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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, kim dotcom, lawsuits, patents, threats, two factor authentication
Companies: facebook, google, twitter
Reader Comments
The First Word
“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!
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Silver lining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
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]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
"If you're against copyright, quit putting your name on posts! You don't own the idea!
02:00:36[c- 1-0]"
Ownership and attribution are entirely separate concerns. Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
Right, and even if you don't put your name in it, you can still claim the copyright later if you can prove that you did it.
Try again, blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
That right there. It shows that those who love copyright so much don't even know what it is and what it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
The only thing more insane than your comments are the people who pay you money to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
Would you like to buy this bridge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society."
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure the prosecutor is grateful to Dotcom for his assistance in his own prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dotcom Can't sue
That is why Dotcom has asked for anyone who is interested in buying the patents to contact him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that it?
Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that it?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
It's clearly stating that despite Kim making a bad move and being a dick, there's a strong case for others to support him.
I bet you were home schooled...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Yep. But mostly it's because it's his pirate ally Kim D doing the trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
Yes there is. It is called leverage. In this case, it may be improperly conceived and/or applied, but it is a very common practice in negotiation, everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
' I mean, I'm stupid and you're smart,so it should be simple for you.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
Words is hard!
I guess more normal people can read "parsed words" just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read for comprehension!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that it?
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that it?
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Because Mike worships all pirates. The bigger the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
Thats The Only WAy To Comprehend Your Issues.
Nice Selective Reading Skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that it?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is that it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that it?
Understand that not only is Masnick a shameless piracy apologist- he's also Dotcom's own 'mini-me'. You'll see nothing but adulation here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumbass.
That is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where, with most patent trolls, "cooperate" means "fork over some money", in this case it means... fork over some money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you manage to post so often without actually reading the article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
However, I can understand why he's gone down that route, even if I think it's a massively idiotic move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prior Art
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
It is being discussed on TD you troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
Where in the article does Mike suggest the patent might be invalid? Seems like you're the one trolling by pretending like Mike said something he didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
...on the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
they are both doing the same job (feeding fuel to the engine) but with 2 different METHODS.
But I don't expect you to understand the difference, you've been worshiping masnick for too long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prior Art
> 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prior Art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Racketeering
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Racketeering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Racketeering
"If I loose I'm going to go bankrupt and this patent is going to be sold to who knows who and if I win my funds are unfrozen and I can reimburse you."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alternativly, the birth of 3 factor authenication
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a freak, and freaking JOKE
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what a freak, and freaking JOKE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what a freak, and freaking JOKE
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Simple. It's Kim Dotcom, so Mike has his blinders on. This site couldn't be any easier to understand. Pirate friends = good. Copyright enemies = bad. The details are unimportant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What Does Any Of That Have To Do With The Patent Being Granted?
Reading Comprehension Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah sounds like threats and racketeering!
Email: twitter@kim.com"
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/337410056859566080
Very threatening language indeed!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad legal move
- Have the government seize your funds
- Threaten very large companies with an infringement suit if they don't pay you so you can defend yourself on another matter
Reason:
This invites a declaratory judgement action that you've already admitted you can't afford.
*** shakes head ***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all blackmail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
It's the stuff you DIDN'T say that we're focusing on. You didn't say it was patent trolling that is a bad thing regardless of the racketeering angle. You didn't question the validity of the patent itself. You pointed out that he's saying pay up or I'll sue, and then you said that his victims should consider paying up and playing along because there's a "pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case." That's you justifying his means because of the ends. That's not you condemning his means. You didn't condemn the means, hence our responses.
Sorry Mike, but you look pretty bad here. And, of course, it's Kim Dotcom, so you give him a free pass with this stuff. No surprise there. The only surprise would have been if you had actually called him out for the "extortion" and said that was bad in general, and not just bad because it might hurt him in later litigation. Nice try and spinning this, but we can all see what you wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Except he said no such thing. He said it was a good idea for "the tech industry to think about participating in the case," not that it was a good idea for them to "pay up." Not once did he say that the tech companies should give in to the patent trolling, just that they have an interest in the outcome of the case.
Once again, you're lying. What a shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
An amicus brief won't be worth a bucket of warm spit in the absence of a vigorous defense. Clearly, the implication is that the 'tech industry' (Google, Facebook, Twitter) should fund Fat Bastard's litigation. Which is exactly what he is demanding in exchange for not suing them for patent infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Plus, as we've been saying, if Megaupload loses, then how long until other websites start getting bullied by the U.S. government over copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Quite so. But they're frozen. Except assets to fight his extradition were returned, I believe. So it's unclear that he will even be standing trial in the US.
What I love the most about all of you piracy apologists is how hung-ho you are.... right up until it's time to open your wallets. Where's the ACLU and EFF? Where is Reddit? Where are the tech firms whose business models are imperiled? Where are all of the netizens who protested SOPA? Same place they were when Aaron Swartz needed money for his defense... sitting on their wallets pretending not to notice. I'd sure hate to be in a foxhole with any of you people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Copyright Apologists just love ruining people's lives for the sake of a few dollars more.
if I was in a foxhole with any of you scumbags, I might do something horrible.
