Certicom Patent Suit Against Sony Threatens to Unravel AACS

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

May 30, 2007, 4:32 PM

In a move whose repercussions could seriously impact the future development of the AACS content protection system, and even endanger the production plans of high-definition disc console manufacturers worldwide, cryptography software provider Certicom this morning filed suit in Marshall, Texas, against Sony Corporation.

Its claim is that Sony's use of Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) in two of its implemented technologies - AACS and Digital Transmission Content Protection - conceptually violate Certicom's patents for that cryptographic method.

A check of the US Patent and Trademark Office database does indeed turn up a 2003 patent filed in 2000 as a renewal of a concept first referenced by at least one of the creators in 1993.

As Certicom CEO Bernard Crotty stated in a conference call to analysts this afternoon, the Sony suit is probably the first in a string of patent suits the company may file against AACS and DTCP licensees who refuse to license the underlying cryptography for those schemes directly from Certicom.

"I think the takeaway is that we have a very strong patent position with respect to anybody implementing or utilizing those standards," Crotty told analysts, "and I think that we will be looking to have discussions with people in those areas. But ultimately, if we can't reach a licensing arrangement, we could be looking at this sort of thing again in the future."

"We're going to exercise good judgment throughout this [process], and we prefer to license, so we're going to give that every opportunity," he continued, "but as we've shown today, if we can't get there, we won't be shy about taking the next step."

What's at issue is a key methodology used in public key cryptography when the number of bits in a word is radically increased.

A public key involves a modulus - a numeric base, which in this case is the product of two very large prime numbers multiplied together. At the root of the secret is the identity of these prime numbers.

Today, we're starting to deal with 1,024-bit public keys, which are huge numbers, an entire directory of which may be difficult to store; and as the number of bits required increases, cryptographers need ever higher prime numbers...and beyond a certain point, primes are notoriously sparse.

Rather than try to reduce the size of public keys, ECC borrows from the notion that both these primes can be represented as points on an elliptic curve. The curve can then be represented by geometric coordinates, in such a way that any point on the curve multiplied by an integer will yield another point on the same curve. So once the formula knows how to interpret the curve, an algorithm can derive the primes involved in the cryptographic calculations, which also fall on that curve.

The underlying math is perhaps centuries old, and Certicom itself offers a public tutorial on elliptic curves on its own Web site.

Certicom apparently patented the concept of elliptic curve mathematics in cryptography as soon as it could following the first suggestion of its use in 1985, by a fellow Certicom admits worked for IBM at the time. It since filed subsequent patents on variations of its use, including #6,563,928, "Strengthened public key protocol," which describes the use of exponentiation as a technique for placing the very large numbers required for high-bit cryptography into a smaller, more manageable group.

This is one of two patents Certicom claims Sony willfully infringed upon, and as Certicom points out, the method is used in Sony's AACS supporting products including the PlayStation 3, its Blu-ray Disc players, Vaio computers, and numerous HDTVs; as well as in its DTCP supporting products including its i.LINK wireless video streaming ports.

For good measure, Certicom also threw in an infringement claim with regard to US patent #6,704,870, "Digital signatures on a smartcard," which Certicom claims is exploited by pretty much the same list of products - including the PS3 and Blu-ray.

What could be extremely troubling to Sony's partners is a portion of the otherwise boilerplate language of the Certicom suit accuses Sony of willfully infringing upon Certicom's intellectual property by virtue of its having advocated Blu-ray - and thus the AACS content protection system it relies upon - in the first place.

"Defendants have...directly infringed, and induced others to infringe, and committed acts of contributory infringement, of one or more claims of the '870 Patent," Certicom's suit reads, "by making, using, selling, and offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into the United States products that utilize encryption systems which infringe that patent. The infringing products are all products that utilize encryption systems in accordance with the AACS specification and/or the DTCP specification and include, but are not limited to, all products which include DTCP-enabled i.LINK, DTCP-IP and/or Blu-ray technology."

