rich, ruined or simply ignored?

[Lock Jock]

I initially thought of putting this in the Open Source subforum, but I saw no threads which were entirely relevant, ergo it goes General.

What would be the value of a design that:
1. cannot be defeated by the usual methods (picking, bumping, buzzing, impressioning, decoding, etc.)
2. allows the owner to easily rekey w/o cutting a new key
3. is virtually a drop-in replacement cylinder with no or very minor retooling of existing housings (the mechanism is dramatically different; the shape and size are not)
4. is 100% mechanical

No, I'm not trolling -- and it's obviously past April 1st, so it's not a joke.
This is actually a serious question.
I'm curious if anyone outside of the locksport community would even care.

1. The big boys in high security have invested so much into their own proprietary designs that they likely wouldn't be willing to pay what it's [probably] worth, even to keep it off the market (ignored), assuming the public even wants it (possibly ignored).
Or, because of potentially disastrous financial consequences of a competitor getting their hands on it or the designer entering production, should the big boys' offer be declined, they may be tempted to take drastic measures (ruined, assassinated, etc.).

2. The average Joe is probably content with his relatively bump-resistant, economy Kwikset or Schlage (ignored).

3. Locksmiths would naturally be out for blood (assassinated, ruined, etc.).


I'm sure the locksport community would love the challenge, but beyond that, realistically, what monetary gain is to be had?

One might sit on a patent and see no benefit, then suddenly when the patent expires, s/he sees their design on the shelves -- it's been known to happen.
Even with clear ownership, the matter could be tied up in court for decades (a la http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns).
I guess I'm wondering at this point if it's even worth pursuing. If one weren't outright assassinated, the aggravation of lengthy court battles with relatively low reward might do him in -- and solve the problem for "them".
Patents are cheap enough, but not everyone has millions for protracted fights with behemoths in court.

I won't go into detail, for obvious reasons. Suffice it to say that patent searches reveal nothing similar on the books. Yes, it is unlike what you're accustomed to picking or attempting to pick, including pin, disc, wafer, lever, dimple, combo, hybrid, etc.

I'm sure many of you are thinking, "Yeah yeah.. every once in a while some random tool spouts off about a superior design.. yadda yadda <yawn>." That's fine. Belief in the existence of such a lock isn't relevant to the [hypothetical] question. Does it [would it] have pecuniary value? Billions? Anything? Nothing?
What would you do?

[Bob Jim Bob]

Can you give me more info about the patent searches you did?

[Lock Jock]

If you're interested in doing your own search, you can try the USPTO database: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/search/index.jsp -- most of my time was spent here.

There's also this international site: http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/search.jsf

If you're asking what terms I've searched for, it's virtually anything to do with locking mechanisms. I have spent quite a few hours poring over the various descriptions and viewing diagrams.

[Bob Jim Bob]

I was intrigued by your idea and I was wondering how far along you were in the patent process. I believe when most people start hiring attorneys and investing in research, they find similar designs already exist. So I was hoping that you've come far along, didn't find anything like your design, and we'll get to see a new lock soon.

[Lock Jock]

no edits possible? hmmm..

P.S. then to the other post: If you're thinking about patent attorneys, no, I have not used a patent attorney/firm/agent to perform searches. That would likely be the next step before committing, for a couple of reasons:
1. their grunts who do this day in and day out could probably do a more exhaustive job of it than I have thus far
2. to get the scheme on the "official" books and dated in case of future claims against it (origin, initial concept, development timeline, etc.)

[Lock Jock]

oops, u replied as I was typing that last post -- geez, I wish we could edit our posts here.

[unjust]

1. cannot be defeated by the usual methods (picking, bumping, buzzing, impressioning, decoding, etc.)
2. allows the owner to easily rekey w/o cutting a new key
3. is virtually a drop-in replacement cylinder with no or very minor retooling of existing housings (the mechanism is dramatically different; the shape and size are not)
4. is 100% mechanical

1- i'll believe it when i see it. i'm certain that a mechanism for exploit can be found, although it may be different than the usual, e.g bumping is similar to snapping, etc.

2-i assume you mean can insert a random key and rekey the lock to that.

from what you've described, i sounds like the early press info for smartkey. it's got exploits now, and while it's taken off a bit, is by no means dominating the market.

bigboys? if they see a market for it they'll license it, if they don't you'll have an uphill but possible battle to get it distributed and sold. (i.e. sawstop)

average joe? many of the quasi security conscious sheep will buy any lock with a "high security" sticker on the package even though it's functionally identical to a cheaper one w/o the sticker. the trick is you'll need to have your mfg costs inline with the industry or present a really good reason why it costs more. i.e. is to going to stop someone from cutting my window screen?

lockies? the smart ones will sell them because they will break, (mechanical things wear out) and folks will still need keys duplicated, and you go to the guy you know. it takes years for one product to take over, and most folks don't change the locks on their houses for decades if that. i repinned a friend's front door lock that i suspect if original to the 1946 construction, and after a little cleaning and 1 new spring was as good as new.

it sounds like you're at the point of needing a patent atty, and a good one will run in the 5-20k range depending on the complexity of the design, and potential of multiple patents. it's one of the most expensive legal specialties because you have to be *very* accurate with it to keep it defensible. but, you can't shop it around until you have a patent.

if it's master keyable i'd guess it'll be worth more than smartkey, if not, it'd depend on mfg cost and superiority to that, although potentially as comparable.

