WE previously wrote about patent monopolies on medical treatments and ways to secure people's systems. With patents, the priority is not the public, it's private benefit for those who often just game the system."I would much rather spend my time and money and energy finding ways to make the Internet safer and better than bickering over patents," said Dean Drako, Barracuda's CEO and Eugene Kaspersky, CEO of Kaspersky Lab has this to say today:
Patent trolls and their effect on security
[...]
The rise of the non-practicing entity (NPE) has been an especially troubling development. NPEs are firms that usually acquire patents from a range of different fields for the sole purpose of generating profit through either litigation or licensing through the threat of lawsuit.
The wide range of patents, the vague wording present in their descriptions, and the ease with which they may be applied makes it difficult for a company to defend its innovations. As a result, many companies have become more reticent toward development out of fear that they could become a target for costly lawsuits.
This anxiety has translated into a decreased desire to take the kind of risks necessary to facilitate technological breakthroughs. Technology, by its very definition, requires innovation. And without funding, the march toward new and improved products will be hindered.
Therein lays the problem: If companies and even governments can't evolve their protective capabilities in line with the intensifying advances of cyber criminals, then the security of some of our most precious information will become increasingly vulnerable.
It is inevitable that companies that are forced to allocate more money to defending against often-spurious claims will have a decreased ability to invest in innovation. This is the opening that potential cyber terrorists need to pursue their reprehensible goals.
Cyber terrorists often don't pursue material gains, and therefore are largely unaffected by the hindrances of cost and convention. The vastness of the internet also means that, like the mythical Hydra, the removal of one head will more than likely spawn two replacements. It then becomes a moral argument for those who wish to exploit patents without contributing to the very market from which they are benefiting.