Intel is the principal creator of the DTCP system, in association with Sony, Hitachi, Matsushita, and Toshiba. Sony is itself the champion of the Blu-ray Disc Association, whose members also include Apple, HP, Dell, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Mitsubishi, and Thomson.

If Certicom's legal theory is upheld by a federal court, then all of these companies could be vulnerable to similar patent suits for willful infringement - and the danger of treble damages that entails - simply for being members of their respective associations.

"We've got a very strong financial footing," Certicom CTO Herve Seguin told analysts this afternoon. "We're very, very confident that we can successfully pursue the suit with the resources we have on hand, with some left over, and we really believe the stakes are high enough for us to commit our funds to that venture."

Another very well-known user of ECC technology is the federal government. Would Certicom consider going after them? No need to, the company's Executive VP, Dr. Scott Vanstone, confirmed to analysts today, since the National Security Agency is a paid licensee and a legitimate user.

Is there a possibility that companies such as Sony, and others who received what they believed to be valid licenses from the AACS Licensing Authority, could implement a workaround that doesn't infringe upon Certicom's IP? Not likely, the company said today, since Certicom patented the concept of ECC, not some specific implementation of it. Did the company investigate Sony's implementations in PS3 or Blu-ray to detect specific infringements?

"We weren't able to determine how the implementation is being done," admitted Vanstone, "so all we can determine is that they're using concepts that we have coverage on, solid coverage on."

Certicom said it expects the initial phase of this court battle to last several months, if not as long as two years, and is prepared to shoulder the expenses during that period.


Update ribbon (small)
9:15 am May 31, 2007 - In a comment this morning to BetaNews, Counterpane CTO and globally recognized security expert Bruce Schneier said he believes Certicom may have a case.

"Certicom certainly can claim ownership of ECC," Schneier told us. "The algorithm was developed and patented by the company's founders, and the patents are well written and strong. I don't like it, but they can claim ownership."

Add a Comment (45 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By nietzschex

edited Nov 8, 2007 - 12:41 AM

I wonder if there are any trademark registration issues involved here?

Score: 0

By wibblejelly

edited Jun 6, 2007 - 5:45 PM

Much as I dislike Sony for their dubious practices such as trojans on CDs I am equally unimpressed by patents on basic mathematical concepts that have been known for a long time: Just because they are implemented on computer systemns does not make them novel / original.

The whole patent system is at fault for inadequately addressing originality issues.

Score: 0

By rsx508

edited Jun 4, 2007 - 12:43 PM

Geez. For any article posted that references arguments over IP, there should be a button that readers have to click on that takes them to http://www.uspto.gov/ to read up BEFORE they're allowed to post comments. Maybe that will help keep them on par with reality.

Score: 0

By Dsfargeg

posted Jun 2, 2007 - 12:27 PM

Sony is again stealing patents to implement in their crap because they can't come up with anything good themselves. That's nothing new.

That just accelerates the failure of the misbegotten Blu-Ray and makes it join Sony's other failures (Betamax, MiniDisc, Umd...) even sooner.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited Jun 2, 2007 - 12:45 AM

Sony will have to pay license fees. Taking a bigger loss on every BD player and PS3 sold. Jagoffs.

p.s. DaveBG, HD-DVD is in the lead again which is where it belongs as it is the better looking format of the two.

How's it goind Steve? Still a carter member of the Sony Protection Group?

www.sonyprotectiongroup.com

This is the link you posted a month ago, fanboy.

Score: 0

By CarLox

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 8:36 PM

ha ha that really made up my night lol, TAKE THAT SONY FANS!

Score: 0

By jungor

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 1:33 PM

[quote]"We weren't able to determine how the implementation is being done," admitted Vanstone, "so all we can determine is that they're using concepts that we have coverage on, solid coverage on."[/quote]

I think what he really means is that REGARDLESS of how the implemenation is being done by Sony, he strongly believes that Sony is implementing it in a way that is patented because Certicom almost patents all ECC implementations.

