Ubuntu: Microsoft is Patent Pal

Quoting:The market for software vulnerabilities just got even more complex with the arrival of a firm that offers security researchers a chance to profit from their work by patenting security fixes.

Intellectual Weapons offers a revenue split with researchers who embark on what it admits is an ambitious strategy. It claims rival schemes offer only a fraction of the income its approach, which it defends as ethical, offers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/06/security_fix_patent/

O.o

W T F

...

Capitalism in action. If there is a need for something, money can be made from it.

From the company's FAQ http://intellectualweapons.com/faq.htm

Quoting: Q. Is it ethical?

A. We believe the closest equivalent is “responsible disclosure” as the vendor will typically be made aware of the vulnerabilities before the IP is published.

The unique feature here is that the vendor is asked to pay something close to the true value of the vulnerability i.e. the cost to them if it goes unchecked.

There have been well-funded PR efforts to vilify small companies that enforce their patents against large companies (rather than the reverse) as “patent trolls”.

We believe this is simply propaganda designed to serve the interests of large corporations.

It has been used because enforcing IP against large companies can be highly successful:

Then there's a list of several instances of small companies making money from patent cases.

Ethical? Doesn't seem so to me.

Responsible Disclosure? Yeah Right.

Just imagine someone calling up the Secret Service: "I've discovered that someone will be killing the president in the near future. I have a patent on the super sekret method you have to use that's the only way to protect him. I'll tell you what it is and let you use it for $500M"

> "I've discovered that someone will be killing the president in the near future. I have a patent on the super sekret method you have to use that's the only way to protect him. I'll tell you what it is and let you use it for $500M"

And how would this be unethical? He's not saying he knows how to protect him, only how to find out. Finding out requires using the patented technology, and if it's a patented technology, then the US government should pay for a license to use it, the same as everyone else.

Now, if he has already used the technology himself, and knows how to protect the president, that's another matter. Then he's withholding information needed for national security reasons. But as long as he hasn't actually done so, all he's doing is asking for a license fee, which is perfectly ethical. Stupid, since the government will simply take the technology from him, but ethical.

And here's a big shout-out to the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service. Welcome to LXer! :-D

hehe.

Man, now jdixon's got my head spinning. All those fine lines. :)

I'm still trying to figure out whether the Secret Service can protect the President without violating GPLV3.

> I'm still trying to figure out whether the Secret Service can protect the President without violating GPLV3.

This President. Almost certainly not. The very idea of open anything is foreign to this administration. Of course, that's been true of most administrations in modern times.

Quoting:The very idea of open anything is foreign to this administration.

I dunno. He seems OK with open borders. ;)

> I dunno. He seems OK with open borders. ;)

And open phone lines. I stand corrected.