Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents sudo
Jimmy O Regan writes "Justin Mason (of SpamAssassin fame) has this blog entry: US Patent 6,775,781, filed by Microsoft, is a patent on the concept of 'a process configured to run under an administrative privilege level' which, based on authorization information 'in a data store', may perform actions at administrative privilege on behalf of a 'user process'."
So, I guess the prior art will be easy to show... right?
5468652047616D65
So SU me!
Probably redundant by now.
So of course this is completely unenforcable...I wonder if they'll even try. What is the process to go about for getting this patent revoked?
man sudo >/dev/uspto
A process configured to run under an administrative privilege level, eh? excuse me a second... ah --- ah---- ahchoooooounixpriorart !
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Wouldn't this patent also cover setuid, as that's a way you can have an app run under superuser privs for a regular user?
I don't think I've seen a true unprivileged user under an M$ system yet. Everyone is talking about previous art, which is definitly around, but I'd say make M$ prove they actually understand sudo before you start complaining about "I saw it first."
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
In reading the patent, it does look pretty obvious that it's doing what SUDO is doing... I think this should be blown up with little effort.
Is there any penalty for filing patents for which you KNOW prior art exists? If not, there definitely should be.
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
US Patent 6,775,786 : Filed by Microsoft : The concept of clicking a mouse button to perform a task.
Closely followed by...
US Patent 6,775,787 : Filed by Microsoft : The concept of intercourse to procreate.
Seriously, what is the world coming to. Corporates such as Microsoft should not be allowed to patent bogus things like this.
This is truly Capitalism at it's worst...what power have the US given these people!?
No, sudo asks for the password of the currently running user, and then if correct, checks a data store - /etc/sudoers - to see if that user is allowed to use sudo, and only then runs the administrative command. The root logon is not involved; it's actually disabled on some of my boxes.
I can see missing prior work as prior art. But missing the famous setuid patent seems just silly.
http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html
Prior art.
I'm not going to put it off anymore, I have an amazing idea and I'm off to patent it. Its a web based front end for system updates, see, it scans the system to determine what updates are needed, then only presents them to the user in such a way that they can see what updates are critical and which are just general enhancements. I'm going to make a mint.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Hmmm, I'm wondering if they are trying to "patent" the process by which hacks and 'sploits use to elevate their rights so that they can throw "patent" infringement charges at the authors of worms / viruii and other malicious malware type stuff, in addition to the tired old "hacking" charges. Then, with the recent change in the political wind, they can use Federal Agents under the Patriot Act to hunt down and arrest those "terrorists" - or was that from "copyright" infringement? I'm getting those two as confused as the congressmen and federal agencies are!
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Technically you could call a directory a "data store". If so, this is no different than setuid/setgid, right along with sudo.
"All those tubes and wires and careful notes!"
I'm not really worried about patents like these because I feel that the whole patent issue is coming to a head, and that in the end, things will change. Silly patents will not even be contested in court, and many will be tossed out for sheer sillyness.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
" the concept of 'a process configured to run under an administrative privilege level' which, based on authorization information 'in a data store', may perform actions at administrative privilege on behalf of a 'user process'."
Hell, that sounds like Klez!
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
Seeong that the US has military and economic power to boot, we pass the laws that the US requests, and hope to stay alive. And of course the US passes the laws that Microsoft requests :)
This is not a signature.
msudo
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
The American patent system is so out of control, it's unbelievable. The companies that abuse the overworked, underqualified patent office to stack up dubious patents for future ammunition against competitors ought to be sanctioned!
;)
I don't have words to express how angry this IP grab makes me - and I'm not even an American! Did the Patent Office do any looking into prior art in this case at ALL?
Whose brilliant idea was it to give corporations the same legal rights as an individual? I wonder if this kind of crap would happen if only individual inventors could apply for patents, whether or not they were funded by a company that paid for their research. Hell, make it illegal for companies to defend patents or fund the defense of their employees' patents - make it up to the inventor to go to court and defend themselves! Jail time if prior art is found!
Research would still get funded, but only for the purpose of improving products, not for expansion of intellectual property portfolios.