Score: 0

By ericxx77

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 3:34 AM

Interesting, this is cool, nearly made my day. :)

Buy Software
http://www.buydownload.net

Score: 0

By jungor

edited Jun 1, 2007 - 2:19 AM

This article is misleading, especially the quote from Vanstone. Certicom doesn't really patent the concept of ECC. In fact, it patents certain, and most, implementations of ECC, thus leading him to believe that Sony has infringed upon their concept. Because regardless of how Sony implements ECC, it infringes upon one of the implementations of ECC, i.e. the whole conecpt of ECC. I hope I can say it clearer.

Score: 0

By rsx508

posted Jun 4, 2007 - 12:38 PM

Excellent point. Most people assume you can patent an idea or concept without having a demonstratable (tangible) example to cite in the patent application. Most people could do themselves a lot of good by reading http://www.uspto.gov/web...eral/index.html#whatpat

Score: 0

By jkfish

edited Jun 5, 2007 - 7:40 PM

"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." -- Chuck Reid

A good point, in theory.

In reality, its not "most people" that could "do themselves a lot of good" by reading about what's SUPPOSED to be patentable, its the USPTO PATENT EXAMINERS:

http://www.theregister.c...s_patent_office_appears/

What is patentable in reality is actually ANYTHING, including concepts, ideas, your DNA, and anything else somebody can think of a way of describing on paper.

Just another example of the horribly broken patent system. While, in theory, I *hate* what Certicom is doing, in practice, I can't help but allowing myself a little chuckle when the ridiculous changes the powerful lobbies have made to the law to suit their own interests, at the expense of the rest of us, come home to roost in an obvious-to-the-rest-of-us way that big company lawyers never seem to be able to predict or plan for ...

Score: 0

By andrey

posted May 31, 2007 - 5:39 PM

hey, maybe Greeks should sue Certicom since they have invented the concept of algebra and prime numbers, therefore when Certicom uses a "modulus - a numeric base, which in this case is the product of two very large prime numbers multiplied together", is technically violating that concept.

I honestly believe it is ridiculous to patent the concept without an actual product.

Score: 0

By obzabor

edited Jun 3, 2007 - 9:16 PM

Without a product??? What's this, then?

http://www.certicom.com/...action=product,sbcrypto

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted May 31, 2007 - 11:41 AM

"patented the concept of elliptic curve mathematics in cryptography"

What????

I wonder if anyone has patented the use of algebra in energy production?

Or the use of logic in thinking?

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited May 31, 2007 - 5:03 PM

There isn't any logic in thinking these days. It wouldn't get them much money.

But to answer you properly:
Think of a secret recipe, that is basically a formula. Secret recipes can be patented and therefore formulas can.

"Elliptic curve mathematics in cryptography" has probably been seen as a formula, and therefore patentable.

(Replace 'formula' with 'algorithm' where appropriate)

Score: 0

By ukcn001XYZ

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 7:16 AM

I know the recipe for water is H^20! Where does the patent line start? Like this case, sure the formula has been around for centuries and implemented in countless forms, but long as I'm the first to claim it backed by my loyalist army of lawyers, bam money in the bank!

I heart patents.

Score: 0

By Arteekay

posted Jun 6, 2007 - 9:59 PM

Nice try, but there's a little problem of prior art. Water was all around before you walked into the patent office.

Can you get me a glass of Elliptic curve mathematics in cryptography, please?

Score: 0

By alec.trent

edited May 31, 2007 - 9:32 AM

correct me if i'm worng, but dosen't HD-DVD also us AACS within its DRM/Content Protection?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted May 31, 2007 - 12:40 PM

That's what I was thinking...in fact, there are many other companies that use this technology, no?

Score: 0

By Steve Austin

edited Jun 1, 2007 - 4:57 AM

Usual "everyone hates Sony" headline grabber, thus website hits..

Gutter press. the simple way, is use a ad blocker on these sites. Kill their revenue stream, until such a time, they decide to behave responsibly....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 31, 2007 - 1:27 PM

From Certicom's viewpoint:

Sony has more money.

