Microsoft patents sudo

mostlyharmless · 11-12-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

I'd like to see MS enforce that patent seeing as the "prior art" has already been around and in use for so long.

Don't know if enforcing is so much the idea as patent trolling and defending against patent trolls; they can add it to the 254 (or whatever) number of patents they use to threaten companies with litigation or defend themselves with countersuits if threatened. You might think it's absurd, but litigation is expensive and the court system unpredictable, so I think the threat alone has force. BTW, why limit "completely broken" to the patent office; it's the whole US legal system (now one of the US's chief contributions to the world) which is bonkers.

nigelc · 11-12-2009, 10:42 PM

M/S
It's trying stir up the FUD.

jens · 11-13-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazL

In contrast, both su and sudu (and their gui counterparts) are initiated by the user in order to swap to another userid prior to running a specified command.

Try running an app with only root privs in a KDE/GNOME menu.

PS: a default KDM + KDE setup doesn't even allow you to run GUI apps as root.

ProtoformX · 11-13-2009, 10:13 AM

You people realize that the user who started this thread can't read right? Not to back up M$ in anyway, but there are not patenting the sudo command, rather there patenting a method of telling the user they need permission to run such and such, think UAC, yes it almost like a gui'ed version of sudo, but its not the same thing, I love how people can't read!

One of the major differences is sudo can elevate users to any account, this new patent M$ uses can only give the user root... there not the same one uses POSIX the other does not, since they have a different security scheme and set on different standards, this is not sudo, its nothing like sudo, it would be like comparing a 2D image to a 3D image and saying they are one in the same... no there not, the only thing they have in common is they both have pixels.

That being said...

Microsoft shouldn't patent it anyways, but they did, who cares, it in no way effects us, so why cry about it?

jens · 11-13-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProtoformX

rather there patenting a method of telling the user they need permission to run such and such, think UAC, yes it almost like a gui'ed version of sudo, but its not the same thing, I love how people can't read!

That's exactlty what KDE does as well (unless you don't understand how patents work).

ProtoformX · 11-13-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jens

That's exactlty what KDE does as well (unless you don't understand how patents work).

No it's not, kdesu is entirely differnt, it run on a postix complient system... the way things are done a differntly, look at it this way:

if M$ patents printf

printf ("Characters");

This does not mean i can't use PRINT in basic? Nope

Print "Characters"

these things do the same thing, but dont... if you look at the assembly of each you can see that one calls a DOS/WIN interrupt the other does not, they look the same but under the hood they are two differnt animals, one is faster then the other and allows more augments.

Another example is M$'s double click patent, if I triple click I am not doing the same thing but I am... my "triple click" adds something to double click, but i am still doing the same actions.

jens · 11-13-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProtoformX

No it's not

Yes, it _is_.
That's why I asked you if you fully understand how patents work*.
Your example is wrong.

*Edit: ...and how they are interpreted in a legal case...

smeezekitty · 11-13-2009, 07:35 PM

i wonder if they will patent ls next?

MrCode · 11-13-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeezekitty

i wonder if they will patent ls next?

or cp...

EDIT: Heh, interesting that I used cp as an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if MS actually did patent that, then that would allow them to create their own proprietary version that will only allow *certain* files to be copied (think over-the-top DRM)...

smeezekitty · 11-13-2009, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCode

or cp...

EDIT: Heh, interesting that I used cp as an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if MS actually did patent that, then that would allow them to create their own proprietary version that will only allow *certain* files to be copied (think over-the-top DRM)...

think if they do that i will stop using windows.

moxieman99 · 11-13-2009, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schneidz

in all fairness, i think is patent for a gui implimentation of privlidge escalation.

But one of the requirements of a patent (properly evaluated, which is where the US system is broken) is that the improvement cannot be an "obvious" step or progression in the art.

Given that everything can be done from the command line/terminal if one so chose, I'm not sure that a patent for a gui version of SU would hold up. Even the whole idea of having a "window" (gui) could not be patented by Microsoft (only the trade name could be registered), but the original idea I think was developed by Xerox.

Now, the idea that command line/terminal commands can represented through a gui probably was patentable......once. After that, however, minor derivations that are not new won't support a patent if the analysis is done properly. Otherwise I could have one patent for opening a word processor via gui and another for opening a spreadsheet via a gui, and another for -- you get the idea.

sundialsvcs · 11-14-2009, 07:21 AM

A "1"derful invention:

Quote:

Patent #123456: Method for Representation of Arbitrary Information in a Computing System
... We claim as our invention that information is represented using combinations of two principal information states, herein referred to for convenience as 1 and 0 ...

Reviewer's Comments
"Do you know what the hell they're saying, Freddy?"
"0 ..."
"So we should just approve it, then, I guess?"
"1 ..."
"Suits me." (Thump.)

Status: Approved

schneidz · 11-14-2009, 08:49 AM

for those of you who quoted me about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by schneidz

in all fairness, i think this patent is for a gui implementation of privilege escalation.

it is actually microsoft patenting a graphical way to change to an administrator user account when the current user doesnt have the proper security to run a specific program.

i am not saying that microsoft is right (i just wanted to correct the previous posters whose responses seem to indicate they think that microsoft is claimining ownership of the *nix version of sudo -- (i think it is a stupid patent either way)).

jens · 11-15-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schneidz

for those of you who quoted me about:
it is actually microsoft patenting a graphical way to change to an administrator user account when the current user doesnt have the proper security to run a specific program.

i am not saying that microsoft is right (i just wanted to correct the previous posters whose responses seem to indicate they think that microsoft is claimining ownership of the *nix version of sudo -- (i think it is a stupid patent either way)).

I honestly agree with the "Groklaws-folks" on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJ

Update 3: In response to some criticism that what Microsoft has patented is something new, not just sudo, first, that is what the article says, as per the "bells and whistles" language. Second, please remember what the US Supreme Court wrote in the decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.:

We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss and codified in §103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose.

Now. Think about sudo and Microsoft's patent. Where does it fit in the ordinary innovation spectrum? If you are in doubt, I invite you to read the comments to this article, where you will find many comments indicating that it surely lacks uniqueness in concept or in some cases approximate application, from what I've been reading, being just a natural little bell and whistle that some had already thought of. Even if no one had thought of it, is it not a natural extension of sudo? For that reason, the patent, despite what some are saying to try to minimize the seriousness of this patent, does have potential application to the marketplace, because it's what they call a blocking patent, meaning its purpose is to lock up a certain technology so others can't use it without paying. Worse, to quote the court, the worry is that "patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts". That is precisely what my article highlights.

Now. Those who think patents are a good thing don't mind such a thought. Folks can believe whatever they like, of course. But how about you? Imagine IT when all these simple, foundational, obvious concepts are locked up. How do you like it? Guess who will own most of it? You? Linus? FOSS projects? Then what happens to innovation? To simple functionality? Patents already block certain functionality totally in FOSS. Why would anyone see more of that as a good thing? See now why I wrote about it? And I stand by what I wrote.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91111094923390