?! REALLY?! Some of these people could do their best for the world by eating a bullet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), May 1st, 2014 @ 5:54am

    Re: Whose intellectual property again?

    Indeed. The nation's IP is being stolen - properties meant to be in the public domain under the terms in place when they were created are withheld by those same corporations. Copying files has nothing on the theft actually being committed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 6:09am

    Re: Re:

    Having dealt directly with senior officials at federal agencies and at the WH over the course of many years, my experience has been that IP is almost always used as a shorthand for non-public, technical data and computer software...and not for IP rights as you seem to suggest. Of course, most of the technical and computer software relates to systems closely allied with national security interests.

    As for your snarky remark, I did read your entire article and presented my comment entirely in good faith and without any deprecatory motivation in mind. I wish I could say the same for you, but it seems you simply will never consider good faith as a possibility when perusing whatever I may happen to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 1st, 2014 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You are such an astounding hypocrite, it's not even funny.

    Having dealt directly with senior officials at federal agencies and at the WH over the course of many years, my experience has been that IP is almost always used as a shorthand for non-public, technical data and computer software...

    1. As I stated, and you totally ignored, this was not an off-hand comment, but a public statement on an issue that people are following closely -- meaning that the words were chosen especially carefully.

    2. Here's the hypocritical part: whenever *we* use a simple "short-hand" in this area, you immediately take offense. For example, when we talk about bad patents, you acted all indignant about how you have no idea what a "bad" patent is because it's not defined anywhere and you only know of valid or invalid patents.

    Similarly, when we've spoken of software patents, you again go into an astounding huff about how there's no definition of software patent, so you can't possibly understand what we're talking about.

    Yet, when it comes to your buddies in the national security space, you're suddenly willing to grant them whatever leeway possible, and assuming that any statement is fine because it's the shorthand they use.

    I did read your entire article and presented my comment entirely in good faith and without any deprecatory motivation in mind

    If you hadn't spent the last 5 years on this site commenting on nearly every article with the clear intent to mock my position on damn near everything, you might be believable.

    But you have... and you're not.

    it seems you simply will never consider good faith as a possibility when perusing whatever I may happen to say

    I assume everyone has good faith until they prove otherwise. You proved otherwise long ago.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Ryuugami, May 1st, 2014 @ 8:03am

    Re:

    They seem to have stopped using any intelligence more than a decade ago.

    It was stolen by the IP thieves.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 10:19am

    PULEEZE!

    First off, none of this surprises me.

    Now, can we PLEASE get away from the term "Intellectual Property"? It ain't "property", and considering most of the patents granted recently, it's far from "intellectual".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Under Title 35 a patent is either valid or invalid. "Bad" is not a part of the statutory scheme. It seems that here and elsewhere the term "bad" is used as a preface to asking a question along the lines "WTF was the patent office thinking when it allowed a patent to be granted for this astoundingly obvious thing?" My remarks are directed to such questions since those who loudly bleat "bad" have almost universally taken zero time to analyze the patent and its associated file history. Maybe the patent should never have issued because it does not meet the statutory requirements of 102, 103, 112, etc. Then again, maybe it should have issued. It is impossible to know without having done more, much more, than pontificating about it being "bad". That takes intellectual laziness to new heights.

    Yes, tell me what is a "software" patent. Apparently the view here is that a patent that in any way involves software is a software patent. Heck, no need to review the claims in any detail...that would be such drudgery.

    Re national security...no, I am not a friend of the NSA, or Clapper, or anyone else associated with our intelligence services. I am merely one who has worked around highly classified information for many years and who recognizes that the seemingly logical solutions offered here (and elsewhere) oftentimes are not solutions at all because of other considerations unknown to those who do not work with classified information. This is in part what motivated my comments anent Wyden and Clapper.

    Re commenting on articles, a believe you will find that I comment on only a very few. What I do find interesting is that virtually everything I may say is responded to by you, almost as if I am challenging your integrity, knowledge, etc. This is not, and never has been, my intent. My interest is invariably to provide some perspective that might otherwise not arise during the course of article commentary. For example, the original SOPA had a third party right of action. Even though it was later removed from the bill, one would never know that reading articles here and elsewhere because they kept talking about the issue as if it was still an issue. The same can be said of the re-direct that was initially proposed, but then removed since the bill's proponents finally admitted that the concept had some problems requiring a much closer look.

