Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #2892 > unrolled thread

Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:10 -0800
    Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:15 -0800
    Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 07:21 -0500
      Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:27 +0000
        Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 15:18 -0500
          Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 14:48 -0600
            Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 16:35 -0500
              Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 16:49 -0600
                Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 20:03 -0500
            Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. marty.musatov@gmail.com - 2014-02-09 10:31 -0800

#2892 — Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

unique_string (all letters)
&m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
&m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
repetition)

Consider the first the name.
Consider the second the challenge key.
Consider the third the passcode.

Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
key.
Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
correctness.
The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
secure.
Because while we know the number of variations far exceed
computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
has been made to attempt an answer.
To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
on or off name and passcode combinations.
Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
the information.
However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
correct challenge key to turn it on.
Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
the challenge code.
The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
in the same positions.
Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
the characters used in the name.
Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
name characters are removed.

So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.

If name is 01010101
      any  NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
include all punctuation without repetition
and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages

The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
of the contribution.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2893

On Jan 23, 9:10 pm, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> unique_string (all letters)
> &m9#&B0+1,9m. (none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
> mapped equivalent to each corresponding unique character)
> &m9#&B0+1,.(none of the same letters plus numbers and punctuation
> mapped equivalent to each character in order of appearance without
> repetition)
>
> Consider the first the name.
> Consider the second the challenge key.
> Consider the third the passcode.
>
> Once a valid passcode is input it is easy to map it to the challenge
> key.
> Once a valid challenge key has been confirmed both can be checked for
> correctness.
> The process of a computer figuring out a correct passcode without
> first applying it to the challenge is information theoretically
> secure.
> Because while we know the number of variations far exceed
> computational limits and restrictions of time and memory, we also know
> the problem can theoretically be solved only when a first attempt is
> made in observance of require orders of characteristics.
> In other words the machine actually only turns on once the decision
> has been made to attempt an answer.
> To prove this consider all names and passcodes combinations are either
> on or off name and passcode combinations.
> Once a name is on there need only be provided the passcode to unlock
> the information.
> However if the name is off first must be provided to the name the
> correct challenge key to turn it on.
> Following the correct challenge key being accepted the correct
> passcode can be immediately computed and entered.
> We know based on the name certain position variables will repeat in
> the challenge code.
> The simple way to prove this is if the name has repeating characters
> completely unique and unused challenge key characters will also repeat
> in the same positions.
> Therefore the first logical step in solving the problem or finding the
> solution is to take the set of all possible characters and eliminate
> the characters used in the name.
> Once this is done we know the challenge key will consist of only
> characters remaining from the set of all possible characters once the
> name characters are removed.
>
> So if my name is "Martin Musatov", I can eliminate all
> M,a,r,t,i,n,s,o,v characters. What we are left with once the
> requirement is added the challenge code contain numbers and
> punctuation mapped equivalent is a binary form.
>
> If name is 01010101
>       any  NPNPNPNP will meet the valid challenge format test
> provided definitions are set for N to include all numbers and P to
> include all punctuation without repetition
> and of course 0 represents all letters and 1 represents all languages
>
> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
> of the contribution.
+u

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2894

On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>
> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
> of the contribution.
>

And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.

BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright 
a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at 
any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.

If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2895

On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>
>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>> of the contribution.
>>
>
> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>
> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright 
> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at 
> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>
> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.

Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
"intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
independent definition beyond the definition of those categories. 
It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
purely mataphoric sense. 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2896

On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>
>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>> of the contribution.
>>>
>>
>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>
>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>
>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>
> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
> purely mataphoric sense.
>>

In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of 
the world.

Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm 
is U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what 
the op is proposing.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2897

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>
>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>
>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>
>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>
>
> In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of the 
> world.

You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you can't!! 
I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that 
you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept. 
Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on both 
hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was 
explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that 
was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.

> Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm is 
> U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what the op 
> is proposing.

My server does not have enough history so I can see what was 
proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the 
notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could be 
patented.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2898

On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>>
>>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>>>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>
>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>>
>>
>> In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of the
>> world.
>
> You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you can't!!
> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that
> you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on both
> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
> explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that
> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>

Many "concepts" have been patented.  The RSA patent is, for instance, an 
algorithm.  There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, 
no logic drawings.

And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the 
unlock slider on Apple I-Phones.  Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, 
and courts have found it is enforceable.  Again, it's a concept - no 
code or logic diagrams associated with it.

There are many, many others.

I guess they just have better patent attorneys.

>> Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm is
>> U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what the op
>> is proposing.
>
> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
> notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could be
> patented.
>
>


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2901

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the 
>>>>>> value
>>>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot 
>>>>> copyright
>>>>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it 
>>>>> at
>>>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>>
>>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of 
>>> the
>>> world.
>>
>> You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you 
>> can't!!
>> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said 
>> that
>> you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
>> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on 
>> both
>> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
>> explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar 
>> that
>> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>>
>
> Many "concepts" have been patented.  The RSA patent is, for instance, an 
> algorithm.  There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, no 
> logic drawings.