[Lock Jock]

1- i'll believe it when i see it. i'm certain that a mechanism for exploit can be found, although it may be different than the usual, e.g bumping is similar to snapping, etc.

Well, yes, that's the natural and rational position to take on such claims.
This is why I intended the thread to be more about potential/hypothetical interest in the basic features of such a design rather than its specifics.

What I can say is that top priority for this project is thwarting the locksport community, having witnessed how inventive and tenacious some individuals can be (Medecoder comes to mind).
I've given considerable thought to potential vulnerabilities, ruling out hundreds of disparate schemes in the process. Many a time I thought I had accomplished my goal, only to put it aside for the night and the next day I was able to defeat it. I've been my own worst enemy with this thing.
The overriding principle has been that it must not function like any of the aforementioned types of locking mechanisms, thereby rendering the tools used to "pick" locks pointless.
The Protec, for example, is inherently bump proof, but it can and will eventually be "picked" (one Protecoder coming up).

There are certain fundamentals involved in every form/style of lock picking. Those had to be designed out.
I can't say much more about mine or prove anything w/o demonstrating it or leaking critical details, and that won't happen until the design has legal protection.

2-i assume you mean can insert a random key and rekey the lock to that.
from what you've described, i sounds like the early press info for smartkey.

No. I'm familiar with the SmartKey and SecureKey schemes and have examined the guts of those locks. They're interesting, but the one I've been developing doesn't work like them. What is similar is the basic fact that it can be "rekeyed" by the end user.

the trick is you'll need to have your mfg costs inline with the industry or present a really good reason why it costs more.

One design criterion was to keep complexity and component count to a minimum so as to enhance its appeal to manufacturers, increase reliability and allow for a reasonable street price. The savings will unfortunately be somewhat offset by the need for high quality materials. However, as another design criterion was to avoid the need for super tight manufacturing tolerances, the higher cost of quality materials should be hopefully mitigated.

i.e. is to going to stop someone from cutting my window screen?

Well, no lock is going to keep someone from smashing your window or crashing through your door with their truck -- unless we're talking bank vaults.

it takes years for one product to take over, and most folks don't change the locks on their houses for decades if that. i repinned a friend's front door lock that i suspect if original to the 1946 construction, and after a little cleaning and 1 new spring was as good as new.

That's something I've been concerned about. The only residential consumers who would buy this might well be those who happen to need a new lock anyway or are fed up with their fancy electronic/biometric gizmo for whatever reason.

With a perfectly functional, reasonably young and reasonably secure lock, they may show no interest in a new type of lock. Sales could be rather slow in the residential market, so the niche security market might be the only fruitful one.
That could pose a serious problem as well, though. If, for example, most security-conscious office building owners/managers in the world are already committed (or especially contracted) to Abloy, they would probably simply ignore this new alternative.

if it's master keyable

This is one area where the Protec, for example, shines -- if it actually works as well as advertised. I haven't placed emphasis on master keying, for reasons which I won't go into here other than to say it isn't necessary for maintaining hierarchical control over access with the scheme in question.

[cledry]

Will it be able to be master keyed?

Most commercial customers will require some level of master system, some get quite complex. One local hospital springs to mind, in this rather small 5 story building alone they have one GGM key, one cleaning MK, one floor MK for each floor, then within each floor they have individual departments that have their own MK, plus the doctors want their office key to work not only their door but the entrance to their dept and common lobby doors.

If it cannot be master keyed it will have a very small commercial market.

Also putting a better cylinder in residential locks is usually not even possible. Even when the residential lock has a replaceable type of cylinder the lock itself is so vulnerable to attack it is like putting a high security padlock on a screen door.

[Lock Jock]

Will it be able to be master keyed?

I've been concentrating on making the mechanism impervious to non-destructive attack, including the possibility of fabricating specialized picking and/or decoding tools (e.g., Medecoder). I've also put effort into resisting brute-force destructive attack, but that's essentially impossible for most applications. Drill proof lock? Hack proof bolt? No problem -- ram, cut or torch through the door (or frame) itself, etc.. If someone really wants in and has enough time, they're gonna get in.

The current design provides for easy access by those who know the code of the specific lock in question; it does not offer tier level configuration/support. I'll have to work on that.
Btw, no, it isn't a pushbutton type.

[cledry]

As a locksmith for about 30 years I am seeing the move to locks with an audit trail to make people accountable for entry through a specific door at a specific time and on a specific date. Obviously this requires electronics.

The other big thing is encryption in the keys, like a transponder.

Finally the end user wants to be able to eliminate users from the system quickly. In the past this was done with IC locks, but more and more it is done with electronics.