Like listen to music that I downloaded without paying you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Yeah. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
And, of course, it's Kim Dotcom, so you give him a free pass with this stuff.
Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?
Seriously, dude, I've told you before, and I'll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me, and start responding to what I actually said. The fact that you have this strawman Mike built up in your head who is nothing like I actually am, but which you insist is the real me, is fucking weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Take your pick, they're all likely correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I will point out that the rest of us are discussing fatboy's patent trolling and treatment by Masnick. Try to be calm, get yourself under some control and add something pertinent to the discussion for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
The internet tough guy.
*Snicker*
So, how's your mommy's basement been treating you lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I've been out of my parents house for many decades. Come on by some time, I might even let you mow my lawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I said I lived on my own since I was 16, not that I was kicked out of my house when I was 16.
Aww... The little moron is so cute when he's trying to be a tough guy.
Who's an adorable little troll?
Yes you is! Yes you is! Aww! Such a good little twoll!
You must make your mommy proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Why do I find that perfectly understandable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Exactly. Yet here he is pretending like he's not giving Dotcom a free pass. Dishonest is as dishonest does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Masnick's weasely narrative is totally unnecessary and only serves to make him look like a bigger jerk than usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Masnick's weasely narrative is totally unnecessary and only serves to make him look like a bigger jerk than usual."
which takes some doing !!!!!
Masnick probably has been taking lessons off Kim fatbastard..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
What is this? A warm up before you put on your big boy pants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
That you didn't condemn this obvious patent trolling as being bad in and of itself (as opposed to just potentially bad for his criminal case) is very noteworthy, and it speaks volumes about you and your love of Dotcom.
Pointing out that this is a dumb move and probably hurts his own case is giving him a free pass?
Yes, because you didn't condemn the act of trolling apart from it's possible negative effect on his case. You're worried it hurting him. You expressed no concern about the trolling otherwise, and you didn't even throw out your usual FUD about the validity of the patent. Only saying this might hurt his criminal case and not saying anything else negative about it is a free pass from you. Had this been IV, you would have said a lot more--and you know it.
Can you address my point about there being alleged specific criminal infringement? Or are you sticking by your claim that there is none despite that position being completely untenable? I'm happy to quote the exact text from the indictment again if you want.
Seriously, dude, I've told you before, and I'll say it again: you need to stop listening to the voices in your head that you THINK is me, and start responding to what I actually said. The fact that you have this strawman Mike built up in your head who is nothing like I actually am, but which you insist is the real me, is fucking weird.
This trope again? No matter how slimy and dishonest I think you to be, you only keep proving that you're worse than I think. Want some credibility? Admit that specific criminal infringement is alleged. After that, admit that had this been IV, you would have been a lot more critical and condemning. That's a good starting point. But your sliminess in pretending like you didn't give him a free pass only reinforces my views about you. I can point to hundreds of other things you ran away from rather than just admit if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I used to do that in grade school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
pretty much !! what do you think Masnick is this up to your standards ? You know how you respond to anyone and everyone you accuse of being a patent troll.
And all you can do is question his strategy ?
If it had of been Prenda and not Kim, would you have said it is not a very good strategy ?
But it's too late for you, you never cease to disappoint, we can understand your extreme attitudes, but this massive inconsistency, and you standing up for 'your friends' taking precedence over your personal 'morals' is sad to see.
You don't have much credibility at the best of times, and this is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
oh, and we love to see how when you are backed into a corner, and run out of all reasonable arguments, you just cant help yourself with the Ad hom attacks.
It's clear you are not 'above' any form of standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
I am not being paid by anyone. I speak my mind honestly and directly. Mike can't stand it. He only knows how to attack people--and not the merits of their posts. He's having trouble finding personal attack vectors with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
More like he doesn't try because you make it too easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
You mean like how you attack Mike and nearly everyone else on this board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
...is one of average_joe's favorite go-to lines. (As is "on the merits.")
Could there be sock puppetry at work here?
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me, since 1. AJ has admitted he posts anonymously, 2. he has proven to be fundamentally dishonest, and 3. he's the only person in the universe who honestly believes he's ever won a debate with Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Also, you're delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Nope. He denied it just two weeks ago: "Nowhere do the charges even attempt to show any specific *criminal* infringement." Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public- opinion.shtml#c824
I agree that there is an issue with some of the files that relate to the NinjaVideo case, but there are other files where there are no issue including "Taken" which is the one I'm asking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
He didn't say "He is not being charged with specific *criminal* infringement". If he did, you'd have a point, also the subject has been discussed extensively when his indictment was news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
He didn't say "He is not being charged with specific *criminal* infringement". If he did, you'd have a point, also the subject has been discussed extensively when his indictment was news.
