RE: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The article is a bizarre read and I get the same 
impression of mixed agendas.   The question will 
be every time we see one of these:  is it valid? 
Over what?

DRM:   I was just browsing through the Wrox 
Professional Web Services book (noting a few 
folks from this list who are authors) and 
it has a decent overview of the security approaches 
to web services.  Nothing looked terribly new 
to me so I have to wonder just what aspects 
of Digital Rights Management InterTrust holds 
a patent for, that is, what essential claims 
they have.  Does DRM cover all aspects of 
security or is it yetAnotherSig in the content?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22404.html

The disinformation there bothers me:  alleging that systems
should be "open except as required for security".  That's
more typically called "security through obscurity", and
is widely known to be a flawed approach to security.

In fact, since patenting requires open disclosure, it's clear
that there are other agendas getting marketed there.
The issue is more likely Freedom vs Control, rather
than Openness vs Security.  Of course as soon as
anyone can be seen to be arguing that media industries
don't have enough control, non-technical issues justly
come back to the forefront ... :)


>        Is DRM a  low-level technology (I would think so)
> or is it high level?

Yes to both.  It's not one technology so much as a framework,
with both low level (secure key storage) and high level (UIs
in the broadest senses, access control policy) components.

- Dave