Newegg Brings Out Whit Diffie, Ron Rivest & Ray Ozzie To Debunk Patent Troll's Claim; Troll Attacks Diffie's Credibility
from the cue-laughter-now dept
Last week, we mentioned Newegg, a company that has publicly declared it won't settle with patent trolls, fighting in court against the world's most litigious patent troll, Erich Spangenberg. If you'd bet that's a recipe for some courtroom drama, it appears you would have won that bet. Joe Mullin continues his excellent reporting from East Texas, and talks about Newegg breaking out some heavyweights in support of its argument that some guy named Mike Jones didn't actually invent the cryptography that made e-commerce possible. Among those appearing on behalf of Newegg were three names that I hope all of you already recognize: Whitfield Diffie, Ron Rivest and Ray Ozzie. If not, look them up, but suffice it to say Newegg has credibility on their side.They also had Alan Eldredge, a guy who worked on the original Lotus Notes to talk about how they implemented everything in Jones' patent (using Ron Rivest's RC4) before Jones filed for it. The interesting tidbit there is that Eldredge wasn't your typical expert witness hired by one of the parties in the case:
Eldridge wasn't paid, as expert witnesses were—he came down to testify against the Jones patent out of a feeling of "civic responsibility," he said. He didn't know who the defendants in this case were until he was told. "I hadn't even heard of New Age until Saturday," said Eldridge at one point, as laughs were stifled in the courtroom.From the sound of it, Diffie oozed credibility on the stand, as he should, and Mullin believed the jury was eating it up (for more details on the specifics of the testimony, read Mullin's full article linked above):
Diffie's testimony went on some time, but he seemed to have the jury in the palm of his hand. A few jurors laughed at his jokes and smiled, and the more serious ones were certainly focused on his testimony. After about two hours, Albright passed the witness.Spangenberg's lawyer, Marc Fenster, apparently decided the way to respond to this incredibly credible witness (the dude invented public key cryptography!) was to... attack his credibility. First, he attacked his credentials. Diffie never completed a master's degree, nor has he held a full time academic position -- which, of course, doesn't even remotely matter for anything, but Fenster tried to use it to make him seem like a charlatan, leading up to a claim that Diffie didn't actually invent public key cryptography. But, of course, that's not actually true. This story is well known in cryptography circles and you can find variations of it online. The UK's equivalent of the NSA, GCHQ, more or less figured out much of the same thing, but kept the whole thing secret. Fenster referred to James Ellis of GCHQ, who had conceived a similar idea, but wasn't able to do the math. The math was done later at a time much closer to Diffie's efforts (the exact timing here is somewhat in dispute). However, as many people have pointed out, none of that much matters, because the folks at GCHQ did absolutely nothing with this, and from all accounts, they didn't even think it was anything important or special.
And, more importantly, none of that actually takes away from the stuff that matters here: all the important work happened long before Mike Jones got his patent, and Spangenberg's company TQP's claim that Jones' work enabled e-commerce still looks like complete bunk. Even if GCHQ had figured out public key cryptography before Diffie, it doesn't change the fact that his version is the one that made it well known, RSA's implementation made it work, and that's actually what made secure e-commerce possible, not anything from TQP's patent.
It appears that Newegg is so confident that it's going to win the case completely that it didn't even bother having its final witness take the stand. That witness was going to challenge the $5.1 million damages claim from Spangenberg. But that only comes into play if the jury finds for TQP. While it may be a bit risky, Newegg seems to be betting big that damages aren't even going to be in play here at all.
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: encryption, erich spangenberg, patents, ray ozzie, ron rivest, whitfield diffie
Companies: newegg, tqp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Did not think that one through...
Using that argument to try and go after the witness' credibility really seems like a case of aiming at your opponent, but shooting your own foot instead.
While it seems Newegg has got a great lineup of witnesses to back their case, they really should have brought in the last witness as well, as anything that further demolishes the patent troll's argument is all for the better, both for Newegg, and anyone else that might find themselves on the defense against patent trolls in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did not think that one through...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did not think that one through...
