20+ Companies Sued Over OS Permissions Patent

freemywrld writes "According to the article on Ars Technica, Microsoft, Symantec and 20 other companies are being sued over patents covering 'systems for governing application and data permissions, as well as ensuring application integrity.' The patents were granted in the 90's to the Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT). From the article: 'A response from any of the defendants is still forthcoming, and it is unclear whether the authentication and permissions systems that IPAT's patent describes are precluded by prior art. Even if IPAT has a leg to stand on in court, however, it certainly didn't take the easy route to recovering any damages by suing 22 companies.'"

Comments

Good luck with that

[neokushan]

That's a lot of BIG companies to be suing. I surely hope they have good lawyers or they're going to get a jolly-rodgering!

Re:Good luck with that

[Technician]

That's a lot of BIG companies to be suing.

Regardless, it is expensive to fight. The outcome is not guranteed. This is why America is rapidly becommin a service industry with no manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving elsewhere in a rapid fashion.

Unless the trend can be reversed, then this country will continue to see money drain to elsewhere.

We need reform so America can be a leader in manufacturing again.

Re:Good luck with that

[moniker127]

What the hell are you babling about?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you babling about?

You must be Republican.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

There's less profit in manufacturing than there was in generations past because nearly everything's a commodity, with low margins and world-wide competition pushing those margins ever downward. You can't have a first world economy based on manufacturing today any more than you can have a fist class personal income assembling toasters in a factory, or gluing shoes together in a sweatshop. To make real money these days, a nation must invent, create, own and market the ideas that Chinese and Vietnamese then toil to manufacture and export. China's income is massive, but as China grows richer, it will be less able to afford wasting its effort making the world's trinkets, or it will be stuck in relative poverty.

Some manufacturing is profitable of course, but on the whole, it's a good thing for the US that it has moved on. The US's problems today have to do with bad debt management, not the reduction in toastermaking.

Re:Good luck with that

[N1ck0]

Too bad they didn't file this 3+ months ago.

See USPTO: Re Bilski

Determining patent viability under section 101. "Under this test, a patent claim is eligible if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."

See USPTO: Ex parte Langemyr and Ex parte Wasynczuk

"A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied to a general purpose computer."

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

What the hell are you babling about?

without producing real goods, the US economy is not making money. Cory Doctorow does a good job in a portion of this video (starting at about the 9:40 mark) of outlining the last of the .com businesses.. the current US economic policy. Just like the majority of .com businesses, it is destined to fail unless it's changed. Politicians don't like admitting they're wrong, though, and thus we are suffering from the job hemorrhage and cash drain that's been going on since the late 90's.

intellectual property is not real, and is flagrantly disregarded by more than half the world's nations. IP is also not going to employ the several hundred million people of this nation.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

when we engaged in mild protectionism this wasn't an issue. We used to charge tariffs on imports from nations without proper human and labor rights.

Now we don't.
this video tells the story of congressional stupidity starting at around the 9:40 mark.

Re:Good luck with that

[moniker127]

Software is real. The US exports more software than any other country on the planet. The shitty econemy is completley unrelated. We're in tough economic times because: A- Credit card companies / banks take control of the people's assets by making it very easy for them to spend more money than they have (the rich get richer) B- The stock market is controlled by a collective of (rich) morons who buy and sell at the drop of a hat, based on no evidence. (money gets wasted on bullshit companies who dont use it for anything useful) C- Because we have a wasteful government that will spend billions on wars. (if we spent as much on education as on warfare, we would be number 1 in the world, but we dont, so we're somewhere around number 40 in quality of education) conclusion: We raise a bunch of morons who go out and spend money they dont have on crap that does not make sense, which bankrupts them. Then, we send to to go kill people for no apparent reason.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he mean we should close the money hole.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

no, it's not.

If it were then it would be impossible for windows to be "freer than free".

Nobody on the street buys windows unless they know absolutely nobody who understands what p2p is.

real goods cannot be copied infinitely without a marginal cost of production. As such they have no export value and thus do not provide positive cash flow to our nation.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

correction..

real goods cannot be copied infinitely without a marginal cost of production. As such they have no export value and thus do not provide positive cash flow to our nation.

correcting this to read:

real goods cannot be copied infinitely without a marginal cost of reproduction while software can. As such, software has no export value and will not provide positive cash flow for our national economy.

Money is based off real resources, not wishful thinking. the belief in IP is no better than the housing or .com bubble.

Re:Good luck with that

[uncqual]

C- Because we have a wasteful government that will spend billions on wars. (if we spent as much on education as on warfare, we would be number 1 in the world, but we dont, so we're somewhere around number 40 in quality of education)...

Umm... we (I assume you mean the "United States") do spend more on education than on warfare. Even if you consider the entire DOD budget -- much of which is not spent on "warfare" but on being ready for warfare -- the DOD outlays are about the same as those for public primary and secondary education (I'm too lazy to track down exact figures for the same year for both categories though - try using google).

You may be making the mistake of looking at only the Federal budget -- most education spending is from state/local governments (and some is from private individuals/organizations) in the United States while all of the defense spending comes from the Federal budget (this is not a surprise - the US Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to involve itself in Education, but requires it to provide national defense -- although the Constitution is often overlooked which gives us the Department of Education and NCLB).

Some references... Page X shows a total 2005-2006 public Primary/Secondary expenditure on education (so excludes expenditures on universities, junior colleges, and all private schools etc) at $527B. The entire DOD budget for 2009 is under $550B

Re:Good luck with that

[skaet]

Did anyone else happen to notice that the organisation's initials is an anagram for PITA?

Coincidence? I think not!

Re:Good luck with that

[TapeCutter]

The US (and EU for that matter) spend huge amounts of money on farm subsidies much to the disgust of Aussie farmers who get very few subsidies, not to mention the third world farmers who are pushed out of the market alltogether. Protectionisim (in all it's forms) stiffles trade, kills competition and creates mountains of unwanted food in one place while others starve in another place.