Yes there is a place for locks that are resistant to non-destructive entry but it isn't as big a market as is key control. If you can control the keys via a patent that is half the battle. If you are adding security that is a bonus but in my experience less important than unauthorized key duplication and usage.

[Lock Jock]

I believe I've devised a way to add master keying to my design w/o sacrificing differ count at all and modestly increasing component count. It looks good on paper anyway; how well it works in practice remains to be seen.

Tier keying this particular scheme 4 deep (change, master, grandmaster, great grandmaster) will increase complexity a bit and may force tighter tolerances. OTOH, I suppose the benefits of master keyability would outweigh these other issues in the minds of manufacturers.

I've been working on an electronic scheme on the side as well, mostly for my own amusement. That is to say, I've been developing the hardware/delivery aspect -- I haven't touched encryption algorithms. IMHO, they can be superior in every way except reliability and durability/ruggedness. Good systems also tend to be relatively pricey.
I haven't been very serious about a software based solution, primarily because I've no doubt that just about every imaginable scheme has already been patented, has one pending or has a patent applied for. I haven't done a search, but that's my gut feeling.

[Evan]

I believe I've devised a way to add master keying to my design w/o sacrificing differ count at all and modestly increasing component count. It looks good on paper anyway; how well it works in practice remains to be seen.

Tier keying this particular scheme 4 deep (change, master, grandmaster, great grandmaster) will increase complexity a bit and may force tighter tolerances. OTOH, I suppose the benefits of master keyability would outweigh these other issues in the minds of manufacturers.

@Lock Jock:

If you know what you are doing in the way of master keying, it requires adding no more than one master pin per chamber in the lock even to have a Level IV system with a Great Grandmaster key... I don't see where that would require any tighter tolerances than say a common Schlage commercial cylinder which uses .015" increments and only requires two-step progression between different valid bitting depths in the same chamber of the lock...

~~ Evan

[Lock Jock]

If you know what you are doing in the way of master keying, it requires adding no more than one master pin per chamber in the lock even to have a Level IV system with a Great Grandmaster key...

That doesn't apply to my designs. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a driving philosophy is that these mechanisms must not function like known schemes, and they don't.

This may make implementation of 4-level mastering more complex/difficult than it might otherwise have been, but 2 of the reasons I strayed from conventional schemes are:
1. I find them vulnerable to non-destructive attack. While the disc (Protec, RKL 10, etc.) is an elegant solution, I feel its days are numbered (in terms of the new ones being picked) and mine has other, additional benefits over these.
2. They're already patented -- no need to waste time reinventing the wheel.

Unfortunately, cledry is right. The move continues toward access control systems, especially in larger institutions. Everyone seems to enjoy snooping to the max nowadays and most feel the need to keep tabs on everyone else constantly.
I doubt my mechanical designs, sound as I believe they are, would have as much appeal to high volume commercial/industrial users.
I suppose they might appeal to smaller operations or individuals who don't need logs/audit trails. That said, lots of homeowners are going high tech as well -- e.g., Z-wave, where you can track the activity of and control your locks from anywhere over the internet!

[Evan]

If you know what you are doing in the way of master keying, it requires adding no more than one master pin per chamber in the lock even to have a Level IV system with a Great Grandmaster key...

That doesn't apply to my designs. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a driving philosophy is that these mechanisms must not function like known schemes, and they don't.

This may make implementation of 4-level mastering more complex/difficult than it might otherwise have been, but 2 of the reasons I strayed from conventional schemes are:
1. I find them vulnerable to non-destructive attack. While the disc (Protec, RKL 10, etc.) is an elegant solution, I feel its days are numbered (in terms of the new ones being picked) and mine has other, additional benefits over these.
2. They're already patented -- no need to waste time reinventing the wheel.

Unfortunately, cledry is right. The move continues toward access control systems, especially in larger institutions. Everyone seems to enjoy snooping to the max nowadays and most feel the need to keep tabs on everyone else constantly.
I doubt my mechanical designs, sound as I believe they are, would have as much appeal to high volume commercial/industrial users.
I suppose they might appeal to smaller operations or individuals who don't need logs/audit trails. That said, lots of homeowners are going high tech as well -- e.g., Z-wave, where you can track the activity of and control your locks from anywhere over the internet!

LOL... Even the best most new fancy expensive centrally monitored access control system is only as secure or insecure as the keyed override cylinders that most AHJ's insist are installed so that the doors can still be opened during/after a power or communications system failure so that no lives are placed in danger without resorting to destructive means...

It doesn't matter what you think you are doing, but if you are using split pin cylinders, trying to say you are making it MORE complex so it is harder to crack so you can master key it means you are adding unnecessary complexity with is not required and will ultimately reduce the security of the cylinder...

So would you care to explain how you can implement a master keying scheme on your lock if it does not operate like any known design, meaning no discs, split pins, positional progression, etc... It sounds more like you have a lock which can not be operated by a key at this point than anything else...

~~ Evan