p2pnet.net News:- Does Altnet truly believe it’s on to something with its TrueNames DRM patent? Or is it merely desperate for cash and leaving no stone unturned, no matter what may lie beneath?

Yesterday, p2pnet was the first to reveal that Altnet, the virtual originators of spyware, had circularized p2p operators with thinly disguised demands.

But, suggests Freenet author Ian Clarke, who once described TrueNames as a lame duck patent, p2p operators should stand fast.

“It is essential that Altnet is not rewarded for their aggression, and this means presenting a united front,” he told p2pnet.

Altnet said in its circular letter:

“Based upon our investigation, we believe that other peer-to-peer applications, including applications offered by your company, use the technology claimed in the Data Distribution Patents for identifying, accessing, and distributing data items between computers. Accordingly, we believe that your company requires a license from BDE and Altnet to continue practicing the ‘791 and ‘280 Patents with your company’s peer-to-peer application.”

The idea is clearly that the likes of Shareaza, Mashbox, LimeWire and Bearshare would panic and start throwing money at Altnet which, with partners Sharman Networks of Kazaa fame and Brilliant Digital Entertainment, is under fire in Australia where Big Music is seeking to terminate them.

Ironically, all three companies have been trying to convince the major studios and record label cartel that they’d make ideal business partners. The entertainment industry, however, continues to treat them with deep contempt.

“There is a vast amount of prior art for this technique which predates their patent, meaning that it will probably be invalidated if anyone challenges it,” says Clarke.

“Altnet’s choice is, then, either to abandon this aggressive strategy and keep their patent, or persist, waste a lot of money, and at the end of all that, lose their patent.”

In other words, the King of Spyware may have been better advised to let sleeping ducks lie.

On that, does Clarke who, among other things, is currently working on Dijjer, a new open source p2p content distribution tool, hold to his original opinion?

“In that it should never have been granted due to its obviousness and the existence of prior art, and that as a result of this it would probably be invalidated if challenged, Yes, I think ‘lame duck’ is still an accurate description,” he says.

With that in mind, he’s looking for specific pointers to good examples of prior art, saying on a thread he’s just started, “If Altnet succeeds in extorting any money out of these P2P companies it will only serve to encourage them to attack others.”

===================

See:-
lame duck – Altnet’s lame-duck patent, p2pnet, November 15, 2003
thinly disguised – Altnet tries TrueNames on p2p ops, p2pnet, January 10, 2005
Dijjer - Ian Clarke’s new p2p tool, p2pnet, November 22, 2004
specific pointers – [p2p-hackers] Altnet goes after p2p networks with obvious patent, Ian Clarke, January 11, 2005

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 at 3:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 7575 times