It may sound tempting and may even have the potential to make a nation self sufficient, but in practice what happens is that wealthy countries mirror each other tarrifs "tit for tat" style. The consumer and the third world farmer are the biggest losers, in effect the taxpayer is paying the government to kill the competition (quite literally in some cases). There is however a more subtle loss of efficientcy in the country weathy enough to provide the subsidy.

"when we engaged in mild protectionism this wasn't an issue. We used to charge tariffs on imports from nations without proper human and labor rights."

I would call that a sanction, it's a different and more legitimate practice but it's open to abuse and still triggers tit for tat reactions.

Re:Good luck with that

[TapeCutter]

"This is why America is rapidly becommin a service industry with no manufacturing. Manufacturing is moving elsewhere in a rapid fashion."

Manufacturing moved elsewhere 20yrs ago. IIRC Reagan and Thatcher spent most of the 80's crushing unions and telling everyone it would be a GoodThing(TM). Not that I think the removal of tarrifs and perpetual subsidies is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but you need more than that to "level the playing field". You also need to take into account the reglatory regime under which the manafacturing was performed. To do otherwise is simply exporting the labour/environmental problems to nations that don't/can't give a fuck about either. Before you know what's happening everything is made elsewhere, it's dirt cheap and has a high probability of serious defects and toxic contaminants (reminicent of pre-seventies "jap-crap"). IMHO the corect term for the labour side of this is "cheap labour capitalisim", I don't know if there is an equivalent for the environmental side

Note: Rant maybe but not an anti-conservative one, just some observations and an onion-belt story. And even though I think it's a half-assed idea, I will readily admit the "service economy" has been generous to me personally.

Re:Good luck with that

[phanboy_iv]

Obviously, you *both* belong to political party.

Re:Good luck with that

[Pharmboy]

Yea, the fact that America is losing manufacturing has nothing to do with others willing and able to work for 5% of the same pay....

Re:Good luck with that

[inviolet]

Manufacturing moved elsewhere 20yrs ago. IIRC Reagan and Thatcher spent most of the 80's crushing unions and telling everyone it would be a GoodThing(TM). Not that I think the removal of tarrifs and perpetual subsidies is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but you need more than that to "level the playing field".

...assuming you believe that the citizens of a modern, enlightened society belong on an assembly line, performing repetitive work. They don't.

That sort of work is a temporary "rite of passage" that societies pay in order to enter the more proper world of mind work. Once they complete the rite, let the mindless work be passed down to the next modernizing country, as China is beginning to do now too.

You also need to take into account the reglatory regime under which the manafacturing was performed. To do otherwise is simply exporting the labour/environmental problems to nations that don't/can't give a fuck about either.

Yes, those countries cannot yet afford to care about those problems. Those issues are 'problems' only for people whose basic needs have been completely met. To poor folks, environmental problems might be a perfectly acceptable price to pay in order to have steady work, a reliable food supply, and rapid modernization. We went through this phase too, beginning about a century ago. Now you would deny it to other cultures because you disagree with their risk/reward tradeoffs.

You remind me of a rich idiot who would like to force the lower class to drink only Starbucks coffee because the cheap stuff is made from nasty Rubosto beans grown from Africa.

Before you know what's happening everything is made elsewhere, it's dirt cheap

Nothing wrong with that... though once again, the primary beneficiary of this is the lower classes and we've already seen that you don't understand why that matters.

and has a high probability of serious defects and toxic contaminants

Bulls***.

Do you know how much stuff we import from wherever, and what percentage of it has 'serious defects' and contamination? Or are you just stringing words together in whatever way will make your point?

(reminicent of pre-seventies "jap-crap").

That's an excellent point. The Japanese went through this phase too, in the seventies, in order to become the economic jewel they are today. Now it's China's turn. Next it will be India and Thailand. And so on. I suspect your real motivation behind your rant is that you fear the lesser countries will someday reach our level.

IMHO the corect term for the labour side of this is "cheap labour capitalisim", I don't know if there is an equivalent for the environmental side.

As noted, it's a transition phase that cultures willingly pay. They are willing because they want to be modernized, and cheap/dirty manufacturing is the accellerated modernization program that the West offers the world.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

Would you rather have famine whenever there's a frost in florida or a flood on the great plains?

There are HUMANITARIAN reasons for farm subsidies.

In fact, it is the scaling back of farm subsidies which have caused the massive hike in food prices which threaten to cause civil unrest in dozens of nations around the globe.

Re:Good luck with that

[j79zlr]

Actually the use of 30% of the US's corn for ethanol because of misguided subsidies is one of the major causes of the massive hike in prices.

Re:Good luck with that

[jacksonj04]

What happens when we run out of third-world countries to take on dirty industry?

We will always need mining, processing and manufacturing. A country which relies solely on others for these things is not in a good place.

Re:Good luck with that

[TapeCutter]

As someone who worked in so called "mindless jobs" from the mid-seventies to the early nineties I think your entire post is the most obnoxious pile of elitist claptrap I have heard in a long time.

BTW: Japan automated their factories and that is why they kicked the crap out of the UK & US car industry while maintaining a high standard of living.

Re:Good luck with that

[jonadab]

> > Manufacturing is moving elsewhere in a rapid fashion."
> Manufacturing moved elsewhere 20yrs ago.

