Slashdot Mirror
Apple Tries to Patent Fast User Switching
Ashcrow writes "An article from The Register points out Apple's attempt to patent fast user switching. It seems that Steve Jobs admits that Microsoft beat them to the punch but believes Panther's implementation is superior."
Alt-F1, Alt-F2... I can switch between root and myself in about 1/8 of a secord or less. Its amazing really. I bit longer to switch between console and X.
--- its to bad about the monkey, I kinda liked them
um, isn't "su" fast user switching? Doesn't that have prior art?
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Incidentally, it does, however, cover uses such as the Mac OS' Location Manager, which switches network-related settings according to the user's location. The patent extends that idea to cover other, more personal settings and data, that might depend on the user's location/identity, ie. the computer's owner as public individual and as company employee.
I think that this is really the point here. Apple's got a great implementation of multi-environment profiles and they want to protect that. Jobs himself said that WinXP got there first...It'd just be odd to retract and deny that.
Anybody remember when Apple patented "lighted" computer devices? Everybody was guesstimating that it meant your new iMac would, at the press of a key, turn into the center of a disco party for you and your friends. Mostly we are inaccurate, since we never know what's behind the doors at 1 Infinite Loop.
Finally, when contacted, Jeff Bezos said, "Been there, done that!"
Here's the Direct Link.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
Since I have no karma here goes:
Apple + FreeBSD = FeeBSD
OS X Aqua is a single user gui on top of a multi-user system, this is otherwise known as a kludge.
On second thought I'll post this anonymously.
You've probably just seen it on other sites since the news has been out for a while now.
"I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
If there's a prior implementation, how can it be patented, especially when it's not like Apple can claim that they don't know about any competitors?
This is the USPTO we're talking about. You could patent the wheel and nobody would notice until the Register posted the story.
because it appears that nobody here is able to. They are not patenting fast user switching per-se but changing application settings and preferences on the fly, such as what location manager is doing.
...that UNIX beats itself. OS X is UNIX, and user switching is really just as fast as on any other *NIX based system, the only delay is Apple's insistance on having a perty Quartz graphics transition between it.
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Microsoft tries to patent "fast user baiting-and-switching."
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
As much as we'd all love to see Apple successfully sue Microsoft, It won't happen. This reminds me of the 1998 lawsuit about Microsoft ripping off the "look and feel" of Mac OS.
The article even points out weaknesses in the strategy (I know, I know, I broke the slashdot rule by reading the article).
"At WWDC, Jobs admitted that Microsoft had beaten Apple to market by offering such a feature in Windows XP, but he claimed Apple's implementation was the better of the two." and "The downside - if Apple's intent is to outflank Microsoft; we're only guessing here - is that the patent refers to multiple personas of a single user, not multiple users".
Microsoft is an EXTREAMLY WEALTHY corporation. When it comes down to how the legal system works, the more money you can spend on lawyers the more you can get away with. Hell, even the GOVERNMENT didn't beat them. I know they were convicted of being a monopoly, but really, what has happened since then? They still hold a monopoly on the desktop market, they still own windows and office, and they still infest every windows computer with a copy of internet explorer. I'd say that they really won.
I'd love to see apple (or anyone else) be able to truely step up to them. Sadly, as long as they continue to have as much money as they do, there is no chance
----
Squirrel
Switching back is the hard part.
If you read the article, you will see that Apple has filed a CONTINUATION of a patent involving user-switching, originally granted in 1995. This is a completely legitimate move on their part. It is arguable that they have owned this technology for years. As for using SU for user switching, this would be true as an earlier form, however the patent applies to the GUI. Dan
Standing on the shoulders of giants.
Straight from The Register story (the The Register story?):
:)
At WWDC, Jobs admitted that Microsoft had beaten Apple to market by offering such a feature in Windows XP, but he claimed Apple's implementation was the better of the two.
That would imply, surely, that Microsoft has a solid prior art claim?