But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it.  This 
is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things 
around and convert a concept to a patent.  That's exactly what happened 
here.

> And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the 
> unlock slider on Apple I-Phones.  Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, and 
> courts have found it is enforceable.  Again, it's a concept - no code or 
> logic diagrams associated with it.

I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real 
patent is a letters patent.  The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent. 
(Or was.  I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on 
extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.)  The xerography patent 
is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards.  Some 
of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.

> There are many, many others.
>
> I guess they just have better patent attorneys.
>
>>> Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm 
>>> is
>>> U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what the 
>>> op
>>> is proposing.
>>
>> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
>> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
>> notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could 
>> be
>> patented.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2903

On 1/24/2013 5:49 PM, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot
>>>>>> copyright
>>>>>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>>>>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>>>>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>>>>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>>>>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>>>>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>>>>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>>>>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of
>>>> the
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you
>>> can't!!
>>> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said
>>> that
>>> you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
>>> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on
>>> both
>>> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
>>> explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar
>>> that
>>> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
>>>
>>
>> Many "concepts" have been patented.  The RSA patent is, for instance, an
>> algorithm.  There is no code associated with the patent, and of course, no
>> logic drawings.
>
> But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it.  This
> is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things
> around and convert a concept to a patent.  That's exactly what happened
> here.
>

I looked at it also.  What you call "logical drawings" are just an 
algorithm in visual form.

>> And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
>> unlock slider on Apple I-Phones.  Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it, and
>> courts have found it is enforceable.  Again, it's a concept - no code or
>> logic diagrams associated with it.
>
> I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real
> patent is a letters patent.  The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent.
> (Or was.  I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on
> extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.)  The xerography patent
> is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards.  Some
> of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.
>

It is a "look and feel" patent.  Period.


I guess these companies have better patent attorneys than you do.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4108

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:48:14 PM UTC-8, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
> 
> >> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> >>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
> 
> >>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
> 
> >>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
> 
> >>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
> 
> >>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
> 
> >>>> of the contribution.
> 
> >>>>
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
> 
> >>> a concept.  If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
> 
> >>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
> 
> >>>
> 
> >>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
> 
> >> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
> 
> >> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
> 
> >> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
> 
> >> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
> 
> >> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
> 
> >> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
> 
> >> purely mataphoric sense.
> 
> >>>
> 
> >
> 
> > In the United States you can, anyway.  I don't know about the rest of the 
> 
> > world.
> 
> 
> 
> You can what?  Can patent a concept?    He just explained that you can't!! 
> 
> I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that 
> 
> you can't.  The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept. 
> 
> Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program.  I have patents on both 
> 
> hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was 
> 
> explained to me, was *just* a concept.  Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that 
> 
> was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.
> 
> 
> 
> > Many computer algorithms are patented.  For instance, the RSA algorithm is 
> 
> > U.S. Patent 4,405,829.  I don't see that as any different than what the op 
> 
> > is proposing.
> 
> 
> 
> My server does not have enough history so I can see what was 
> 
> proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the 
> 
> notion/concept/whatever/  could be *converted* into something that could be 
> 
> patented.
The basic idea is once a name is identified: (unknown by end-users)

              For instance if my secret name is (martin)

The second is a challenge code:

              I go to log-in and receive a challenge code:

                                   challenge unique string:        dbvfoq
                                   challenge unique user input:    vbvfqo

              I know if I chose martin: d=m, b=a, v=r, f=t, o=i, q=n
                            
                                    my required input:             rartni

The third is pass-code:

              Once I have passed the "my required input" by correctly incorporating the "name" known only to me in meeting the challenge unique user input, only then am I given the opportunity to enter my password.


SUMMARY: By adding this feature most people would never get to the point of being able to enter in a password unless the secret name on the account is known, the chances of one being able to get to the password prompt would be nearly impossible unless you have some frame of reference to overstep the challenge code prompt (as it depends on the name) known only to the person, and has no place in the public display of the account or the public keeping of the account. In other words unless you know the name, have time to figure out and defeat the unique challenge code prompt depending on the name, you will probably never make it to the pass-code prompt. (I call it pass-code because we could further utilize a password set by the account holder and append the password with whatever the challenge name code was in the "user input required". For instance if my password on the account with the hidden name "martin" was "PASSWORD" the password would only work if it is dynamically changed to "PASSWORDrartni". So the password dynamically incorporates the account name and challenge code to allow the password attempt by either pre-pending or appending the password existing as it is changed on demand following prompt and successful challenge based on name code. Signed, Martin Musatov (amateure analytics consultant backwards WORDS company names @@ CONSULTING w/ a client in DNOMDER.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web