"subscription overflow wardrobes"
I don't know if you coined this term, but it's brilliant.
48 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Mar 2013
:=
)
Lost In Clouds of Data is on the mark. I wonder if s/he is a patent attorney.
Eastern District of Texas has waned as the mecca of patent trolls, but in its heyday companies like Samsung were building ice skating rinks outside the courthouse. This article is instructive: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/why-south-korea-s-samsung-built-the-only-outdoor-skating-rink-in-texas
There are many ways that, even with a single federal body of law in common with other districts, a judge can advantage one side over another. Procedural rules, as one example, are specific to different districts.
Unfortunately, all the Examiners who can't work effectively will just have to rush through their backlog once the systems come back up. That sort of rush will make it even more likely for BS patents to be excreted out the back end of the USPTO.
I just desperately hope that one day we will learn what really happened in an issue of "Who, Me?" This has all the markings of something like running a backup in the wrong direction.
The incremental progress the USPTO keeps talking about suggests they restored from tape and are now hand-entering all the lost transactions from log files. At least that's where I'll place my $20 bet.
My fault - when I said "local vaults," I was specifically referring to Dropbox sync for those local vaults. Yes, my password blob is stored in the cloud, but a hacker would then have to crack my master password if they plucked the vault from Dropbox.
1Password 6 has actually _removed_ support for Dropbox sync. https://discussions.agilebits.com/discussion/76885/1password-6-does-not-support-local-vaults-atm
Previously, the vaults were read-only, which was also a non-starter.
Now I find out 1Password 6 doesn't work with IE. ARGH. You can hate it but it's what many businesses (like mine) use.
Now back to KeePass?
KeePass was great, but I moved to LastPass so the web integration would be more seamless and my wife would hate me less. Then I read in the hallowed pages of El Reg about them getting sold, so I finally paid for 1Password, as some of my friends had suggested.
1Password is great, and I love the mobile apps. I could even stomach paying them a monthly tax on top of the perpetual license I already bought. But at last check 1Password 6 doesn't support local vaults (forcing me to stay on 1Password 4). This news suggests 1Password 6 won't ever support local vaults.
Maybe I have to jump back into KeePass and install CKP into Chrome. My wife likes the idea of strong passwords, but doesn't have much patience for copy/paste from an external program.
djzoey: I might have accepted that your personal experience with D-Link products has been good. But when you join the forums solely to post 3 times on the glory of D-Link, you outed yourself.
How much would D-Link have to pay so that you took the time to at least create a few posts on other stories? And maybe to think through your posts, so that the shilling for D-Link was just a little less transparent...
My family never seems to think they would be worth hacking, so can't be bothered to care about basic security.
But you would think that a campaign being actively targeted and actually breached would lead at least the top people in the campaign to take some security measures. Even basic stuff like using different passwords for different accounts. How hard is that?
Patent law is endlessly complex, but El Reg, this article gets the basics wrong. Google's APPLICATION for a patent was was filed in August 2014 and simply PUBLISHED on 1 September. The publication is not related to whether the US Patent Office decides to grant a patent.
In fact, I troubled to look it up and, at the moment, the US Examiner has just rejected all of the claims for the second time.
What Charles 9 said. You're basically creating your own poor man's version of KeePass. And if you think that a Truecrypt volume is security by obscurity in comparison to KeePass, look up how Hacking Team got their code stolen. An attacker got admin rights and grabbed the text password file when the lead engineer decrypted his Truecrypt volume to use a password.
You have the exact same single point of vulnerability as KeePass (or 1Password minus browser plugins). And none of the features (additional fields for security questions, password generator, and many UI features beyond what Charles 9 said, such as auto-locking after various measures of inactivity).
Do mid-market accounting software buyers want to hear from Ashton Kutcher on any topic, much less “values over valuations: building a mission-driven business”?
I kept thinking I would get to the end of the article and would see: "Just kidding - they're the celebrity glitter into for a 'maximizing capital depreciation in the coming tax year' presentation."
I looked up the patent at issue here. It is: https://www.google.com/patents/US7062502
It's not pretty, but at 108 pages, it's not the cursory marketing shite many trolls are advancing. And the patent actually started its life at what appears to be a real (though probably now defunct) company: http://www.appquest.com/
Unfortunately, (i) the claims are incredibly broad, covering the general idea of database->software generation. All too commonly permitted by the USPTO. And (ii) a troll is suing developers of the general idea rather than developing the more specific ideas from the patent. How does that encourage innovation?
Jake: "Possible with lax security. My systems? Not so much."
