Microsoft Patents sudo

Prior Art? by aweraw · 2004-08-20 14:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

So, I guess the prior art will be easy to show... right?

--
5468652047616D65

Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-20 14:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sure, if you have the USD500,000 to field the court case. Most people cave first.
Re:Prior Art? by cbr2702 · 2004-08-20 14:04 · Score: 5, Funny

How? Everyone knows those Open Sores hippies stole everything anyways.

--

This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Re:Prior Art? by NanoGator · 2004-08-20 14:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Why would they patent something which has been around for years in the competition's OS? There's no way they can actually patent sudo...not on my watch."

They can patent it just fine, all the USPTO has to do is not notice the similarity. It's when they get to court with somebody about it that the problem actually exists.

I had to sound like an arrogant ass here, but maybe you should go work for the Patent Office? Not because it'd teach you a lesson, but because it is pretty clear that whoever approves these doesn't understand the area they're in. I mean, look how technical the patent is. Either the patent office picked up on a subtle nuance that makes it different from *nux, or they just didn't connect it with something it does already.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Prior Art? by hardcode57 · 2004-08-20 15:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who needs to prove prior art? Obviousness is also an impediment to a patent. Even if the existing prior art cited here doesn't quite match, the reaction of everyone on this page is that there must be some that does: a fairly good indication that practitioners versed in the art regard the idea as obvious.
Re:Prior Art? by mr_walrus · 2004-08-20 15:27 · Score: 5, Informative

the University of Waterloo had a similar concept
with something called "suw"

basically a su command that allowed authorized individuals to have
their own root password. the root login account
itself had unusable password.

each authorized users suw password was of course kept in
a "data store" (a private passwd style file)
and logging of its usage was done to provide an audit
trail.

this is at least 16 or more years old.

-k
Re:Prior Art? by mbowles · 2004-08-20 16:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Shouldn't that be, "Those who do not copy Unix are destined to patent it?"
Re:Prior Art? by slacker775 · 2004-08-20 17:40 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.symark.com/powerbroker.htm Powerbroker is a sudo-like commercial app. It does a means to run as a daemon process in a client-server type environment to allow the configured policy to work between different systems. Googling on it turns up posts from the mid 90's so it's been around for a while.
Re:Prior Art? by bleckywelcky · 2004-08-20 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the USPTO's problem is that they've adopted a default 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra where all patents are valid unless proven otherwise. They need to turn their thinking around and adopt a default 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra where all patents are invalid until sufficient (or a certain amount of) time has been spent or research done to prove otherwise. If a patent application comes in for a supposed "computer/electronic technology" and some guy looks at it for a couple hours (days, weeks, etc), but doesn't know what he's looking at, how can he actually justify that this is a new, unique, novel idea by accepting the application? If a patent reviewer doesn't react with an "ah ha!, now that is interesting" that indicates he/she understands the topic and what is unique about the idea, then it shouldn't be accepted.
Re:Prior Art? by msobkow · 2004-08-20 20:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stop making excuses for the incompetent. We all have to pay for their screwups, and it's about freakin' time they were held accountable.
Sue them. Sue them for your legal fees, your lost revenue, your lost potential revenue, damage to your corporate image, and anything else you can think of if you get caught in a bogus IP "lawsuit" by some vulture corp because of USPTO incompetence.
If they can't do the job, don't do it. Let the backlog build up until industry screams and starts pushing for Congress to increase the budget. As long as you push incompetent crap through instead, the funding will never be increased because corporate America does not see just how much damage you're doing with your negligence at the USPTO.
And believe me, it is emphatically negligance.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Oh, yeah by brilinux · 2004-08-20 14:02 · Score: 5, Funny

So SU me!

Probably redundant by now.

Why do they even try? by halo1982 · 2004-08-20 14:03 · Score: 5, Informative

A computer such as a network appliance executes an administrative security process configured to run under an administrative privilege level. Having an administrative privilege level, the administrative security process can initiate administrative functions in an operating system function library. A user process executing under a non-administrative privilege level can initiate a particular administrative function that the process would not otherwise be able to initiate by requesting that the administrative security process initiate the function. In response to a request to initiate a particular function from a process with a non-administrative privilege level, the administrative security process determines whether the requesting process is authorized to initiate the particular administrative function based on information accessed in a data store. If the requesting process is authorized, the administrative security process initiates the particular administrative function. In this manner, the administrative security process facilitates access to specific administrative functions for a user process having a privilege level that does not permit the user process to access the administrative functions.

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?