These statements are both correct. Manufacturing has been moving out of the US since the middle of the twentieth century, has continued to do so in recent years, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

The reason for this is that American workers want to make more money than commodity manufactured goods can justify. There are various ways we could undo this...
    1. Decrease the American standard of living and wage level to developing-country levels so that the labor will be affordable here. Stuff would be cheap (probably even cheaper than now, in absolute terms, because it wouldn't have to be shipped overseas), but you wouldn't make enough money to buy much of it, so it would seem more expensive.
    2. Increase the standard of living and wage levels of the rest of the world so that the labor won't be any *more* affordable elsewhere than it is here. Stuff will cost a lot more, so you won't be able to buy as much of it, even if your income stays the same or goes up.
    3. Call off the whole international-trade thing and go back to protectionism. Yeah, that would technically *work*, in the sense of keeping the domestic manufacturing sector in business, but if you think it wouldn't screw up our economy, you've been living under a rock for the last three centuries.
    4. With sufficient automation, it might be possible to keep manufacturing here, but with very little labor.

But if we don't do anything along those lines, the manufacturing sector will continue to pack its bags and head for places where it can actually afford to operate.

Kinds of manufacturing that require recently developed technology are done here, but only as long as they still require recently developed technology. Once they become fully commoditized, it's cheaper to do them elsewhere.

For some reason, automobile manufacturing hasn't really become fully commoditized yet, perhaps because of continuously-changing consumer expectations (and regulatory requirements) for the product. We import a larger percentage of cars than we used to, yes, but most of them come from other first-world countries, most notably Japan. If China and India get to the point where they can make a car the US consumer wants to buy, the US auto companies will *have* to move their factories overseas, or move into the design business and sell their designs to the foreign companies (or, equivalently, outsource actual production to the foreign companies), or go out of business.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

Actually the use of 30% of the US's corn for ethanol because of misguided subsidies is one of the major causes of the massive hike in prices.

Actually news reports point to the contrary situation: Ethanol plants across america have closed down because of the higher price of corn.

It's tempting to say they were a victim of their own success, but the government's job is to assure enough commodity food is produced to avoid the type of volatility we see in the oil markets.

Oil is important, but you're more likely to see riots over food than SUV's.

Re:Good luck with that

[austin987]

You're argument is flawed. Most economies go through a 3 stage adaption process. Agricultural, manufacturing, and tertiary.

We started as agricultural, this is where most third world countries are today.

We moved to manufacturing during the Industrial Revolution, this is where China is today.

We moved to tertiary post World War II. This is where (most of) the G8 is.

Just because you aren't making 'real (manufactured) goods' doesn't mean you aren't producing real value. Producing services is the sign of a much more advanced economy.

That said, depending on intellectual property as a mainstay of your advanced economy is a flawed economic plan.

Re:Good luck with that

[j79zlr]

I guess to add to my point, corn-based ethanol doesn't make sense, it is only being produced because of the subsidies. Switchgrass yields something on the order of 10x's more ethanol per acre but farmers don't get the huge subsidies to grow it. I have also seen some arguments that other crops were being abandoned to grow corn for ethanol because of the subsidies thus reducing the supply of other crops and increasing prices. Its not the governments job to set prices. There should be no subsidies, the agriculture business in this country is profitable without subsidies, why should taxpayer money go into the pockets of "big farm"? It ain't ma & pa tilling the fields anymore you know.

Re:Good luck with that

[plasmacutter]

I guess to add to my point, corn-based ethanol doesn't make sense, it is only being produced because of the subsidies. Switchgrass yields something on the order of 10x's more ethanol per acre but farmers don't get the huge subsidies to grow it. I have also seen some arguments that other crops were being abandoned to grow corn for ethanol because of the subsidies thus reducing the supply of other crops and increasing prices. Its not the governments job to set prices.

Yes, someone made the bath water too hot, so nobody should ever take baths again.

Removing stupidity from regulation is the right thing, not removing regulation all together.
(might I mention that "removal" of regulation from international trade is what caused this current financial crash. You can blame the banks but the truth is people reached the end of their capacity to carry the debts which compensated for the wage freezes +30% inflation over the past decade caused by FTA's and offshoring)

There should be no subsidies, the agriculture business in this country is profitable without subsidies, why should taxpayer money go into the pockets of "big farm"? It ain't ma & pa tilling the fields anymore you know.

Because we should not be subject to famine? Contrary to popular belief, our nation gets hit with frosts, droughts, and floods just as often as those in the third world. The difference is two fold: infrastructure and subsidies to encourage enough over-production of a resource we literally cannot live without.

Re:Good luck with that

[Rob Y.]

Just because third world countries can't afford to match our enviromental and labor regulatory regimes doesn't justify our corporations exporting jobs to them with no regulatory framework at all.

We could certainly spread many of the benefits of globalization without allowing our industries to export jobs to people desperate enough to do them effectively for nothing. Something like a global minimum wage might work, along with global minumum environmental standards. The kind of thing the UN or the WTO ought to be good for (and don't just take that as an invitation to bash the UN - we're talking in theory here).

There's no reason that this process has to be all or nothing, except for the fact that US corporations want it that way, and US politicians are willing to do their bidding. An effective middle ground approach might even foster some semblance of a middle class in those countries that could afford to buy some of what we would still manufacture (where the savings would no longer justify the export of the jobs).

Your Japan analogy isn't quite apt either. Japan developed its industry independently, with traditional tarrifs in place. It did not just provide a cheap, dirty place for foreign industry to move in all but name... and then to move from there to the next desperate place once it's all used up.

Re:Good luck with that

[Creepy]

they're already fighting an uphill battle on this one.

from TFA

Judge John Ward recused himself from presiding over the suit and cited Symantec Corp. in his signed order of recusal, presumably because he may own stock in the company.

  yes, that is the legendary Eastern Texas patent [troll] favoring Judge T. John Ward who almost always votes for the patent owner, and not to be mistaken for John Ward the Barbary Corsair). Yes, Mr Ward, that was a joke, not to be mistaken for slander.

From the description of the patent, they are referring to something awfully similar to access control lists (ACLs), which can be applied to application permissions, depending on implementation. Usage based ACLs (as opposed to file system based ACLs like UNIX permissions) have existed since the 1980s, if not before.