IANAL (obviously), I know these are probably stupid suggestions, but damn it, we need some extreme methods to match the extreme opportunism shown by these companies. Anyone else have other pie-in-the-sky, impractical ideas for changing the US patent system?
Companies are getting rich by stealing the future inventions of people with these generic fucking patents. What are the odds that those who invented the patenting process actually envisioned it being twisted around and allowing people to patent ideas, and concepts, the like of which they themselves have no idea how to achieve.
The idea of a patent is, or at least should be, to patent an invention. Not some task or distant goal which you can imagine some day being achieved, but are unable to currently achieve yourself.
Imagine if Ford had been able to patent the automile in generic enough terms so that any motorized land vehicle was covered... Where would we be today Wine makers had patented the fermentation process before beer had existed?
IMHO, patents should be for very specific inventions, and processes, which you have invented, and can accurately demonstrate at the time of patent request, and which of course didn't exist in it's current form prior to your invention
The computer industry, and it's money sucking lawyers have been allowed to chisel away at the wording and verbiage of the patent laws to such an extent that you are now able to patent just about any idea/concept someone may have down the road. Just think about the stifling of innovation if those science fiction writers of the 50's had patented all that they foresaw.
What makes me mad is that no one has yet come forward and shown prior artwork for a patent on lawyer wielding companies who make their money by exploiting the ideas and innovations of others through a series of generic and vaguely worded patents and threats. Perhaps then this whole mess would disapear.
The article's headline may be a little misleading, as it looks like Microsoft isn't directly patenting "sudo", but rather the concept of "a process configured to run under an administrative privilege level." Microsoft patenting "runas" may be a better description.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
i'm sure 20 years ago ibm's dos/vse, vm and mvs used to do this to allow an ordinary user to run one program which required the services of another so could invoke the other program to run with elevated priviledges. the priviledges were associated with the program not the user.
sudo - through the use of it's data-store the "sudoers" file, can be configured multiple ways.
#1 - To require the "root" password.
#2 - To require the password of the userid that the user is running as.
#4 - To require the password of the userid the user wishes to switch to.
#5 - To not require any password at all.
When not requiring a password, it can be configured by the userid, or the command that is being run.
All in all, it's very configurable, and definately fits the prior art criteria.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
$ sudo mount -t vfat /dev/hdd1 /mnt/win1
Instant patent violation!
Actually, double patent violation: FAT and sudo.
Now pull down your pants, bend over and prepare to meet my lawyers.
-- Signed: Bill Gates
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's a pseudo-patent.
thanks, I'll be here all week....
I think MS has prior art on this one. Their programs have been executing at a higher than normal privilage level for awhile.
Personally I hope the Patent office continues granting MS patents that have such prior art ---- two things will happen -- 1) it makes the patent office look to be a joke and can be used in court against patents in general and 2) makes MS look to be even more a fool seeings how they really should know better then to file such patent applications for such prior art stuff in software...
Pubpat or the Electronic Frontier Foundation
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Although it's easy to view this patent as a frivolous innovation that will probably be overturned (eventually) if MS chooses to pursue action against competitors, the danger is in the precedent that is continually being set by the USPTO. By failing to adequately examine the concepts behing these obvious patents (eg, running a process authorized by root, single/double/triple clicking a mouse, etc.), our patent system is perverted into one where the burden falls on new inventors to prove that their innovations do not infringe on patents, rather then a system where the burden falls on patent-holders to prove that their IP has been infringed upon.
This strategy may work in the US, where we can simply put the inventor^h^h^h^h^h criminals in jail (note that the US already has among the highest incarcerated population %-ages), but it probably won't hold up well against the rest of the world, especially the parts that don't think the USPTO is the last word. Unless we can start to incarcerate a larger percentage of the world's population for infringing on US IP, this strategy may not prove to be sustainable.
Perhaps corporate sponsorship of prisons facilities would help make this strategy a winner...
My theory is that Microsoft is patenting all these things so they can use it as part of a marketing campaign to PHBs when Longhorn comes out. Something to the effect of, "Why take the risk of running Linux when we own the patents on everything they use?" I know a few people it would convince pretty easily... Tis all FUD.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
A friend and I resolved a while back that we should file a patent for A protocol for expansion of the human race, and essentially describe the process of sexual intercourse in extremely vague terms.
After taking over all the porn sites in the world, we could start suing parents across the nation.
In fact, you should really just give me $699 today if you plan on having sex any time soon. The license is good for a whole year! (But only for one partner.)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
It's an old news, but I wonder have slashdot crowd found out this patent:
P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200301895 97&OS=20030189597&RS=20030189597
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
The most interesting part is the images. There you can actually see the Gnome logo. (There is an extra karma bunus for the first who find the KDE logo;)
So Microsoft have already begun patenting Linux.
It is true that M$ cannot buy GPL code, but it can buy the coders.
Now, guess what will happen after the fiaSCO is over.
And people say MSFT doesn't invest in R&D. Brilliant!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
HELLO? When was FAT patented...NEVER. Microsoft didn't even invent fat. Please think before you post.
Ignorant people shouldn't yak.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I don't think there's an out this time. Usually, when you get posts saying "Microsoft patents clicking!!" there's usually something in the patent that says "clicking on an icon by using a joystick, underwater, over the internet" or something ridiculous that means the patent doesn't have prior art, but the idea itself does, and will probably be used to try and stretch the patent as far as the courts will let it.
But this time, it looks like they are doing exactly what sudoes. Maybe finally all the anti-Slashdot-stereotype trolls will be wrong.
Here's my read:
CLAIMS:
1. Processing a request from a non-admin user to do admin tasks. check.
2. Determining if the user can do such a request. Check.
3. Checking a data source to do #2. Check. (etc/passwd, others)
4. Checking a data source to see which one of many admin tasks the user can do. This might be a bit iffy, because I'm not incredibly familiar with sudo. I would assume it's possible to restrict the usage of sudo for different tasks, and if so, Check.
5. Multiple users. Check.
6. Groups. Check.
7. Using it for Methods. I think the Linux kernel might allow only certain system calls to be done by an administrator. If so, check.
8. Groups for #7. Check-maybe.
9,10. Combining classes and methods. Here it seems they get really specific, and it doesn't look like they define "class" or "method." Maybe.
11-13. Passwords. Check.
14-23. A computer to do the above. Check.
24-34. A security framework to do the above. Check.
35-49. Doing it over a network. Check. Now, here, a network seems to involve "hyperlinked documents creating a user interface." Certainly this idea is older than 2000. Check.
50-62. Again, having a computer to do 1-49.
63-end. Yeesh. Having a computer to do everything from 1-62. I guess they are covering every single combination.
So there's the claims. There's nothing in there that sudo really doesn't do, because I think the vauge language MS is using can be applied to a lot of different methods of unix-style security.
So who's going to care? No one, especially not at the Patent Office.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Perhaps, if the SCO actually has the IP rights it thinks it has, this might almost be a worthy lawsuit :)
Then again, then I wouldn't want either side to win....
You can change the config in the sudo.conf file to ask for user passwords, or to run without it for certain users, etc.
I get the feeling more and more that Microsoft is doing something like this:
Manager 1: Wow! They accepted that patent! The USPTO is crazy! Even with a year or so of prior art!
Manager 2: Yeah, no kidding!
Manager 1: Let's try this one next. It's got 3 years prior art.
Manager 2: Wow! They accepted that one too! What morons!
Manager 1: Man...let's see just how crazy we can get here...let's go with 20 years prior art, and see if the dopes accept it!
Manager 2: LOL HAHA ROFLMAO! They took it! What planet do these guys live on?!?!
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
With sudo (an instance of using the suid capability of UNIX), the process itself is priviledged, with privs based upon information in the data store and command line arguments.
This patent sounds more like there's a root daemon running in the background and I send it a message asking that it mount a CD-ROM for me; it looks me up in a database of users permitted to mount CDs; and performs the mount on my behalf.
"This signature quote intentionally left blank"
It would probably read more like:
But specifically, they'd be patenting C:\> .
End of Line.
What an auspicious start. Maybe M$ will decide to patent some of the new features.
If the summary is correct, sudo doesn't count.
At least, normal sudo use doesn't count.
This looks more like a daemon that will accept
commands to run. With sudo, you don't have a
privileged process performing actions on behalf
of a user process. It's a privileged process all
by itself, plain and simple.
Maybe xcdroast+cdrecord would count, if cdrecord
is setuid and xcdroast is not. That's key. You
have to have two processes, one of which is not
privileged. Knowing the way Windows would likely
do things though, a daemon may be required.
Of course, it's quite possible that the prior art involved is that of the programmers working on the original Xenix product for MS.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
M1: Alright, pay up.
M2: I can't believe this. (pays)
M3: Hey guys, 3 to 1 odds I don't get the patent on the 'long rectangular button which inserts a space character when pressed'. Who's in?
M1: $50 you don't get it.
M2: $200 for.
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
Onto the description which is not as sound as commenting on the actual claims but at least provides an idea of what they want to patent. First thing to note is they are once again on the appliance angle. They aren't discussing a PC. They're discussing an XBox or NAS.
Now hitting the Detailed Description, here is where they slide in that the patent can cover general purpose PCs. Lots of discussion about Web-based administration. So it's not just sudo but Webmin+sudo.
If anyone wants to take this to the next level go for it. I did my best to RTFP and this is as far as I think I'm going to take it. It was kinda cute to note how general things were in the patent e.g. "data store" that can cover the registry or a text file but there are other things to read tonight.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Sorry, SCO Already has a patent on that
Microsoft: hello I want to fill a patent request...
...but don't you first want to...
...well but there's this thing called prior...
Patent office employee: ok, granted!
Microsoft:
Patent office employee: NO NO NO I said granted!!
Microsoft:
Patent office employee: I SAID GRANTED!!
Microsoft: yeah but there was another pate...
Patent oggice employee: KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY!!! GRANTED YOU BIG-POCKET COMPANY!!!
That's not what su or sudo do (say that five times fast). They use no separate root process waiting to receive and proxy privileged calls.
The patent specifically says that the request comes from a non-root user and goes to a root process; that the data sent across particularly describes an OS call and its arguments; and that the root process makes that precise call on behalf of the user.
Now, I'm not going to claim that no one has ever done this in the history of the universe. But it's not what sudo does, and the RPC based utilities that I can think of don't fit this exact pattern.
please don't give them any ideas...
They will never stop until somebody makes the
A bunch of comments here are exclaiming that
1) This patent is identical to sudo! Prior art!
2) Microsoft will use its patent on sudo to attack Linux.
Obviously both statements cannot be true. If Microsoft ever attempted to enforce this patent on distributors & users of sudo or a sudo-like device, they would have no case. They would have proven that the patent is invalid, because the product that they are attempting to block is considerably older than the patent.
1) This is like sudo, but different enough to merit a patent.
2) Microsoft will never attempt to enforce this patent on something that is older than the patent.
And I don't even have to read the patent. Keep in mind that "different enough to merit a patent" is barely different at all. Even the dumbest programmer does 200 patentable things per day. If you're the first person to do any of them, you can file. If you're the second person to do any of them, you're liable. That's the problem, not that Microsoft has gotten away with patenting some existing feature of Unix (and Windows, for that matter).
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
To get it passed, make some pictures. Take a screen shot of M$'s update notification and then add some preview buttons, a block diagram and other widgets. You might not be able to patent M$'s dinky notification, but you can keep them from improving it. That's what they are trying to do to Gnome's Pager.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Wondering.
This "prior Art" of which everyone is speaking.
Would it apply to a full-form patent application posted publicly?
Meaning, if I present here the idea of a type of list-browsing method where the user is presented with newest added or scanned items inserted into the next selected cursor position in an updateable or actively updating list as they browse arbitrarily sorted or ordered items or values, that this declaration itself constitutes prior art (if, theoretically, the language was legally sound)?
Even if it's not prior art it's still a good idea huh?
I digress.
Is the concept of an "open patent" even applicable legally? I hope so, because I have some ideas that I would like to open up (and I have the feeling i'm not the only one).
It would be great, having this huge database of ideas that any designer or engineer could feel free to impliment or incorporate or merely look into for inspiration.
Competition is good in practice, but cooperation is better in play.
Ugly and insecure I know but my choices were to get off my ass every time the server bogged (not bloody likely), give every bozo with enough rank to work overtime for free admin and show them how (even less likely, I'd quit first) or implement an ugly kludge that could screw things up royal if used by morons.
I also realize upgrading to a OS that did'nt leak memory in it's network service was a long term option.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
'... In software, assume that everything is already patented. You can't build anything, no matter how new it is, without infringing someone's patent. patents and linux ...'
[tim bray]
must make a mention of tim brays article on software patents that I've recycled from a while ago.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I would prefer a ~6 month public comment period, after full public disclosure.
Also infers requirement by PO to listen and follow up.
It's going public anyway...
cheap, almost free, and if noone cares, it gets approved.
Also would disseminate the "new" ideas, which is the REAL point of patents in the first place.
One more requirement: must be comprehensable to the average HS graduate, and provide FREE links to all references. (implies HTML)
ssh allows (via authorized_keys) to execute selective remote/local actions by certain authenticated entities. And it is all highly configurable:
- who can execute remote (or local) commands
- what operations (commands) can be executed
- using what privileges (via setuid/setgid bits and command owner/group)
And since the agent (sshd) is a permanently running process, there's really nothing new in this patent as decribed.Am I missing something?
not only would the applicant lose the patent and the filing fee, the filing fee would be awarded to the individual who provided the first prior art which invalidated the patent.
It really angers me that anyone should get patents on such an obvious thing.. how in the world can the USPTO possibly pretend to know that no one in the world of software has ever done this before? Software differs from making airliner parts, in that anyone with a computer has all the pieces required to produce any piece of software they can think of. There have been probably millions of programs written over the last 50 years, and since software wasn't considered patentable during the vast majority of that time, there's an enormous corpus of prior art that should rightfully be extremely difficult to discount.
When the average cost of patent litigation is on the order of $3 million dollars, it's way too much to Microsoft's advantage (yes, even taking the Eolas patent into account) for the USPTO to allow any but the most extremely novel software patents to be granted.
Gah!
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
stevejobs% sudo rm -rf * Microsoft
So, I guess the prior art will be easy to show... right?
Absolutely,
however, if you want the prior art to have any legal meaning, you will have to affort a costly legal process with the evil empire's lawyers.
You see, it doesn't matter so much who is *right* any more. It costs a awful lot of money just to have your case heard.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
In the UK, if you want to get permissions to build on land, or change how your land drainage works, set up certain types of businesses in residential areas, etc, you have to have the details published in the local newspaper and anyone who wants to complain about them can do so.
Why don't we do the same with patents? When a patent regarding, say, computing comes out.. why doesn't it end up in PC Magazine, or on Slashdot, for peer review? That way, anyone who has a complaint about the patent can register it with the patent office, and we can stop silly stuff like this happening.
I can't get the article at the moment (slow net connection), but based on the other comments, I think I have prior art on this. I'm not a genius and I suspect that others have done similar things.
Our user management is handled by two guys who don't have strong UNIX skills. They have to setup users, add mail aliases and set passwords etc. The operator type roles that sys admins like to delegate.
They are trusted individuals in the sense that they won't intentionally damage a system, but their experience is such that they can, and have caused accidental damage (one of them deleted all lines in the mailaliases file using vi by mistake).
I wrote a menu wrapper for their logins that allow them to request certain functions be performed (password wipes etc.). When they action a function, a temporary lock file is written to a directory (/var/local) that only their group can write to. A cron job, running as root, executes every minute and if a lockfile exists, will perform the command (with some sanity checking involved - e.g., it's not possible to change password if the requested user has a UID less than 100).
It's not 100% secure, but it does the job. I don't have a patent on it, but it's worked for the last couple of years without problems.
Software patents are turning the USPO into a laughing stock. I can understand the USPO not being able to thoroughly examine patents for some esoteric science. Sudo is not an esoteric science. If the USPO is going to issue software patents they should have somebody who knows something about software. This sort of patent should have been caught by anybody who has any knowlege of Unix-like operating systems.
The most interesting part is the images. There you can actually see the Gnome logo. (There is an extra karma bunus for the first who find the KDE logo;)
/.'ers -- can you think of prior art for this? Codetek's Virual Desktop is similar, but it uses application icons to represent windows, instead of shrunken pictures of the actual windows. However, from this FAQ, it appears the Codetek has at least tried to show shruken pictures in their pager, and found it was too processor intensive.
Listen, I hate MS as much as the next guy -- but did you read the rest of the patent? In the "BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS" section, it reads:
[0013] FIG. 1A [referring to the KDE front panel] is a pictorial diagram illustrating a desktop of a graphical user interface according to the prior art.
[0014] FIG. 1B [referring to the Gnome front panel] is a pictorial diagram illustrating one implementation of a panel containing a desk guide used to switch among multiple virtual desktop according to the prior art.
In the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section, it points out that in KDE, the pager doesn't show you the pictures of the desktops: "As more and more application windows 102 are dispersed throughout these virtual desktops, it may be difficult for a user to remember which desktop contains which application window." You have to click on each desktop until you find it.
For the GNOME pager, it says that "running application windows appear as small, raised squares... it is still not possible for a user to determine from these small raised squares the desired application window for which he may be looking"
The patent is apparently for MS's improvment of the concept by actually showing small recognizable representations of each desktop in a "preview" pane that shows all the desktops, and for being able to transfer application windows from a different virtual desktop to the current one, without actually bringing up the other desktop.
Ok,
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
One can name over a dozen OSes that garnered the famed Class B1 Trusted OSes status that provided this feature set since 1983. Most of them will never see the light of days due to their classified status.
Perhaps, the U.S. Patent Office should consider investigating for possible industrial payola to their underpaid $60,000/yr GS-5 ranking corporate-rejecting $125K real bad diploma-milled reviewers.
As true as that is, you don't see the patent offices of other countries passing out patents to everybody and his dog for things that anybody with five minutes of experience in the field knows are an old hat. This is getting ridiculous. Next thing you know, Microsoft will be patenting the use of nine inch nails for fixing people to two wood beams set at right angles and demanding money from Trent Reznor.
There is some systematic failure in the American patent process that is responsible for these junk patents, and the longer it is left unfixed, the more expensive it is going to be to go back and clear out the deadwood. Now how much staff is that going to take? How high will the bill be for all the lawyers, judges, and clerks be that it will take to return the system to sanity?
Then again, the U.S. has money to burn, don't we. It's not like we're paying for a war halfway around the globe or are losing business to India and China or have a poverty problem...
You are not getting the point.
Microsoft knows these patents are bullshit -- they're not stupid. They're counting on the patent office being stupid enough to approve them so they can hold them over someone's head in court.
If Microsoft can force enough delays to buy a government and a reprieve from their due penalties, what in the world makes you think anyone other than IBM can afford to defend against this crap?
The process of resolving patent disputes is only a problem because the reviews are performed by untrained monkeys with no experience in the field they're reviewing. Even the Canadian government has the sense to assign the reviews for R&D claims to workers with industry experience, but not the USPTO.
Hell no, that'd interfere with the smooth flow of money back through the lobbyists and "donations".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
One of the inventors at Microsoft appears to be this gentleman, who works on Apache and is a "founding member of the OpenSSL project". If an OpenSSL guy is unaware of sudo, we're living in Bizarro world.
But that's not how corporate research works. Nobody cares how good the patents you get are. Microsoft cross-licenses with all their competitors, anyway. Modern corporate researchers just produce legal fodder -- a slew of patents, which can be used to prevent new entrants from entering a field -- existing oligopolies are maintained by cross-licensing of patents.
May we never see th