From Scott's viewpoint:

Putting "Sony" in the headline guarantees more hits.

Sure, it's jaded and cynical, but I only got crap French Roast today, and not my Obsidian, dammit.

Score: 0

By SMFulton3

posted May 31, 2007 - 2:06 PM

Certicom sued Sony. Thus, Sony belonged in the headline. Certicom did not sue AACS, though it did threaten AACS.

-Scott "The Secret is Smoother Coffee" Fulton III

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 31, 2007 - 4:46 PM

I knew they were suing sony. I was just raggin' on ya.

I promise I'll have better coffee tomorrow. ;p

Score: 0

By SMFulton3

edited Jun 1, 2007 - 8:55 AM

Well, as you can see, you managed to trigger a curious little response: an accusation that we in the "gutter press" included Sony in the headline simply to grab hits, for a story about a lawsuit in which Sony is, for now, the sole defendant.

First of all, that presumes that any story that simply has "Sony" in the headline triggers more hits than others - a presumption that is not at all borne out by the data. But secondly, and perhaps more dangerously, this type of opinion follows this line of thinking proliferated by opinion cable news show barkers that "facts = opinions" - that the choice of facts that a publication or broadcaster presents is solely based on criteria derived from personal opinion. Which is absolutely false. If I had a negative opinion of Sony as a corporation, it would not compel me to decide not to cover this story.

It may not have been your opinion to start with, PC_Tool, but the follow-up you triggered smacks of a lack of understanding of the business of actual journalism. We cover the facts in front of our face. If we omit certain facts because we don't like the color or the flavor or the smell of them...then we are doing a disservice to the reader. But if we fail to conveniently omit those facts, then no opinion whatsoever can be deduced from that "failure."

-SF3

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 9:25 AM

Well, as you can see, you managed to trigger a curious little response: an accusation that we in the "gutter press" included Sony in the headline simply to grab hits, for a story about a lawsuit in which Sony is, for now, the sole defendant.


Yeah, from Steve. The guy Sony fanboys aspire to be. Just smile, nod, and slowly back away.

It may not have been your opinion to start with, PC_Tool,

It wasn't, still isn't, and likely won't be in the foreseeable future. Like I said, I was just pulling your chain. (What others do in response on a public forum is *well* beyond my control)

-SF3

Now come on... no sense of humor yesterday?

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted May 31, 2007 - 2:47 PM

adding a little bit of baking soda--like a little
less than 1/16 teaspoon--to skitty coffee helps.
Improves it up to, oh cvappy.

Score: 0

By melkor

posted May 31, 2007 - 8:41 AM

Usually I'm against software patents, except in this case. These companies that design and support DRM are getting what they deserve.

Score: 0

By Tene

posted May 31, 2007 - 1:05 PM

I was about to type the same thing. "+1".

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted May 31, 2007 - 1:17 AM

Can I sue someone in this forum just for kicks? I just wanna make news too and go with the trend =)

Score: 0

By kbsoftware

posted May 30, 2007 - 8:12 PM

So let me see AACS was created to protect the copyright of movie makers etc.
And they accomplished this system by stealing a patented system from someone else.

Am I the only one who see's the irony in this.

Score: 0

By Let1Go

edited Jun 1, 2007 - 4:56 PM

> stealing a patented system from someone else.

Certicom's claims have not yet been tested in Court, so you cannot say there was any theft. Read those patents: they are ridiculous (obvious, too broad, having prior art, etc).

Several years ago Certicom argued against RSA, claiming that ECC does not have such horrid licensing terms. It does.

Until recently Certicom claimed that it had not sued anyone over its patents. It was just a business decision, not that they are nice boys. A too early lawsuit would have scared away many potential users. Waiting until there are enough users to make it very expensive to switch over to another encryption scheme is just mean.

Score: 0

By obzabor

posted Jun 3, 2007 - 9:31 PM

> Certicom's claims have not yet been tested in Court,
> so you cannot say there was any theft. Read those
> patents: they are ridiculous (obvious, too broad,
> having prior art, etc).