Application Integrity testing has existed for ages, especially in secure or critical settings. Simple ways of doing this such as Cyclical Redundancy Checking (CRC, most commonly used for file transmission via modem) have existed since the 1960s.

Re:Good luck with that

[0123456]

"Producing services is the sign of a much more advanced economy."

Hair-dressing is more advanced than designing and building CPUs or hypersonic airliners?

You learn something new every day...

Re:Good luck with that

[ArsonSmith]

...real goods cannot be copied infinitely without a marginal cost of reproduction...

yet.

Re:Good luck with that

[ArsonSmith]

Hair-dressing and designing CPUs or hypersonic airliners is more advanced than building CPUs or hypersonic airliners?

and the answer is yes.

Re:Good luck with that

[HiThere]

Automation is still a work in progress. And it's still progressing.

As you note, Japan is currently one of the lead players. Currently a lot of their emphasis is on robotic attendants to care for the elderly and bed-ridden. It's still a work in progress, but it's progressing rapidly.

And what happens when Japan starts exporting robotic attendants and personal secretaries? Minimum wage jobs won't be the first to be affected, because they need cheaper replacements, but they're on the target too.

So now we have a society that only has jobs for for about 1/10th of it's people. (O, yes, I forgot. The US is building robot troops. So that job's gone too.)

I don't have any good answers, but I hope someone does. Unfortunately, bad answers are easy to come up with.

Re:Good luck with that

[bhiestand]

Thanks, it's always good to see public reminders that state governments still exist.

Re:Good luck with that

[TapeCutter]

"I don't have any good answers, but I hope someone does. Unfortunately, bad answers are easy to come up with."

Ditto. The tradition answer to your point is actually a question, ie: what do we do with our lesiure time? Of course that pre-supposes the benifits of a fully automated economy would be distributed.

Re:Good luck with that

[TapeCutter]

"Yes, someone made the bath water too hot, so nobody should ever take baths again."

You make some excellent points regarding my anti-subsidy rant that triggered the thread. I agree tarrifs/subsidies are like all regulations, a tool. I also think that over the last 30-40yrs national governments have been struggling to use those tools on globalised bussiness and globalised problems. I certainly don't have any answers but I'm pretty sure global bussiness isn't going away and think one of the questions should be: How to globalise your Florida example.

Re:Good luck with that

[CrkHead]

And I would _really_ like to see major software companies arguing that software patents are invalid.

Re:Good luck with that

[AG the other]

I'd like to have just .05% of the money that my state, Arkansas, makes from rice, which is a billion dollar a year crop. Every thing you eat and much that you wear comes from a farm and though much is imported from other countries much of it is grown here in the US. AG

Location, location, location

[arth1]

Let me guess -- this was filed in the Eastern Texas District, right?

It's about time some higher authority arrested the patent troll friendly "judges" for contempt of justice. Or Eastern Texas seceding, as is their right according to their terms for joining the union. Either would work fine with me.

Re:Location, location, location

[Rick Zeman]

Let me guess -- this was filed in the Eastern Texas District, right?

"IPAT, which apparently purchased these patents from their listed inventor of Addison M. Fischer, filed its complaint in the Eastern District of Texas on December 30, 2008"

Re:Location, location, location

[(Score.5, Interestin]

"IPAT, which apparently purchased these patents from their listed inventor of Addison M. Fischer"

Addison Fischer is sort of the man behind the men in a range of security-related make-money-from-IP deals. For example if you'd scratched the surface of RSA Data Security about 10 years ago when they still held a monopoly patent on the algorithm you'd have found him there somewhere, although you'd have to scratch pretty deep since he doesn't seem to like publicity much (he's an ex-spook, which may explain it).

Re:Location, location, location

[Anonymous Coward]

We really _should_ give Texas back to Mexico.

Re:Location, location, location

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait - you think people sue in the Eastern District because of the judges are somehow "troll-friendly"?

Almost all patent plaintiffs ask for a jury trial. What better than to assemble a panel of the finest citizens of Marshall, Texas, to decide the facts of a complex technology case!

True, the judges rule on claim construction and the legal issues - but for the most part, the Eastern District judges have done a good job of quickly and efficiently managing patent cases. People sue in the Eastern District because of the favorable juries and the fast docket.

Having a judge who is an expert in patent law is not a bad thing. However, asking for judges to be in contempt for following patent laws is no different than the right-wingers asking for the Supreme Court justices to be impeached because they enforced a law (or Constitutional interpretation) the right-wingers didn't like.

Congress, wallowing deep in the pockets of lobbyists, drafted the patent laws, and our corporation-loving presidents signed them. Ultimately, those bodies need to change the law to address the patent troll issue. It wouldn't hurt if the Executive branch (the PTO) actually examined patents.

Re:Location, location, location

[Repossessed]

Unfortunately, its not contempt of justice, the law requires judges to treat patents as valid even when thats ludicrous. The legistlature needs to empower judges to dismiss a case on the grounds that a patent isn't valid before judges can be expected to do so.

Re:Location, location, location

[atraintocry]

seceding, as is their right according to their terms for joining the union

Normally I wouldn't ruin a good joke with pedantry, but this seems like the sort of thing people will see and then bring up in conversation for the rest of their life.

Texas isn't free to secede.

Re:Location, location, location

[ProfM]

The question is .... would they take it?

Re:Location, location, location

[jd]

Where's Scooby Doo and the gang? They're good at unmasking spooks.

Re:Location, location, location

[Linker3000]

I have a patent on "A mechanism for the reassignment of territory to a former territorial owner".

I am watching you!

Re:Location, location, location

[harlows_monkeys]

It's about time some higher authority arrested the patent troll friendly "judges" for contempt of justice

You should actually check the stats for EDT. First, most patent cases there aren't patent troll cases. Second, defendants have been winning the majority of cases over the last couple of years.

Re:Location, location, location

[MonoSynth]

...or just make it a separate country so you guys don't have to fly half way round the earth to attack a religious extremist country that happens to float on oil.