    My good faith continues with every comment I may submit. You are mistaken to believe otherwise, which would be readily apparent were we ever to meet. If you plan a trip to Central Florida anytime soon, let me know. I do not bite.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 1st, 2014 @ 3:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And you have just proved my point. You hold such incredible double standards. For us, who you like to mock, you insist that our obvious choices of language are unacceptable. But when it's a White House official making a statement of utmost importance, you have no problem insisting that while the words he used are problematic, you're sure it's okay because you alone understand what he meant to say.

    Incredible that you still don't see this as hypocrisy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 5:43pm

    Perhaps I misunderstand, but the term "bad patent" as used on your site does not appear to be ambiguous (susceptible to a reasonable, alternate definition). My point re "IP" was merely to note that there is an alternate definition that is quite reasonable. Importantly, I did not pull this out of thin air. I have seen such usage on countless occasions, and in instances such as this it was meant to denote subject matter other than patents, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 1st, 2014 @ 6:22pm

    Re:

    Perhaps I misunderstand, but the term "bad patent" as used on your site does not appear to be ambiguous (susceptible to a reasonable, alternate definition).

    Wait. So now you're claiming that you DO understand what bad patent means?

    So you were lying before when you claimed it had no meaning?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 9:01pm

    Re: Re:

    Trying to have a discussion with you on a subject of mutual interest is well nigh impossible. Saying I know how the term "bad patent" is being used here, and that somehow equates to dishonesty, misses my point entirely. Clearly you are trying to communicate that a patent should never have been issued because it is blatantly obvious and the USPTO should hang its head in shame for allowing the application to pass to issue. Of course, the reasons why a bad patent is blatantly obvious amounts to little more than arm waving, generic references to alleged prior art that may or may not be relevant, anecdotal musings, etc., IOW, because you or other article writers here say so. Unfortunately, and frustratingly for those of us who have dealt with matters such as these, a factual record counts. Arm waving does not. If people want to call something bad, then at the very least they should present relevant evidence, and then proceed to show how that relevant evidence compels a conclusion of obviousness (and this is done by claim analysis). Over my career I have been required to stake out positions that patents are obvious, and for the most part have been able to do so. Why? Because I read the patents, read their file histories, researched the relevant technical areas to identify the general state of the art at the time the application was filed and specific instances appearing at the time the invention was first made of acts, publications, etc. that all bear on the legal test for obviousness. I can assure you that at no time would what regularly is passed off here as proof of a bad patent carry a whit of persuasive force. While I believe Daniel Ravicher takes a much too simplistic view of his patent invalidation initiative, I respect and give him credit for taking the time to do things the right way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 1st, 2014 @ 10:46pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Waaah! I tried to be mean to mean ol' Mike Masnick but he was mean to me! Waaaaah!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    For a bootlicker you do not seem to express yourself very well or with any degree of authority. Perhaps this will change when you reach puberty.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), May 2nd, 2014 @ 5:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Trying to have a discussion with you on a subject of mutual interest is well nigh impossible.

    I have no problem having interesting discussions with others. Perhaps the problem is that you love to put on your pedantic "but only I am so wise to possibly understand these kinds of complex issues -- and until you, too, have been a lawyer held in the sort of esteem as I once was, all your piddling comments are nothing more than dust in the wind that I and my knowledgeable cohorts from the defense industry spit at."

    Unfortunately, and frustratingly for those of us who have dealt with matters such as these, a factual record counts. Arm waving does not. If people want to call something bad, then at the very least they should present relevant evidence, and then proceed to show how that relevant evidence compels a conclusion of obviousness (and this is done by claim analysis). Over my career I have been required to stake out positions that patents are obvious, and for the most part have been able to do so. Why? Because I read the patents, read their file histories, researched the relevant technical areas to identify the general state of the art at the time the application was filed and specific instances appearing at the time the invention was first made of acts, publications, etc. that all bear on the legal test for obviousness.

    You approach it like a lawyer. Because the system is broken. If you actually spent any time with actual developers -- like I do -- you'd understand why basically every software developer hates patents. They know that patents (1) do not do what they're supposed to (i.e., disclose something new and non-obvious to those skilled in the art) and that (2) they almost always describe something that is quite obvious (and often done many times before).

    So, yes, I speak to my audience from *my knowledge* and experience in the world of developers.

    The problem, of course, is that you patent lawyers turned the patent system into something that only lawyers can play in -- what with your "claim construction" "file histories" and blah blah blah. You've purposely set up the system so that obvious ideas can be patents, and where they provide no value to the world whatsoever.

