Kim Dotcom Claims He Owns Two-Factor Authentication Patent

/ 3 years ago


Twitter has recently rolled out two-factor authentication and Kim Dotcom has come forward to say he is the inventor of this feature, and has the patent to prove it. The patent which was filed in 1998 and granted in 2000 is given to a Kim Schmitz, Kim Dotcom’s name before changing it in 2005.

“Google, Facebook, Twitter, Citibank, etc. offer Two-Step-Authentication. Massive IP infringement by U.S. companies. My innovation. My patent,” said Kim Dotcom on Twitter.

Kim Dotcom says he hasn’t sued because he believes in sharing knowledge for the good of society. However, given his current predicament he now believes he needs to leverage this patent in some way. Kim Dotcom says he has told Google, Facebook and Twitter that they can use his patent for free if they help fund his defenses against the U.S government.

He proceeded to make a sarcastic dig about patents saying “People used to imagine that 2013 would be full of flying cars & a cure for every sickness, but then patents happened”.

The two-factor authentication is a mechanism that intends to make it more difficult for hackers to access accounts illegally. When someone attempts to log in to a service from an unrecognized computer, the service sends a password to an alternative device, such as a cellphone number that was attached to the account. Thus, hacking an account is made more difficult without that last bit of information. Explains Softpedia.

What do you think of this revelation by Kim Dotcom? Should he start suing people for not paying fees to use his patent? Will his patent stand up in court?


Topics: , , , , , , ,

  • considering he LEGALLY changed his name, he has nothing to stand on as the patent doesn’t belong to the person named kim dotcom…it belongs to the individual named “Kim Schmitz” … yes this is the same person, but he LEGALLY changed his name …. so he gave up the rights to his old name … so in my opinion Kim Dotcom should rec nothing, unless somewhere in this patent it says even if said person changes there name they still own the patent…if not oh well yoru loss, better get another name changed done again ” legally of course ) lol …………… maybe ill go get a legal name change done, lol

    • Ben Curwen

      So under your logic, I can LEGALLY change my name to Kim Schmitz and then I will lawfully own the patent.

    • Malfice

      …By this logic, someone in debt could change their name and legally be free…

  • Ben Curwen

    So long as he doesn’t abuse the patent its fine, I only have a problem when he claims royalties ect. Anything that gives him something that disadvantages the other companies.

  • both ma be possible …who knows about the law these days anymore, lol

  • Mlambert890

    I vividly remember administering security tokens for 2 factor authentication in 1992 on dedicated financial trading terminals. If this self-aggrandizing jackass does have a patent, as usual it represents nothing more than the horrifically broken state of the patent system and, as such, is nothing more than semantics. Good luck to him in fighting Google over it. Here’s hoping they bury him.