Re:Location, location, location

[WTF Chuck]

We were before the civil war.

Re:Location, location, location

[pak9rabid]

We really _should_ give Texas back to Mexico.

Let's relocate Austin (where I'm from) to California, and you have yourself a deal!

Re:Location, location, location

[Just Some Guy]

We haven't?

Re:Location, location, location

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's wait till GWB moves back.

Re:Location, location, location

[austin987]

Texas doesn't have the right to secede. We have the right to split into 5 states without Congressional approval, however.

I'm Scared

[MightyMartian]

I just entered "chmod 755" on a directory so other users could not modify my data. When can I expect the cease and desist order?

Re:I'm Scared

[MichaelSmith]

This patent seems to be closer to Access Control Lists in VMS. They existed before 1990 of course. IPAT should sue HP.

Re:I'm Scared

[gustar]

A summons to cease and desist is speeding on its way to you as we speak. I took the liberty of including a list of other activities you should immediately cease and desist due to patents which I hold... for example the use of a paper product for the removal of excrement after defecating... I patented that idea and am looking to seek damages for illegal/uncompensated use of said concept.

Re:I'm Scared

[ThreeGigs]

I just entered "chmod 755" on a directory so other users could not modify my data. When can I expect the cease and desist order?

You haven't infringed the patent.

Now, if you want to infringe the patent, you'd have to tell us the command you could issue to allow any program except say, GIMP, from accessing your data. This is 'program access', not 'user access'.

Re:I'm Scared

[brendank310]

In Soviet Russia, ass wipe YOU!

Re:I'm Scared

[russotto]

This patent seems to be closer to Access Control Lists in VMS.

Yes, claim one has as prior art just about every access control mechanism known to machine. VMS, Kerberos, probably even venerable MVS. There may or may not be prior art for each particular dependent claim, but they amount to "gathering the foam", as Justice Bradley once put it -- in this case, attempting to secure every combination of digital signatures and ordinary access control.

The other independent claim, Claim 42 would also appear to be anticipated by VMS, and again probably many others. Many of the dependent claims here are laughable; patenting fine grained privilege might be defensible (if it didn't already exist, which it did); patenting particular grains is ridiculous.

The Compartment Mode Workstation work (circa 1990) probably covers quite a few of the claims made here, including those not covered by other OSs.

Re:I'm Scared

[ScrewMaster]

I patented that idea and am looking to seek damages for illegal/uncompensated use of said concept.

My attorney says you can compensate THIS.

Re:I'm Scared

[russotto]

Now, if you want to infringe the patent, you'd have to tell us the command you could issue to allow any program except say, GIMP, from accessing your data. This is 'program access', not 'user access'.

I created a group for each program allowed special access, and made the executable for that group "setgid" for that group. Then I used ACLs (not in vanilla Unix, but I believe AFS had them prior to the patent priority date) to make my files readable by certain groups and not by others.

Re:I'm Scared

[mysidia]

vi /etc/sysconfig/selinux semodule -i block_the_gimp.pp setenforce enforcing

Re:I'm Scared

[Anpheus]

You may have unintentionally brought up an extremely good point: SELinux is/was developed by the NSA for security applications, and is presumably a matter of national security as an invaluable piece of their infrastructure.

Are they suing the US government?

Re:I'm Scared

[SupremoMan]

Shampoo is that you?

Re:I'm Scared

[jd]

Any OS that was listed as Orange Book B1, B2, B3 or A1 certified would also violate the patent and/or be prior art. This includes Trusted Irix, Trusted Solaris and Genesis. Probably many, many others besides. Since the Orange Book says nothing about having to get such OS' licensed under some obscure patent, and yet the originator of the patent appears to be from the very group that developed the Orange Book, one must assume that the patent is fraudulent and specifically designed to ensnare precisely the operating systems likely to qualify through inside information on what systems did qualify.

Re:I'm Scared

[Anonymous Coward]

+1&-1 obscurely insightful?

Re:I'm Scared

[Al Al Cool J]

Wait. There are paper products you can use for that?! What a great idea. I just wish somebody had told me this sooner.

Thank you, from the heart of my bottom. My pet gerbil "Browny" thank you too.

Re:I'm Scared

[Linker3000]

I claim prior fart.

Re:I'm Scared

[hughk]

I seem to remember ACLs in VMS 4.5 (or possibly earlier) together with the reference monitor. Seoond half of the eighties, I believe and the concept was nicely documented in the VMS Security Handbook.

Re:I'm Scared

[hughk]

and yet the originator of the patent appears to be from the very group that developed the Orange Book

The Orange book was already out in 1983, some ten years before the first of these two patents.

Re:I'm Scared

[Kalriath]

No. National Security usually allows the government to completely ignore the rights of an IP owner, essentially annexing those rights for itself. I know it's like that here, I can't imagine the US being more restricted.

Re:I'm Scared

[Eunuchswear]

ICL George 3 had ACL's. It dates from somewhere between 1968 and 1975.

Multics had ACL's. Started in 1965.

Re:I'm Scared

[yabos]

I guess you haven't seen the 3 sea shells on the ledge beside the toilet?

Re:I'm Scared

[betterunixthanunix]

Not sure where you are, but a worker in the USPTO has informed me that the government can ignore or even invalidate a patent that has significant national security applications. What is tricky about it is that the government tries not to do so, and prefers to grant exclusive contracts to companies that hold the patents, to maintain faith in the patent system. For example, you can be granted a patent on missile guidance systems, and the government will contract with you for missile control, but if you refuse to market the invention, the government might simply ignore the patent and build the system anyway. With software it is very tricky, because the security of the US depends on the security of both government and non-government software, which puts the government in a difficult position in terms of security related patents.

Of course, the point is moot here, because of the immense amount of prior art.