No. The current application, filed last November and updated this past June, turns out to be a continuation of a patent, number 6,512,525 filed in August 1995, long before Windows XP arrived, and finally granted in January 2003 with the same title. That patent is also assigned to Apple.
My blog
Apple patents everything they can imaginably think of, right down to the skins on their OSes, and they never use a single one of these patents. (OK, they bitchslap people who make themes similar to aqua, but based on trademark law, not patents.)
If they give any indication they'd ever use this patent, ever, I'll bitch and moan about it with the rest of you. But they never will, and anyway, this idea is SO obvious I can't concievably imagine them ever winning a lawsuit based on this patent even if they tried.
In the meantime, i want to see how long it takes someone to make a serviceable Virtual Desktop implementation based on faking out the fast user switching implementation. Also, I find the Register's last paragraph a bit odd:
Will Apple use its new-found intellectual property rights? Maybe not, but like its use of QuickTime patents to win a $150 million investment from Microsoft demonstrated some years back, it may now have the opportunity to do so if it ever hears the words 'cancelled' and 'Microsoft Office' in the same sentence.
Patents? Hmm, I seem to remember that particular lawsuit being over several tens of thousands of lines of actual source code that slipped directly out of the Quicktime codebase and into the Microsoft Media Player codebase, through the intermediary of a third party contractor that both Apple and Microsoft hired at different points. I could have missed something, though.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
That's like saying the hammer drives a nail into wood, is different from the hammer that drives a nail into wood, but also makes funny noises.
The thing about software patents is that they are Implementation-Specific. For example, the patent held by Adobe on tabbed palettes that can be dragged in and out. Adobe was able to sue Macromedia because Macromedia copied the implementation verbatim. Had Macromedia used a different technique to tear off palettes they would have been safe.
Likewise, by extending their Location Manager patent to include user-oriented settings Apple is implying that the switching technique and internal binding methods are unique to their implementation. Microsoft may have a semblance of fast user switching under XP, but there is no doubt that their implementation relies on different hooks and methods than the Apple implementation, which is a very thin layer that leverages the Darwin underpinnings of the OS. Most geeks here can easily guess the techniques Apple had to use in order to make this possible on top of Darwin. These techniques are certainly more graceful and less of an OS kludge than whatever Microsoft had to bolt onto Windows, and could easily be applied to other Unix-like OS's.
There will be a time in the not-too-distant future when portable devices will contain GPS by default, and automatically switch locations and users on the fly. Apple is doing the right thing here, formalizing their design via the patent system.
-- thinkyhead software and media
On linux (and probably any other system with XFree86 ) To get to the first virtual console Use: CTL+ALT+F1. Then login and type:
someone@server someone]$ startx -- :1
X windows starts using the next available console. To switch between X sessions use CTL+ALT+F7 and CTL+ALT+F8. To start more sessions use :2, :3 etc. This has been available (but not well documented) for many years. Have Fun!
So you can have a decent IM conversation with the other person using your Mac.
The patent application talks a lot about pen based systems. In fact, it says:
Therefore, it would be desirable to provide some method for quickly and easily changing an entire collection of parameters of relevance to the pen-based computer system when its owner adopts different personas.
I don't know of many pen based systems that Apple still markets...
- This is a continuation of a patent filed in 1995, and finally reviewed and granted in January 2003. Even if this was patenting Fast-User Switching, it was filed way before MS had it.
- This is NOT a patent on Fast-User switching (by itself). MacOS has, since, well probably no earlier than '95 but I'm thinking it was introduced around '98 or so had the "Location Manager". It works like this: LM compatable Control Panels saved their prefs in config files within the Preferences directory in the System Folder, and registered themselves with the Location Manager on initialization. Then, using a Location menu, you could simply snap all the settings to different configurations with one menu. Quite handy, I have one set on this machine for "normal" and one for "MIDI setup".
- We've all seen the Balmer video, but even he wouldn't be so stupid as to announce "our compeditors beat us to it" and then file a patent. Steve may be sadistic, but stupid he is not.