    And when people WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TECHNOLOGY tell you that they're obvious because *everyone already does this* you suddenly freak out about your precious ability to bill, and you look down the bridge of your nose at THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THIS STUFF and start tsk tsking about how they need to follow your stupid process to say what is obvious: THIS IS OBVIOUS AND DONE A MILLION TIMES BEFORE.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 7:03am

    No, I am not at all saying I am wise, something that should long ago have been readily apparent. What I am saying is that one who exhibits intellectual laziness by stating conclusions without factual analysis is unwise. There is a significant difference. I am old enough to know that I do not know all the answers, and the older I get the more I realize just how little I really know. Hence, mine is a constant study of issues in pursuit of memory recollection, other perspectives, etc. Things I may have taken for granted many years ago are no longer so clear cut. Shades of gray overwhelmingly predominate.

    I have spent more time with developers than I can possibly begin to recall, but it should be noted that my time spent with them in many instances related to taking ideas to products/services and company launch, including securing needed private investment, market introduction, etc., those very activities associated with the creation of new businesses. Our experience likely diverges in one respect. The startups I have helped come to life have not faced many of the mundane issues associated with startups of the type that arise from humble beginnings such as one's garage or the like. The large majority of mine have begun from the transfer of sophisticated technical products and services (in some cases sunk costs amounting to hundreds of millions...which, BTW, imparts a tremendous competitive advantage, whether or not patents are a part of the deal) arising within the defense and aerospace industry into the commercial market. MMW systems used with helicopters were adapted to terrestrial and satellite civilian telecommunications. Image and signal processing systems were transformed into products for use by commercial broadcasters. Many of these products and systems were birthed by research programs under the auspices of the DOE, NASA, and the DOD, with DARPA being a major source for defining future technology needs.

    As for your "when people with actual knowledge..." comment, your cocksureness belies a fundamental weakness in your argument, but most troubling of all your attitude. It has been my experience that many, perhaps even most, technologists do look at patents and exclaim "It's obvious. How did this ever issue?" It is here that you seem inclined to stop any further inquiry and proclaim "bad patent". Unlike you, however, I have sat down with technical subject matter experts (most of whom are among the very best...and recognized as such...in their technical fields) and discussed in detail what the described invention comprises, the claims, the cited prior art, any unknown art deemed particularly relevant by the technologist, and a host of other factors where the goal is to flesh out if the patent is likely valid or likely invalid. Quite surprisingly to almost all of them, they came to the eventual conclusion that their initial impressions were wrong. Of course, what this took was us rolling up our sleeves and actually developing facts necessary to arrive at an informed opinion. It is easy to spout initial impressions. It is quite another to dig into the subject matter to see if an initial impression is accurate.

    Amazing just how often persons who are at the forefront of their fields, upon sitting down and actually studying materials to identify and understand relevant facts, do a complete 180. If it was necessary for them to do so in order to actually understand what was involved, then your imperious remarks about what you deem a stupid process rings hollow indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Pragmatic, May 2nd, 2014 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Whose intellectual property again?

    Yeah... but we play into their hands when we fail to call them on the way they frame the argument. Creative output is not property.

    That we let them get away with this is inexcusable; we know what the truth is.

    As for the notion that any creative output belongs to the nation - that's just rot. Creative output is being locked away and the public domain diminished. That's where the theft is and that's what we should be calling out.

    But first call the government out for lying about what is going on here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2014 @ 9:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Just because you bootlick for a living does not mean all of us do. Some of us enjoy partaking in the schadenfreude of the whiny little jackass.

    And what a surprise, you can't stop being a whiny little jackass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 4th, 2014 @ 9:56pm

    Re:

    No one's going to believe the cocksucker of a cult who thinks that scanning a document and attaching it to an email merits a patent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2014 @ 5:04am

    Re:

    If the government knows about a security hole, does nothing to report it to the companies responsible for fixing the hole and use it as a honeypot to catch people exploiting the hole is the government possibly guilty of entrapment? I would say that the longer something goes unreported the more like entrapment this seems.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 9th, 2014 @ 4:54pm

    Re:

    No. What you are saying is that you have successfully hijacked an entire thread by filling it with stuff about YOU.

    Start a personal blog for god's sake.

    That way, people who want to know about you can listen to you as much as they want to, somewhere else.

    Unless of course, this is now your paying job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 30th, 2014 @ 1:45pm

    Re:

    "military intelligence, two words that together can't make sense"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.