Re:I'm Scared

[EvilIdler]

chroot() and other sandboxing methods? Works by ensuring ALL programs are private. Apple do it on the iPhone OS. In the later case, private data like the contacts in the address book are accessed via an API that allows reading and writing.

Re:I'm Scared

[Anonymous Coward]

This is definitely a case where I would love to see the NSA give someone a thorough slapping.

Disclaimer: I was an SELinux contributor back in the day

Re:I'm Scared

[TrashGod]

Re: use of a paper product(s)...
Congratulations, you have prevailed at trial. As the court has ordered specific performance in lieu of money damages, I am sending you all infringing materials, here enclosed.

Re:I'm Scared

[TheSunborn]

An more easy way is just to make a group with the programs you don't want to have access. Then set this group as group for the directory,
and then give read access to owner and others only. (Chmod 707)

Re:I'm Scared

[Fred_A]

I believe even MULTICS, to take a relatively familiar name (and presumably other 60s or early 70s mainframe systems), had access policies similar to those of Unix back then (if not earlier). All of this is way older than just the recent systems.

This claim is rather odd to anybody remotely familiar with IT. It's like trying to patent a plain keyboard.

Re:I'm Scared

[Anonymous Coward]

As a way of clearing the way for the implementation of elliptic curves to protect US and allied government information, the National Security Agency purchased from Certicom a license that covers all of their intellectual property in a restricted field of use. The license would be limited to implementations that were for national security uses and certified under FIPS 140-2 or were approved by NSA. http://www.nsa.gov/ia/industry/crypto_elliptic_curve.cfm

Re:I'm Scared

[fast turtle]

ACL's in Eniac (enforced with Smith&Wesson): 1955

Re:I'm Scared

[Eunuchswear]

Pah, ACL's in Colossus, enforced with Webly .38, Sten and SMLE, 1943-1945.

Re:I'm Scared

[jd]

Many people back then held jobs for more than ten years, so I don't see any contradiction. They co-develop the Orange Book, see what algorithms people are submitting (under the secrecy of the time), make notes on the common themes, then patent them when they go independent. Seems simple enough. It's not like any of the Trusted OS developers can complain - it's undesireable attention that might lead to shareholders, users and potential buyers worrying about IP and whether or not they're liable. They'll consider it much safer to keep their heads down. Besides, there's always a chance that 20+ rivals will be hit hard in the pocketbook, which is all good news in a recession.

Regardless of whether this is absolutely correct, there can be no doubt that this is a former insider who has re-phrased the notion of mandatory access controls in a way likely to fool uneducated judges (and certain to fool the idiots at the patent office) into believing it is a new idea. As judges are supposed to confine themselves to matters of law, we can forgive them for not being educated on matters outside of their domain. For that to work, however, the US patent office must be educated on matters of patents and validation. You can't have everyone be uneducated except for the person filing, because then you have no system. Oh, right, that IS what we have. I keep forgetting.

Re:I'm Scared

[ajs]

No. And in fact, whenever you read a Slashdot summary in lieu of actually reading a patent, you're pretty much guaranteed to have no idea what you're talking about.

In Mac pre-OS/X terminology (and I use Mac terminology because it might actually represent prior art, here, if they were ever used this way), this patent covers something like a resource fork which contains security information that describes what kind of container environment (think BSD jail) the program should be run in every time it's executed.

Windows started supporting this kind of thing in XP I think, but Vista relies on it for everything, so I can see why this particular patent troll would go after MS first.

1992 is quite early, and it's going to be interesting finding the appropriate prior-art. I do think there is prior art, but like I say, not trivial to find.

Re:I'm Scared

[geminidomino]

Wait. There are paper products you can use for that?! What a great idea. I just wish somebody had told me this sooner.

Thank you, from the heart of my bottom. My pet gerbil "Browny" thank you too.

Word has it that the paper is being phased out in favor of cleanable, recyclable seashells.

Re:I'm Scared

[Anonymous Coward]

In response to your cease and desist order I am returning all papers and materials related to such removals. Please provide an address to which these should be forwarded. In the interest of cheerful compliance I will provide a clothes pin for your nose with the same.

Re:I'm Scared

[Anonymous Coward]

##sigh## Yes, now is the time we need Carl Lydick to join the discussion

Re:I'm Scared

[hughk]

ICL George 3 had ACL's

If I recall, George 3 had something basic but it was difficult to block a program from accessing other files in the job. I seem to remember using a special file password option to protect individual files. I know that VME had more in this regard but I had very little contact with it.

As for Multics, I'm aware of some of what it had but I have never worked closely enough to know whether it is a full object/accessor rights system.

Re:I'm Scared

[Eunuchswear]

The TRAPGO/TRAPSTOP commands.

To allow someone access to a file:

TRAPGO entrant-description, user-name, access-mode...

E.g.

TG :SLASHDOT.CONTRIB(2/JUNK), :HUGHK, GROUP, APPEND

lets :HUGHK and all his inferiors append to :SLASHDOT.CONTRIB(2/JUNK)

Re:I'm Scared

[hughk]

But this was access based on user not on program? Could you give a program a right independently of the user?

goodluckwiththat

[sleekware]

You've got to be kidding me...

Isn't it a bit late for this?

[alvinrod]

Considering that the patents were granted back in 1994 and 1995, isn't 2009 a little bit late to be suing some of these companies considering how long they've been around. I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some limited time window where you need to sue someone who's been infringing on your patent.

If not, doesn't the whole patent system become rather predatory whereby some companies do nothing but patent ideas and wait until someone else uses those patents (perhaps accidentally) and makes a significant amount of money from them before suing their pants off?

Is there anyone around more knowledgeable in patent law who might be able to explain things a little better? I tried checking on groklaw to see if there was any coverage there, but nothing has been posted yet.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[mysidia]

Google for: laches

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[pavera]

yeah unfortunately that is exactly how the patent system works. Trademark is the only IP that you have to "protect" proactively or risk loosing.

