Patent on detecting malicious activity in computer networks

maidsafe

#1

Looking through USPTO for something completely unrelated and this popped up. (Not sure how this even remotely came up with my search terms… Hate searching for patents)

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10,044,726.PN.&OS=PN/10,044,726&RS=PN/10,044,726

While it does seem to be way too broad and over reaching, it does also seem to fit what madsafe came up with between parsec and malicious node detection.


#2

Yes this is the problem with software patents generally, definitely a great way to stifle innovation.

I’ve only quickly scanned the claims but there do seem to be a few fundamental differences between what we are doing and what the patent claims. Our definitions of malice are quite different and specific to a decentralised network (forking, voting…etc…) and the way in which malice is detected is again specific to our use case (use of gossip graphs…etc…) so I think we are likely to be ok with this one.


#3

That’s great to hear. I’m just an electrician, not a patent attorney, so this type of legalese goes over my head. I’m glad that differences such as specifying distributed systems and types of malice make a difference.


#4

I think Maidsafe should look into patenting Parsec and other methodologies being developed by MAID safe team as you dont want another company and prohibit MAidsafe especially f the bulk of logic is built on it.


#5

I’m not opposed to defensive patents … but I wonder how needed they will be down the track … when Safe-git is born and Safe Network code is moved to Safe-git … then effectively no means of taking/forcing down the the code … it will become a diamond-hard wall against patent trolls and any government attack.


#6

In the US, it’s getting harder and harder to prove prior art. First to design is not always first to patent. With that said, releasing something in such an open way, with such an open (for use, not hijacking) license, I think we shouldn’t have an issue with people patenting maidsafe IP and preventing them from using it.
I brought this one up because 1) I stumbled upon it and 2) it predates what maidsafe released.


#7

Yes we have already done that. As you say it is an integral part of the system and with a lot of competition in the space it’s prudent that we protect ourselves and future users of (developers) PARSEC.