I read it as him denying that there's any specific criminal infringement shown, emphasis on "criminal." That count of the indictment shows specific criminal infringement. It's criminal under Section 506(a)(1)(C) even though it's only one film.
The text of the indictment demonstrates some of the evidence behind the charge:The allegation is that Bram van der Kolk uploaded it personally. The others are alleged to be accomplices (that's the 18 U.S.C. 2 bit in the text I quoted above). Accomplices are treated as though they committed the act themselves. Thus, all are charged with specific CRIMINAL infringement. This is shown and alleged in the indictment.
I'd love to hear why Mike thinks otherwise, but I suspect, as per ALWAYS, he's gone now (or you're him), and we won't get any answer from him directly. Why he can't discuss and/or admit this stuff puzzles me no end. It's OK to admit that something is alleged and shown in the indictment. But for some reason he has to defend and protect Kim and the Gang. Wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Except that the entire focus of the article was on the aiding and abetting charges. In order to show that Megaupload "aided and abetted" criminal infringement done by their users, they have to show that a specific user committed criminal infringement.
And they have not done that. So, Mike is entirely correct.
Separately, that specific allegation - even if true - probably doesn't rise to the level of criminal infringement. But that allegation was not the basis of the aiding and abetting charges, so it's irrelevant to that discussion.
So, once again, you have shown that you are the one that is "slimy and dishonest" (your words).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Why, because it's Kim... it appears.
as for you disagreeing with Kim fatman, sure you did.
what it is Masnick is a glaring lack of consistency from you, don't you have opinions and standards that you apply to everyone. If so why do you fail to display any consistency?
When you consistently attack 'patent troll' like a rabid dog, then suddenly come out with...
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.
here you suggesting the tech companies comply with Kim's demands, suggesting they 'buy into' this extortion.
Then this half assed, piece of advise for Kim...
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.
so not immoral, not illegal, not 'bad patent' but just "poorly thought out strategic move"..
Geez, that would send me running for the hill's, such a forceful attack Mansick..
But if it had of been Prenda and not Kim fatman I am sure you would have been OUTRAGED !!!!
This article clearly shows how two-faced and inconsistent you are.
It also makes it very clear that you don't really have the conviction of your words.
so now we all know how you really feel, and your real motives. It's clear you don't actually really mean most of the stuff you say.
But 'play favourites' and if it's someone you 'like' you will happily give up any pretence of standing up for what is right..
It's clear by the majority of posts here, that you have been exposed once again, as well what you have shown yourself to be here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it's trolling and yes, it's ridiculous
Had it been Prenda and not Kim, you and your ilk would be defending his actions 1000%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hustler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good stuff. I had looked around last night when I wrote this and looked for prior art, but having not found any, I didn't comment on the validity of the patent. I assumed you would *appreciate* me not making a claim about the validity without knowing much about it.
But, yes, based on those links, it looks like the patent is pretty questionable, which reinforces the point I made above (which you conveniently want to ignore) that I agree that this is abusive behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's a good point as I think you always jump on the invalidity bandwagon without being able to actually run through the analysis. I know that I couldn't do it, and I've never seen anything that makes me think you could either. The point though is that you didn't pull out the "invalid!" argument with this patent, and the reason why not seems obvious enough.
Care to comment on whether specific criminal infringement is alleged in the indictment? I'll refresh your memory:That's an allegation of specific criminal infringement. You claimed there were none. Can you admit that there is such an allegation or explain why this isn't one? Thanks. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/megaupload-indictment.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How about something as simple as the cold war era nuclear launch systems, which requires a presidential password and two separate operators, on two consoles, signalling to one central system to launch?
It's very basic, but it is a dual authorization / confirmation system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Care to try again when you have a clue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you paid to be a stupid baiting troll, or are you doing it for free?
The point of prior art isn't to show that someone is an exact method duplication end to end but rather to show that, for people knowledgable in the art, that this patent was not something particularly new or inventive. Rather, it's more of a retelling of systems that have been around for decades, plus the old "with a computer", which as the standard thing before you could use "on the internet".
Considering that Techdirt is all against stupid patents, I am shocking that Mike Masnick didn't rip Kim a strip for a very derivative and evident patent, the type of thing he would do for anyone he doesn't like.
What's your excuse? Didn't you get paid enough to troll fully?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am still trying to work out how you can say that this is anything like the method described in the patent. where is it sending an authentication to a seperate device that then needs to be entered into the authentication.
Yes, I will agree that the idea is the same, but the method is different.
For a physical analogy, lets look at the mouse trap.
The idea is to catch mice. The methods described in the Mouse trap patents use differing implementations of the idea.
Now, care to try again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Depends on the tools utilized to implement it, boy.
Two physical keys are different from two passwords or two retinal scans, or two voice-recogntion systems.
Thinking really isn't your strong suit, is it, ass with no brain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thankyou TechDirtBag Censors
Really appreciate the "ADVERTISING" and your efforts to promote those particular posts.
Thanks again.. keep up the good work..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are you on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another way of looking at it
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is he trolling an individual or net data dealing huge companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]