With patents it is 100% acceptable to patent a bunch of ideas and then wait for someone else to develop them commercially, and then sue them and take the profits.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[gustar]

Considering that the patents were granted back in 1994 and 1995, isn't 2009 a little bit late

It is never to late to sue someone! Slow economic times are the best time to do so. Why pour countless hours into developing good idea/products when you can hire lawyers instead!

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[oz_paulb]

losing

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[kabloom]

Well, thanks to MercExchange vs EBay, it's becoming less true. Also, In re Bilski should hopefully take a bite out of what they can accomplish here.

I'd bet there's prior art for this patent too Unix has been around a long time, and Multics was around before that.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[eggbert.net]

technically ... sue them and either get a "reasonable royalty" or "lost profits." Lost profits being the profits that the plaintiff lost due to the infringement. Thus, IPAT will likely want a "reasonable royalty." See 35 USC 284. Damages only go back six years from the date the complaint is filed. See 35 USC 286. Thus, only damages for infringement going back to Dec 30, 2002 can be recovered if IPAT prevails.

There are also equitable defenses of laches and estoppel etc but usually there has to be unreasonable delay and reliance on the delay.

I have not researched this case in particular but it could be that the infringement recently started to occur, or started a handful of years ago and IPAT had tried to do this "nicely" but did not have luck. Maybe IPAT is in the wrong.

In any case, hopefully whoever is in the right will come out on top here.

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[camperdave]

Why did I just get a picture of vultures hovering over a bunch of decaying carcasses?

Re:Isn't it a bit late for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

technically ... sue them and either get a "reasonable royalty" or "lost profits." Lost profits being the profits that the plaintiff lost due to the infringement.

So if the company was a flash-in-the-pan opportunistic parasite LLC that had no ability to exploit the patent and make use of it, and/or no infrastructure to have sought licensing for said patent in any case, it would thus have no "reasonable royalty" or "lost profits", and the case would/should be thrown out.

Yes, I know the distance between "should" and "would" is... the distance between "W" and "sh", which is a pretty big distance, isn't it?

The defendants

[Anonymous Coward]

The lawsuit details are at
  http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=43183

In particular, the 22 defendants are

  Symantec Corp.
  Microsoft Corp.
  AVG Technologies USA, Inc.
  CA, Inc.
  Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.
  Comodo Group, Inc.
  ESET, LLC
  F-Secure, Inc.
  iolo technologies, LLC
  Kaspersky Lab, Inc.
  McAfee, Inc.
  MicroWorld Technologies, Inc.
  NetVeda, LLC
  Norman Data Defense Systems, Inc.
  Novell Inc.
  PC Tools, Inc.
  PWI, Inc.
  Sophos, Inc.
  Sunbelt Software, Inc.
  Trend Micro Incorporated
  Velocity Micro, Inc.
  Webroot Software, Inc.

Re:The defendants

[Kalriath]

I'm surprised they also missed SourceFire, Inc (ClamAV) - and probably a few other AV vendors too.

Re:The defendants

[Anthony_Cargile]

The whole case screams FAILURE to me, as this has been around for quite a while (pre-patent) and ACLs have more implementations than we could list. They are going after AV vendors, and I fail to see how heuristics violates an ACL/permissions patent.

On an unrelated note, all of the fucking trolls on this page made firefox crash, followed by my X server (I had no swap file at the time). The trolls on /. are getting worse, I think I need to send some patches to the slashcode team.

Re:The defendants

[kimvette]

Good luck suing Novell; their network operating system (Netware) supported access control lists very early on. They can demonstrate prior art very easily, cutting the legs out from under the suit. Those trolls would have been best off avoiding suing Novell.

Re:The defendants

[whoever57]

Not the NSA (SELinux anyone?)

Re:The defendants

[JAlexoi]

That is why they thought that avoiding IBM would suffice.

Re:The defendants

[EvilIdler]

Not to mention Apple.

Re:The defendants

[CodeBuster]

If even one company, Novell for example, can demonstrate prior art then the patent can be busted for everyone. Not sure if Novell can then turn around and patent the idea, but I suspect the answer is probably no because the idea has been out in the open for a while now and just because one is the first to invent and use something doesn't mean that one can go back and patent it years after the fact if they failed to do so from the start (IANAL, but I think that this is generally how it works).

Re:The defendants

[Kalriath]

Apple doesn't make an antivirus. And if I'm not mistaken, OS X doesn't have per-application permissions, but rather per user like any Unix or BSD based OS. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

13 year delay == no patent claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, a six year delay negates patent protection (the patentee has "unreasonably and inexcusably" delayed prosecution) under the same laches idea as made above.

Enforcement Laches does not require detrimental reliance. However, the patentee must be shown to have "unreasonably and inexcusably" delayed bringing suit and that the alleged infringer subsequently suffered material prejudice. A six year delay creates a presumption of laches.

Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Laches and Equitable Estoppel.

Penny Arcade -- ahead of their time

[efalk]

This comic says it all. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/1/2/

Re:Penny Arcade -- ahead of their time

[philspear]

Yes, a whole 9 days before their time.

Re:Penny Arcade -- ahead of their time

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the "ahead of their time" part. The comic is like a week old. The whole software patent troll (and related) thing has been going on for ages... What, about 30 years or so? Penny Arcade didn't even exist then so they already know what's up.

Straight to step 3: ????

[RyoShin]

It could have just been omitted from the article (or just unknown/not thought to ask), but I see nothing about the sue-ee contacting any of these companies seeking royalty payments before whipping out the good ol' lawyer.

I also note that IPAT "apparently purchased these patents from their listed inventor of Addison M. Fischer". It doesn't give the date that they bought it (I presume one could look through patent records to see a transfer of ownership?), but I would not be surprised at all if the purchase went through on Dec. 29 when the suit was filed Dec. 30.