...but NSA decided to pay up ($25mil) anyways; and Bruce Schneier says the opposite. So, dunno. They are likely to have something here.

Not *every* patent is ridiculous, though many are.

> Until recently Certicom claimed that it had not sued
> anyone over its patents. It was just a business
> decision, not that they are nice boys. A too early
> lawsuit would have scared away many potential users.
> Waiting until there are enough users to make it very
> expensive to switch over to another encryption
> scheme is just mean.

Well, Certicom is a company of 120 people, with some 5-10 who you can consider the management team. So, who is the Machiavelli? The only candidate, CEO for the last 5 years has just been fired. So no, conspiracy theory wouldn't work.

The timeline makes a lot of sense: end of 2003 they receive a first validation of their patents from NSA; 2004-2005 they update their strategy for licensing model. 2005-2007 they try to license. Now they go to court with those who refused for two years or more.

If you need a conspiracy theory anyways, how about this: a cowardly CEO refused to be aggressive in enforcing the patents, until angry board and shareholders got rid of him and started doing it...

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited May 30, 2007 - 5:59 PM

"Certicom said it expects the initial phase of this court battle to last several months, if not as long as two years, and is prepared to shoulder the expenses during that period."

In 2 years we'll see a new 'content protection' system.

And in 2 years AACS will be completely hacked (it mostly is already).

It makes no real difference.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted May 31, 2007 - 3:26 PM

It makes no real difference? That's like saying, "Even though I was caught pirating movies, by the time the court case was settled I already bought a new hard disk and threw the old one out along with the movies. Therefore I am not guilty of piracy." Also, if you had actually read the article, you would have realized they're not just targeting AACS specifically. There are many fields in which this type of cryptography is used.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 31, 2007 - 4:57 PM

"That's like saying..."
No, it's not.

Why did they bring out a new content protection system?
Because the old one was broken.
It will happen again, and it won't make any difference to Sony et al if this court case succeeds because they'll have a new scheme out by then because this old one was broken.

It'll cost them money for the court case, but it won't cost them money on having to make a new protection scheme because they will already be making one.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jun 1, 2007 - 3:38 AM

"Why did they bring out a new content protection system?
Because the old one was broken.
It will happen again, and it won't make any difference to Sony et al if this court case succeeds because they'll have a new scheme out by then because this old one was broken."


Wow, you completely missed the point. Let's try again. What does brining a new protection scheme to market in the near future have to do with infringing on patents RIGHT NOW? What kind of protection Sony will be using next year or ten years from now has no bearing on the current lawsuit. I know you're thinking that Sony will be saved by the fact that the case will most likely drag on long enough for their next DRM to come out. Again, that will have no bearing on this lawsuit. It's not like Sony can say "we'll we're no longer infringing now." Even if the case drags on for 10 years, I'm pretty sure if they lose, then they will have to pay retroactive damages.

Score: 0

By BCTech

posted May 30, 2007 - 5:56 PM

I'm going to patent the concept of patents. Then I will truly hold all the power of the world in my hands! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 30, 2007 - 6:00 PM

Too bad, I already patented the concept of patenting the patenting system.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted May 31, 2007 - 3:27 PM

I wish I could patent stupidity. I could make BetaNews a better place by enforcing that patent.

Score: 0

By Second Shadow

posted May 31, 2007 - 12:17 AM

Too late ... I already patented concepts .. period

Score: 0

By Sexbarril

posted May 31, 2007 - 6:45 AM

Prepare to be sued.

I just patented periods.

PERIOD also... solid coverage.

Latz, SB

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted May 31, 2007 - 6:00 AM

Darn.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted May 30, 2007 - 5:47 PM

sweet

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 30, 2007 - 5:32 PM

So....

Hooray for patent suits?

I think I'm going to be sick...

Score: 0

By xtrustx

posted May 31, 2007 - 2:47 PM

Makes you throw up a little in your mouth ...

Score: 0