If I see one more post about "I have a virtual desktop and I can put a different xterm on each one" or "One word: su" , all I gotta say is this:The case against UI skins maker was the use of the Apple Logo and calling it Aqua. Most of the people removed the apple logo and changed the name and everything was ok.
Go out and get sailing!
Ask any BOFH about the "rule of thumb" for whip, cane, tawse, or switch. I find that 7200 users per minute is about the practical limit.
Personally, I prefer to counterbalance two riding crops to the hub of an old full-height 3600 RPM 5.25" hard drive.
For particularly annoying users, I also have an RM-80 disk pack (14-inch platters!) salvaged from an old PDP-11/70. The platters spin at 1800 RPM, but the huge motor required to accelerate them allows me to spin up four bullwhips.
Moral of the story: Don't fsck with the BOFH.
This may indeed be an attempt to patent "fast user switching" on Panther, but the patent talks about switching personalities on a pen based system. I, for one, would like to be able to tell my PDA to switch between my work persona and my persona persona, and to keep the calendars separate. The mention of that in the application is a new idea that I haven't seen done before, and it's much more intriguing than Apple supposedly trying to hoodwink Microsoft. Here's the relevant line in the application:
[0082] In the example presented in FIGS. 4a and 4b, the hand-held machine is shown to have two personas. In the case of FIG. 4a, the persona is Stephen Capps, professional engineer, while the persona illustrated in FIG. 4b is provided in for Stephen Capps, private citizen. As shown in FIG. 4a, some information associated with Stephen Capps, professional engineer, includes his company affiliation, title in the company, company address, and company phone number. In contrast, his private citizen persona is shown to include his home phone number, and may include such other information as a home address, etc.
I definitely haven't seen either Mac OS X switching or Windows switching do something _that_ useful.
think "the Wheel" is already in the database?
yes, it is.
There are actually many wheels in th USPTO database. But no one got a patent on the concept of the wheel itself because before the 1980's you had to actually make something innovative to get a patent. Since then... well let's just say a friend of mine got the patent on using electric motors in robots. He doesn't enforce it, but I convinced him to frame it and stick it on his wall a couple years ago for laughs. (He actually did invent a new motor for walking robots but the lawyers put in a claim on motors in robots because they didn't find any prior patents and the patent office accepted the claim.)
The USPTO gives bonuses to patent examiners for accepting patents, it's system engineered for abuse.
Unless you're familiar with Location Manager and can disagree with that implementation, I don't believe there *is* prior art.
... AppleScripts to manage everything else
:: 'Multiple users - Machine' then it does appear valid that Fast User Switching is a continuation of the original patent Apple holds regarding the technology that is Location Manager.
Or rather, that Mac OS (Classic, not X) *is* the prior art, and that *Apple* owns the original patent, of which this is merely a continuation if you read the article.
Location Manager allows a single user to change multiple settings on a computer with a single selection:
Wireless Plugged
Wireless Unplugged
Netless Plugged
Netless Unplugged
Wired Plugged
Wired Unplugged
At Home
At Work
Roaming Unplugged
So that with a single selection the user can change:
Bandwidth settings on Qucktime and the network
Power/Battery/Energy saver settings
Screen Saver settings
Printer settings
Network settings (DHCP and Proxies)
Browser settings
If you look at 'Multiple locations - User'
su is *not* fast user switching, it is just changing the user locally in a terminal; and it doesn't change the settings of the machine, applications, or even the environment *outside* the terminal, unlike FUS or Location Manager.
GPL Deconstructed
Has anyone here actually read the patent that the Register article links to?
/. story now), with only their wild guess as to what Apple is actually patenting.
It covers "Multiple personas for mobile devices".
It's a hell of a stretch to go from that patent to fast user switching. The Register even admits it's a inaccurate description of user switching, although they underplay it.
That patent sounds like it would more accurately describe a handheld device that could serve multiple roles (like a mp3 player, a movie player, a camera, a phone, etc) and could rapidly reconfigure it's GUI to accommodate whichever 'persona' the user wanted.