Right, because your systems know the passwords a user used at a previous job, and adds those to a magical blacklist.
I'd say that ill-deserved smugness is more old, tired, & derivative than the BOFH could ever become.
So the US government gave out a patent (a 20-year monopoly) on this "invention." However, in my humble opinion (which is my own, not my firm's or clients', and formed after only brief review), what was disclosed by the "inventor" in the '462 patent was simply putting a processor in a headset but not in a docking station, so that the docking station only functioned when the headset was plugged into it.
The patent is quite short, and it appears that the inventor didn't have to solve any technical challenges - he simply came up with a marketing concept. The actual technical problems were left to the actual engineers, like the ones at Motorola.
And yet in return for this brief disclosure, he (or, even worse, Intellectual Ventures) gets to extract money from every company that uses a processor-less docking station with a phone.
IANYL, though I am a patent lawyer. What the jury is allowed to consider is limited to what the plaintiff and defense lawyers introduce at trial.
Obviousness is a determination made based on prior art, so Motorola absolutely did do their best at introducing prior art to invalidate the patent.
(and yes, technical knowledge of the patent subject matter will often get you kicked off the jury)
You make an excellent point, one that patent apologists believe is the only point. The problem exist when the "inventor" hasn't invented anything but instead has simply described the problem. When a company like Apple comes along with the solution, the inventor (or, more likely, his chosen troll) comes along and extracts money from Apple.
The patent system establishes a quid pro quo: a 20-year monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. When the value of an inventor's disclosure is nearly zero, the patent monopoly shouldn't reward the inventor with millions, and hundreds of millions of dollars.
Blame the lawyers. We're the only ones who truly understand how broken the system is. But most of us are so blinded by self-interest, we don't do anything about it. So Apple lost, next time they may win, but either way, the lawyers make millions. On *each case*. It's astounding.
This is exactly the problem. I doubt very much that more than a handful of Reg readers haven't upgraded their phone or tablet in the last 5 years. But the ones who have may repurpose the outdated devices to functions (like running Sonos exclusively) that are well within the abilities of an old device. And it's perfect - your new iPad is your personal device, while the old iPad is the family/guests coffeetable remote.
I nearly bought some old iPod Touches off of eBay to replace my original Sonos CR100s, whose batteries are nearly dead. Good thing I didn't, or I'd be boohooing right now as well.
I doubt Sonos has any malicious intent, like funneling more of our hard-earned monies into Apple's pockets (Sonos would rather have those dollars). I'd be curious, though, why old Sonos iOS apps won't be able to talk to the updated Sonos device software. If it will make the Sonos app more responsive, I'm all for it! The Sonos app has never impressed with its speed.
This is the 3rd time I've seen the "Remarkably, in the miniscule 6 hour window!!!" defense mentioned for the Canada Revenue Agency.
But the social security number snaffle happened on Wednesday, while Heartbleed was announced to the world April 7 at 1:27 p.m. New York time.
What am I missing? Or do they really mean "But it was only 6 hours from when we realized the bug affected us until we took the site down!!!" ?
IBM just patented some iterations of trolling, or as they say in lawyer-speak, "System and method for extracting value from a portfolio of assets"
http://www.google.com/patents/US8386350
While amusing, the fact that it issued does not exactly cover the US patent system with glory.
-US Patent Attorney
The Examiner that issued the patent was Dinh C. Dung. But you really can't blame him/her. The Examiner is making $40 an hour and is up against lawyers making $300-$600 an hour and often not subject to the same hour constraints per case as the Examiner.
More importantly the best prior art (which ultimately invalidated the patent) was not readily accessible to the Examiner. Probably the primary reason that so many bad software patents get issued. Examiners are only equipped to search other patents, not the myriad places where coding ideas may be found, like stackexchange, github, programming manuals, Unix source code, etc. Not a good situation.
-US Patent Lawyer
Number 2 isn't really a point of law - simply Mr. Berners-Lee's correct analysis that this patent would be a huge tax on innovative companies.
But in Court, they actually had to prove the patent was invalid, not just that its results would be counter-productive. Mr. Berners-Lee and others provided some compelling testimony that embedded objects already existed before this patent was filed. Thank Heavens.
Brian,
I don't mean to be rude, but companies that have previously settled with a troll (or any patent owner, for that matter) almost never get their money back. The troll is smart enough to put language in the settlement agreement that says "even if this patent is found invalid, that doesn't affect our settlement."
It is a pretty sorry state of affairs, though - the previously settling companies have paid out 10s or 100s of millions on a patent that was invalid the whole time, but only officially declared invalid after they were out of pocket.
-US patent lawyer