Re:Why do they even try? by WindBourne · 2004-08-20 14:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
This is not about being unenforcable. This is about having a HUGE cabinet of patents that you can throw at whoever and use to stop them. Now, many of MS's patents are nothing but rip offs. But, if you were hit with more than 1000 patents, just the reading and understanding of them could take a year or two.

Very scarey

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Quick! Send in your prior art! by nonregistered · 2004-08-20 14:06 · Score: 5, Funny

man sudo >/dev/uspto

Re:Quick! Send in your prior art! by Lehk228 · 2004-08-20 14:15 · Score: 5, Funny

rm -rf /dev/uspto

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Quick! Send in your prior art! by FooAtWFU · 2004-08-20 14:39 · Score: 5, Funny

If only. It's more like:
cat /dev/urandom > /dev/uspto

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Quick! Send in your prior art! by hawkeyeMI · 2004-08-20 14:43 · Score: 5, Funny

user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
user@host$

--
Error 404 - Sig Not Found

A brief history of SUDO by tao_of_biology · 2004-08-20 14:07 · Score: 5, Informative

So, the patent is filed for August 10th, 2004... I checked out the history of SUDO page at: http://www.courtesan.com/sudo/history.html and it looks like SUDO dates back to 1980.

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."

What Next? by Kandel · 2004-08-20 14:07 · Score: 5, Funny

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!?

Re:What Next? by Mark_MF-WN · 2004-08-20 14:11 · Score: 5, Informative

This just hastens the end of the patent system. Seriously -- the American patent system is going to fall apart soon, and things like this are the reason.
The underlying premise of patents will no doubt survive, as it makes a lot of sense in some areas (like engineering). But software and business process patents will probably disappear.

Re:"in a data store" by FuzzieNorn · 2004-08-20 14:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Ritchie's setuid patent at prior art? by GGardner · 2004-08-20 14:09 · Score: 5, Informative

I can see missing prior work as prior art. But missing the famous setuid patent seems just silly.

History of sudo. by Skulker303 · 2004-08-20 14:10 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html

Prior art.

not really Prior Art, but by hndrcks · 2004-08-20 14:19 · Score: 5, Funny

" 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.

You know something... by neiras · 2004-08-20 14:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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? ;)

Re:You know something... by MarkSwanson · 2004-08-20 14:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Whose brilliant idea was it to give corporations the same legal rights as an individual?"

You hit the nail on the head. Additionally disturbing: the documentary "The Corporation"
http://www.thecorporation.tv/filmmak ers/
makes a strong case for defining a corporation as the perfect psychopath.

--
Schedule your world with ScheduleWorld.com http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/ (Java Web Startable)
Re:You know something... by Derek+Pomery · 2004-08-20 15:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually,
nobody did.

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

This is getting ridiculous by Mr.+Cancelled · 2004-08-20 14:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:This is getting ridiculous by whovian · 2004-08-20 14:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Companies are getting rich by stealing the future inventions of people with these generic fucking patents.

I think many people have speculated this for a while: a business world governed by patents and licensing where individual incentive to create is effectively unlawful.

This is why I think it's important to support open source, the GPL, and open scientific research.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.

Re:"in a data store" by GuyverDH · 2004-08-20 14:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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?

Not really a patent by commodoresloat · 2004-08-20 14:23 · Score: 5, Funny

It's a pseudo-patent.

thanks, I'll be here all week....

Re:Proof of concept? by Bryan_W · 2004-08-20 14:32 · Score: 5, Informative

I know you were trying to be funny but seriously, it is a feature of Windows 2000/XP all you have to do is shift + right click any executable and select "Run as..." or use the runas command from the command prompt. Sorry but I had to be fair to Microsoft.

Gnome Pager - patented by Microsoft by iive · 2004-08-20 14:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's an old news, but I wonder have slashdot crowd found out this patent:

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=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

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.

I don't think there's an out by illuminatedwax · 2004-08-20 14:39 · Score: 5, Informative

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?

Re:perhaps my evil genius hat isn't working by cbiltcliffe · 2004-08-20 14:42 · Score: 5, Funny

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......

Re:perhaps my evil genius hat isn't working by hawaiian717 · 2004-08-20 14:48 · Score: 5, Funny

A patent on $ or # as a prompt?

It would probably read more like:

An indication by which a computer system indicates that it is ready for arbitrary input from the user.

But specifically, they'd be patenting C:\> .

--
End of Line.

Re:perhaps my evil genius hat isn't working by hawkeyeMI · 2004-08-20 15:00 · Score: 5, Funny

41 of 663 comments (clear)