I'd say this is just the Register blaring sensationalist bullshit to get attention (and succeeding wildly since they have a front page
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
su actually stands for "Switch User" I believe, and you can in fact switch to any user:
SU(1) OpenBSD Reference Manual SU(1)
NAME
su - substitute user identity
Okay, I know people are challenged to read the articles, but you should at least read your own post. Like where it says "su - substitute user...", giving a vital clue as to what "su" really stands for.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
(Cue cheesy balalaika music)
When I used to be Dan on my powerbook five seconds ago, I couldn't do anything. I couldn't get my e-mail from work, I could only browse the net at 56k, and all my Brittney Spears mp3's would play back in Swedish.
Then I got Apple's fast user switching.
Now I'm named Barbara. I can browse the internet using bluetooth, I've got access to corporate VPN's Dan never did, I've got a Hello Kitty background on my desktop, and everyone in the chat room thinks I don't have a penis. This just rocks!
My name is Dan..er..Barbara Wickowski, and I'm an insurance salema..er..saleswoman.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
How could they get a patent for technology that has existed much before either company was ever created? Unix has been using this technology for ages. Mainframe operating systems have this feature too, and its an extension of the dumb-terminal idea. So... How would this work?
I have to wonder if Apple isn't trying to maneuver MS into a position of having to maintain their Office suite for Mac OS X. We just witnessed a five-year span where a standoff (or "agreement") between the two companies ensured continued Office for OS X development, thereby staving off a lawsuit by Apple against MS. I wonder if Apple reinstating their patent on fast-user switching isn't a way to position MS into another similar agreement. Who knows? Curious move on Apple's part.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Has anyone here actually read the patent that the Register article links to?
/. story now), with only their wild guess as to what Apple is actually patenting.
It covers "Multiple personas for mobile devices". That patent sounds like it would more accurately describe a handheld device that could serve multiple roles (like a mp3 player, a movie player, a camera, a phone, etc)
A laptop is a mobile device too. In fact, the patent explicitly makes a distinction between a hand-held computer and a portable computing device (see claims 34/35, 43/44 and 50/51 from the patent). In the desciption it states that: "Computers are becoming increasingly [...] portable. [...] Laptop, notebook, and sub-notebook computers are virtually as powerful as their desktop counterparts." In other words, the class of portable computing devices referenced in the patent includes laptops.
It covers "Multiple personas for mobile devices". It's a hell of a stretch to go from that patent to fast user switching. The Register even admits it's a inaccurate description of user switching, although they underplay it.
The term 'user' as used in Unix is really just a persona. It's certainly not equal to a person since the root and guest accounts are not directly related to a person. They are more like roles, aka personas. Multiple personas seems to be an valid description of (fast) user switching.
I'd say this is just the Register blaring sensationalist bullshit to get attention (and succeeding wildly since they have a front page
Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to examine the entire patent (it's very long), but your criticisms don't seem to hold water. So for the time, I'll have to give The Register the benefit of the doubt.
PS. Quotes were edited for readability.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Sheesh, everyone in Linux clamoring that their OS can do User Switching too. It's like they're jealous or something.
C'mon now. It's plain to see that fast user switching is a better solution than just virtual consoles, or even multiple X servers. For one, security. I can safely transfer control to someone else without worry of them messing me up. This safety isn't necessarily from deliberate attempts to cause harm. I have a user account for people who don't know my computer, thus they have a nice little box they can check their email in. An accidental keypress can dump you back in the other environment.
Second, it fractures the metaphor. When you "log in" a GUI then you are identifying that machine as "you" for the duration of that session. Everything that computer does, it should do as "you." Fast User Switching is a clean extension of the metaphor to allow for multiple users at a time. The console and multiple X terminals is not.
For the people who just advocate using su or sudo to switch shells, that's fine. For advanced users, that's very possible and doable. Remember OSX has a pretty schwag terminal app built right in should power-users want it. But the average user doesn't understand it, doesn't want it, doesn't need it. However, they do need a way to switch users.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense