

The Homomorphic Encryption patent land rush - rwmj
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/2012/04/04/38707/

======
noonespecial
Lets get together and fool the patent lawyers into thinking that quantum
teleportation of matter is just around the corner. Perhaps they'll spin their
wheels adding _"...but with teleporters!"_ onto the end of every conceivable
human activity and let us makers get some work done.

~~~
ddlatham
Even better, if we can get speculative patents now on all sorts of future
technology that will take at least 20 years to develop later, the patents will
all be expired by the time the tech is ready.

~~~
stcredzero
The thing is, companies often keep patents alive by coming up with little
variations or extensions of existing patents.

The fact that people can speculatively patent anything to begin with is a
glaring sign something is severely broken. (Do a patent database search for
Internet and Video. Note how many and how vague they are and how far the dates
predate Youtube.)

------
johnpaulett
Granted, I am neither a patent expert nor a homomorphic encryption expert, but
how is this patentable since homomorphic encryption is just a mathematical
formula?

From Wikipedia [1]: _Homomorphic encryption is a form of encryption where a
specific algebraic operation performed on the plaintext is equivalent to
another (possibly different) algebraic operation performed on the ciphertext_

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption>

~~~
mistercow
The general rule in the US patent system is that mathematical formulas are not
patentable, and so neither are algorithms. But a _device_ or _system_ that
_uses_ an algorithm is patentable. So they don't patent the algorithm itself,
but "a method and system". In other words they're patenting the idea of
running the algorithm on a computer.

Insane, yes, but upheld by current precedent.

~~~
brlewis
In the Bilski case, the Supreme Court reminded us that Benson, Flook and Diehr
are still good precedent. So patenting the idea of running the algorithm on a
computer is also _not_ upheld by current precedent.

Oh, they also said to ignore _State Street_ , the precedent that upholds
software patents. But they're just the Supreme Court. Nobody listens to them
in this area anyway. I know I sound sarcastic, but I'm serious.

~~~
mistercow
I had forgotten about Bilski. Still, if the courts don't listen to a
precedent, is it really a precedent?

~~~
excuse-me
Yes, all you have to do is hire more lawyers than Apple/IBM/Microsoft or
whoever.

Go to court in East Texas and persuade a jury that a bunch of damn Yankee
judges up there in Washington know better than an honest American corporation.

------
willvarfar
I wonder if this _prevents_ this area being researched and discovered?

~~~
gcp
Not so much in academia. But yes, this would hamper or delay practical/field
deployment. See EC crypto etc.

~~~
tptacek
ECC is widely used in industry. DJB seems skeptical of its patent
encumbrances:

<http://cr.yp.to/patents.html>

I do agree there was a time when ECC patents were an issue (particularly
Certicom's), but it was certainly not as big a deal as the RSA patent.

------
ktizo
Well, if no solution exists, I am going to patent the business process of
finding a solution to homomorphic encryption.

My process largely involves hiring mathematicians and buying lots and lots of
coffee.

