How patents are used to get around DRM, and why you need to know

By Brian Dean, Ars TechnicomTech EditorThe new patent from Microsoft that gives you the ability to “protect” an installed game from being played by someone else could end up making your PC more vulnerable to attacks.

That’s because Microsoft is suing to block the use of the patented technique, known as a “defective implementation,” in the upcoming Xbox One and Windows 10 versions of its Xbox 360 console.

The Microsoft patent covers the “defective implementation” as an algorithm that is used to determine whether a game can be played or not.

It claims to be the “most reliable method for determining whether a video game has been played.”

The patent goes on to say that the “Defective Implementation Method” is “one of several such defects that could lead to an undesirable effect on the video game” if it is used incorrectly.

Microsoft is asking a judge to stop Microsoft from making this kind of claim in its patent lawsuit against Sony.

The idea that you could use “defection-based methods” to block a game from playing by another person is a common one among patent trolls, but it’s one that Microsoft has been fighting against.

In its suit, Microsoft claims that Sony is trying to create an “unlawful monopoly” by “using its patents to prevent its customers from accessing its products.”

“Defective implementations are not new, and they have been used for decades in patent lawsuits,” Microsoft said in its statement.

“They should not be used as a method of ensuring that the public has access to protected content.”

Microsoft also notes that the company’s patent claims that “defeatability of a defective implementation can be verified through the use and evaluation of software.”

The company has been using the term “defacto” to describe a defect that you can’t fix.

For example, if you buy a new computer and decide to put a few hundred dollars down on it, you can put it in a case and you can claim that it’s defective in that case.

But if someone else did that, you’d need to replace that computer before you could get a refund.

But this patent is much more specific about how you can use this method to make your computer more vulnerable.

The patent says that you must “detect, investigate, and mitigate any defect.”

And it adds that the defect must be “detected and investigated” before you can “detection and mitigate it.”

That sounds a lot like the “bug-in-a-box” method Microsoft is using in its Xbox One complaint.

That technique requires you to install a “bug” into your system before it can be used.

This “bug,” as it’s called, is then tested by Microsoft, and if it detects a defect, it can fix it.

Microsoft claims that it “is entitled to recover the damages” if this technique is used in a way that “treats the defective implement as a defect.”

The problem is, Microsoft doesn’t want to use this tactic in this case.

“Microsoft does not intend to use the Defective Implementation method to create a defect and has no intent to do so,” Microsoft wrote in its response.

“The defect-based method does not protect against a defect because Microsoft cannot identify the defect before the defect is detected,” Microsoft added.

“The defect may be detected, but the defect cannot be fixed.”

This is the exact same approach Microsoft has used to prevent gamers from downloading the PlayStation 4 game Crash Bandicoot: Naughty Dog.

The company tried to do the same thing with the Xbox 360 version of the game Crash Team Racing.

It tried to use “bugging” to stop gamers from installing the game onto their machines, but that never worked.

And even if Microsoft was successful in this lawsuit, it might not be able to stop other developers from using this technique.

The Patent Office already has some of the patent’s key claims against Microsoft.

“Defects in a defensible implementation are not necessarily harmless,” it said in a blog post.

“A defect that is detected, investigated, and mitigated can cause the defect to be corrected.

However, a defect is not always immediately apparent to the user and can result in the user experiencing additional defects.”

In addition, there are some defect-related technicalities that cannot be captured in a defect-detection test.

Microsoft also noted that “a defect is a defect if it can have a disabling effect on a user’s experience of the product.””

If Microsoft were to use a defect as a defense, such as a false positive, the defect could be a defense to Microsoft’s patent claim,” Microsoft argued.

Microsoft also noted that “a defect is a defect if it can have a disabling effect on a user’s experience of the product.”

Microsoft wants the court to rule that “the defect-prone nature of a defect can only be demonstrated by showing that the defection was intentional,” and that

By Brian Dean, Ars TechnicomTech EditorThe new patent from Microsoft that gives you the ability to “protect” an installed game…