Comments on: Blackhat Do It Again

By: David Molnar

David Molnar — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:20:31 +0000

Thomas: IOActive had built a hand-held device capable of cloning HID cards. Building this device appears to be what may or may not infringe the patents. While there may be a research exemption in the law, the cost of litigating that question is a major deterrent. You can view the letter HID sent to IOActive here http://aclunc.org/news/press_releases/asset_upload_file907_4581.pdf

By: Thomas H. Ptacek

Thomas H. Ptacek — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:12:25 +0000

HIDs patents can be infringed if IOActive distributes code that exploits their patent. Maybe, but probably not, they can be infringed if IOActive produces and uses that code themselves — there’s a research exemption for patent infringement. But HID’s patents cannot be infringed by talking about their technology. Why did the talk get pulled?

By: wrc

wrc — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:24:43 +0000

The ability to clone proximity badges is not new. I wonder why they choose now to complain?

By: David Molnar

David Molnar — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:40:27 +0000

Chris: Similar tactics have worked on university researchers in the past. Recall that Ed Felten and company withdrew their paper on breaking SDMI watermarking from an academic conference in 2001. They later published the paper at Usenix Security, but only after complicated legal wrangling. There the issue wasn’t patent infringement, but that’s just a detail. The main issue is threatening litigation as a method to silence discussion of security issues.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:47:44 +0000

The natural question is whether the same legal tactics would work if the presenters were representatives of Universities, such as (say) Cambridge, MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Princeton?

By: beri

beri — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:57:20 +0000

What a great idea! If anyone questions anything, threaten a lawsuit. That will keep anyone from making annoying comments about security and privacy. Pretty soon, the lawyers will announce that problems like the ones at TJX cannot be discussed in public, because it will upset the stockholders. Capitalism triumphs again. there are no problems beucase we’re not talking about them.

By: Arthur

Arthur — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:26:17 +0000

I suspect it was the device he built that was in question. I suspect we’ll learn more once the journalists start running their stuff from the press conference.

By: Thomas Ptacek

Thomas Ptacek — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:14:07 +0000

How can a talk infringe on a patent?