Kim Dotcom to Google, Twitter, Facebook: I Own Security Patent, Work With Me

That's some quality trolling.<p>It can't be anything else, he's not an idiot.<p>I may not like his business ventures or his personality, but I just cannot <i>not</i> respect him for having a backbone and a pair of balls to keep pushing this thing forward. They did him wrong and he doesn't let go. This is really impressive.

The patent system is so horribly broken.<p>Let me get this straight ... something as simple as 2-factor authentication can be patented in the US and enforced world-wide? Let's say I'm running a start-up or a small business and I need secure, remote access ... my go-to solution would be to use 2-factor authentication ... but I have to worry about getting sued or finding funds for paying extortion money just to apply an idea that's about as dead-simple as passwords? How is this a good thing for inventors?

Patent link: <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US6078908" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/patents/US6078908</a><p>Granted in 1998 and referenced by pretty much every tech giant. Ought to be interesting.

It's interesting because this is the type of patent system abuse that we often rally so hard against. Now that the objective is somehow more 'noble' will we ignore that this approach is still fundamentally opposed to the prevailing opinion on the patent system and those who abuse it?

If a company does actually help his legal battle the US gov won't be happy. I hope he does get help with his legal problems and I want to see how this whole thing plays out. It's likely that companies like FB, google and twitter will ignore him so I want to see how he's going to respond to that.

If you look at the SecurID wikipedia[1] page, in the references you can find a paper discussing two factor authorization in 1996[1]. Also, it's not defining two factor authentication, it assumes the reader knows what it is.<p>[1]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecurID" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecurID</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.homeport.org/~adam/dimacs.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.homeport.org/~adam/dimacs.html</a>

The smart threat would be to put the patent up for auction. The fear of the trolls getting the patent would bring the big guys to the table.

But isn't suing to enforce his patent rights <i>also</i> an expensive legal battle that he would need to somehow fund? I don't see how this threat could be seen as effective.

Perhaps he missed the memo which clearly states that patent's are used to protect multinational corporations and governments, not individuals or small corporations.

So I guess this wouldn't cover, for example, Google Authenticator (what I think of as 2-factor auth)? There's no transport mechanism and the agreement is via a shared secret so it's seems like a different kettle of fish. Then again, I'm no expert on security so don't take my word for that....

Starting to love this guy

I don't see how this is valid patent. He just changed delivery method from mail; as described in prior art section; to more modern (SMS etc..) but he didn't invent any new process. Why change of delivery medium would be sufficient to grant patent?

“I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge &#38; ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the U.S. did to me".<p>So in other words, you believe in the "good of society", but now that you have legal fees, screw society?

$50 million in legal bills? Not a chance that's accurate.

Blackmail. Pure and simple.

I just wish Kim would start something like Startup Chile for New Zealand - but only for privacy and security related startups. He would have the right swagger to make this thing successful and (at least over the more recent past) a credible track record for standing up for what he believes in.

Where was he years ago when this sort of 2-factor auth was starting to get popular?<p>Don't you have to actively defend your patent? Sitting on it for 15 years and then deciding to sue on a whim can't look good in a court's eyes...

What a twist! There seems to be a lot of related prior art referenced by the patent. I thought patents were valid only for the country that issued them. How is this a worldwide patent? Trade agreements?

If people would actually read what he writes on twitter instead of the sensationalist blog posts derived <i>only</i> from those tweets, they would get a much more nuanced picture.

Let's see if he even <i>manages</i> to sue the tech giants, let alone what the judge rulings will be like when the patent owner is an individual instead of a tech giant.

This guy is in the wrong business. He should run a tv show, because he is so entertaining.

You must be joking, right?

HN becomes a bag full of stupid when fetishizing Kim Dotclown.