This lawyer has to, at least, try to discredit Diffie. For someone who doesn't know he is a god in the world of cryptology, showing the he is a liar by claiming to have discovered public key cryptography may actually work. The fact that this actually undermines the plaintiff's case may be lost on most of the jurors. Even though they are well known, you could probably convince someone that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are all losers because every one of them is a college dropout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Did not think that one through...
Zuckerberg? Might be a little easier to sell to the jury (since you can bring up the whole spat between him and those two brothers over who owned Facebook), but the lawyers would still have their work cut out for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Did not think that one through...
So what he will try to do is not to negate that others invented something before it, but that the patent is a valid one, he knows that patent is full of shite and so he is going for the longshot, trying to make the jury believe that the patent even though others have invented it before it a long time ago is a valid patent.
Neweggs council of course will have a field day making fun of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questioning the credibility of *Diffie*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questioning the credibility of *Diffie*?
Seriously, though. Questioning Diffie's credibility on cryptography? What's next, New Egg will call summon the ghost of Dijkstra and Fenster will claim he's not a real programmer, because he didn't like using computers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Questioning the credibility of *Diffie*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just about everyone who takes a security course (and probably most who take a networking course, to be honest) in computer science learns about Diffie-Hellman keys.
The man knows his stuff *solid*. And sure, he doesn't have a masters... he has an (honorary) doctorate. Two of 'em. No need for a full-time academic position - he was in ICANN as a VP in charge of cryptography, developed some of Nortel's cryptography, worked at Sun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh....what?
Perhaps you meant Diffie-Hellman key exchange?
Or where you sleeping during your security/networking course?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, technically; I generally refer to any keys created in a similar fashion as "Diffie-Hellman keys" though. People seem to know what I'm referring to (assuming they're familiar with cryptography, that is).
People ever call you pedantic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's....an intriguing defense, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(a) Diffie's patent was valid, because the prior art (government secret programs) was secret, and not knowable
-- and similarly,
(b) TQP/Jone's patent was valid, because the prior art (Diffie's, and others) was effectively "secret" (not generally known) at the time.
The problem is that while point (a) is clearly (despite the TQP lawyer's attempt to fudge the issue) true, point (b) is not quite true (though the lawyer tried to flim-flam that as well)
In the end, the jury decision will probably turn on how closely they were paying attention, and on whether they liked one side's particular witnesses and/or lawyers much better than they liked the other's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I should do a better job of proof reading before I hit the "Submit" button..
The argument appears to be that
(a) Diffie's patent was valid, because the prior art (government secret programs) was secret, and not knowable
-- and similarly,
(b) TQP/Jone's patent was valid, because the prior art (Diffie's, and others) was effectively "secret" (not widely known) at the time.
The problem is that while point (a) is clearly true, point (b) is not quite true (though the lawyer tried to flim-flam that the specific, relevant details).
In the end, the jury decision will probably turn on how closely they were paying attention, and on whether they liked one side's particular witnesses and/or lawyers much better than they liked the other side's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So our patent wasn't actually invented by you. It was actually invented by some other third party years earlier...Gotcha!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making NEWEGG my primary supplier of electonics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I met Whitfield Diffie many years ago
Six months of hard work later, I discovered he was right.
I'm a fairly smart guy: near-genius IQ, multiple degrees, well-read, etc. But Diffie is in another league entirely: he's not just a heavyweight, he's a frickin' intellectual Godzilla.
So when some two-bit attorney tries to cheapen his reputation by pointing out Diffie's academic shortcomings, what that tells me is (a) he doesn't have the facts on his side and (b) he has no concept who he's dealing with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How I Imagine the conversation went
Lawyer 2. "So what? Get our own expert to confuse the Jury"
Cryptography Expert Witness. " You want me to testify against WHO?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to complete the chain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You need to complete the chain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You need to complete the chain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You need to complete the chain
In East Texas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've lost. Just go home already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heinrich Goebel (1854) Joseph Swan (1878) Thomas Edison (1879)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_light_bulb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, Thomas Edison has prior art on every invention ever made since inventors are always depicted as having a light bulb over their heads when they come up with their new ideas.
/facetious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound on the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound on the table."
Wanna bet the TQP table has a lot of scars on it?
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]