51–60 of 101 posts
More detailed look at the patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=K7MoAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... If you want to check a unique serial number securely, either over the phone or net you are violating this patent. Seems a little broad.
You haven't even glanced at the claims, have you?
What if someone could get a patent on "a method of starting a business whose sole purpose is acquiring many patents and then suing large companies"? Could they destroy all patent trolls?
You'd spend more money suing the patent troll organizations than you'd ever recover, because they could just close up shop and move on, being non-practicing entities with no real assets or holdings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least Apple helped in their version of this. Google ignoring their own technology and customers is the epitome of Be Evil.
What I never understood is why Google's motto wasn't "Be Good". Logically and linguistically, "be good" is simpler than "Don't Be Evil", even if they aren't logically equivalent. And, as any psychologist will tell you, you don't say or think what you are trying to avoid; instead, you focus on something else that achieves the same goal, so if you were trying not to be evil, the word evil shouldn't even be in the motto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't even glanced at the claims, have you?
Why not correct my interpretation, rather than make a snide insinuation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not correct my interpretation, rather than make a snide insinuation?
I have no interest in opening myself up to spurious malpractice suits by paraphrasing the claims of this patent. It does appear, however, at a first glance, that they likely require more than "check[ing] a unique serial number securely, either over the phone or net."
Do you honestly feel like you're adding to the discussion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least Apple helped in their version of this. Google ignoring their own technology and customers is the epitome of Be Evil.
What I never understood is why Google's motto wasn't "Be Good". Logically and linguistically, "be good" is simpler than "Don't Be Evil", even if they aren't logically equivalent. And, as any psychologist will tell you, you don't say or think what you are trying to avoid; instead, you focus on something else that achieves the same goal, so if you were trying not to be evil, the word evil shouldn't even be in the motto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I never understood is why Google's motto wasn't "Be Good". Logically and linguistically, "be good" is simpler than "Don't Be Evil", even if they aren't logically equivalent. And, as any psychologist will tell you, you don't say or think what you are trying to avoid; instead, you focus on something else that achieves the same goal, so if you were trying not to be evil, the word evil shouldn't even be in the motto…
Isn't there anything between good and evil?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not correct my interpretation, rather than make a snide insinuation?
I second this. I'm very interested in any clarifications!
"1. A registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, said digital data executable on a platform, said system including local licensee unique ID generating means and remote licensee unique ID generating means, said system further including mode switching means operable on said platform which permits use of said digital data in said use mode on said platform only if a licensee unique ID first generated by said local licensee unique ID generating means has matched a licensee unique ID subsequently generated by said remote licensee unique ID generating means; and wherein said remote licensee unique ID generating means comprises software executed on a platform which includes the algorithm utilized by said local licensee unique ID generating means to produce said licensee unique ID."
Here's my take at translating this into plain English:
They're claiming a software system (let's call this the "DRM system") consisting of a client & server which work in tandem to figure out whether a piece of software installed on the user's machine (let's call this the "controlled software") is allowed to run in a specified mode (note, this is important). The DRM system consists of a way to switch the mode in which the controlled software can be used (eg, demo mode, new-user mode, etc [1]). Also, the DRM system & the controlled system implement the same algorithm to generate the "licensee unique ID".
However, there's another independent claim #12, which says:
"12. A registration system attachable to software to be protected, said registration system generating a security key from information input to said software which uniquely identifies an intended registered user of said software on a computer on which said software is to be installed; and wherein said registration system is replicated at a registration authority and used for the purposes of checking by the registration authority that the information unique to the user is correctly entered at the time that the security key is generated by the registration system. "
Claim #12 is fairly easy to read & understand. It basically claims any method to generate a unique key for each user + machine combination of the "controlled software", wherein the unique key can be generated, both locally & remotely using the same algorithm. Curiously, this does not claim the mode-switching aspect claimed in #1 above, making it even broader in scope.
[1] This is not described in the first independent claim, but in subsequent dependent claims and embodiment descriptions.