If they did indeed jump straight to step three, I hope the court smacks them down. Companies should be required to put forth a good faith effort to enter into royalty agreements with those using their patents before wasting tax payer dollars. Also, since they were granted in the mid 90s, something about due diligence towards protecting an IP, or else it's relegated to the public domain (or the companies already using it do not have to pay royalties to continue using it in the same manner).

Even better, if this isn't already done, if someone files a patent/copyright suit, they have to pay for the judge, baliff, stenographer, etc. If the IP is truly that important, they'll have no problem spending an extra $100K to get it. Of course, this could backfire and cause independent inventors to not get the royalties rightly owed them, so some sort of middle ground would be best.

Re:Straight to step 3: ????

[fishbowl]

>Even better, if this isn't already done, if someone files a patent/copyright suit, they have to pay for the judge, baliff, stenographer, etc. If the IP
>is truly that important, they'll have no problem spending an extra $100K to get it.

Oh sure you say that *now*, when you don't have some company publishing your book/song/program. I think you'd have a different opinion if you were defending your own work against someone who has claimed it.

Re:Straight to step 3: ????

[cdrguru]

Excellect set of assumptions. But, what if the original inventor tried to get somewhere for five years and everyone ignored him because they assumed he had no resources to actually persue a lawsuit to enforce a royalty agreement? He finally finds a company that will buy the patents from him for pennies on the dollar because they have the money to file the lawsuits that will finally cause the folks ignoring the patents to sit up and take notice.

You see, the legal system isn't entirely broken but often large companies think they can get away with anything. Especially when the opponent has few resources to actually go after them. It is regrettably true that it takes money to make money. And if you have no assets, no credit and no friends you can find yourself in a situation like this one.

Not saying that is precisely what happened, but it is wrong to assume this is all a scam with no foundation behind it.

Re:Straight to step 3: ????

[RyoShin]

Hence why I wrote the second half of the paragraph you quoted.

Re:Straight to step 3: ????

[Theaetetus]

If they did indeed jump straight to step three, I hope the court smacks them down. Companies should be required to put forth a good faith effort to enter into royalty agreements with those using their patents before wasting tax payer dollars. Also, since they were granted in the mid 90s, something about due diligence towards protecting an IP, or else it's relegated to the public domain (or the companies already using it do not have to pay royalties to continue using it in the same manner).

As much as we like to rant about "activist judges", wouldn't it be "activist" for a court to "smack down" this company, considering there's nothing in the Patent Act that requires due diligence (you're thinking Trademark) or good faith efforts (since patent rights are exclusionary rights)? Perhaps the judges would be wrong to "legislate from the bench", and this would be an area best left to Congress to fix.

Re:Straight to step 3: ????

[RyoShin]

this would be an area best left to Congress to fix.

Ahahahaha... but you're mostly right.

Still, I don't think it's outside a judge's ability to say "Look, stop wasting my time. You all go out there, get a caterer, pow wow over royalties, and if you really can't come to some agreement, then come back and we'll do this thing." It's not so much requiring that they do A or B, more like telling them to try acting like adults before the trial continues/commences.

Botting

[Idiomatick]

I could make a bot/spider that scanned the whole internet for phrases that could be construed as ideas. Then have a bot copy that idea into a patent form and send it in. I figure it will cost me about 5million dollars or so to get a sizable chunk of ideas in the world. Then in 5years or i can sue every for several billion dollars.
  So who wants to invest in my company, Trolls R Us (NASDAQ: FUCK).

Re:Botting

[moniker127]

Thats usin the ol' noggin. Who do I write a check out to?

Re:Botting

[agendi]

Great idea. I'm patenting it now!

Re:Botting

[Kalriath]

Can't patent business processes.

Now, patenting his bot before he writes it, that's another story!

Re:Botting

[neomunk]

Concerned Americans Supporting Heros

I know it's a bit long, just put our acronym, CASH, on the check and it'll be just fine thanks. :-)

Re:Botting

[Anonymous Coward]

I patented it 5 years ago. Pay up!

Time to rethink patent laws

[zwekiel]

When patents were first granted, it was on the justification that they engendered innovation and research by providing a fair incentive for companies to develop new technology. At this point, any argument relying on this justification has become completely broken.

Patents have begun to do the exact opposite of what they were meant to do. Rather than encourage development of new technologies, patents have become a way to choke the application of novel technologies in industry. So-called "patent holding companies" have become little more than extortion gangs, demanding their share of the money to which they have no right at all. Governments across the globe have extended copyright and patents, not for the protection of the people and industry, but at the behest of lobbyists.

Patents, as they exist in their current form, are not fair to anyone, except the patent owner. Governments must adopt a fairer stance in order to reverse this alarming trend. Lower the duration of patents, and adopt a system of mandatory royalties, which forces patent owners to license their patents for a fair royalty, determined by a third party.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

At this point, any argument relying on this justification has become completely broken.

Patents, as they exist in their current form, are not fair to anyone, except the patent owner.

You make a whole lot of assertions here without any evidence to back them up. Given that patents have a limited term and then pass into the public domain, the "fairness" comes not out of exclusionary rights to the owner, but from required disclosure to the public to allow further innovation. Since that's the specific intent both of Congress and the drafters of the Constitution, what's "unfair" about them or "broken" about the justification?

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

I'm sure no one is in disagreement (at least on Slashdot) that software patents are wrong, because the underlying concepts provide the foundation for all sorts of things, not the least of which is mathematics. I'm oversimplifying, but you get the gist of it. But I for one feel that if you have patented anything, if you've no prototype.. invalid patent. Patenting ideas just seems foreign to me (and lots of others, I might add.)

Patents like this one are cash-grabs. Microsoft (and the rest of the 22 companies) didn't fall off the OS turnip truck yesterday. Simply put, we've seen the implementation asserted in this patent _many_ years ago...

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Wolfbone]

Economists have always worried about whether the patent system actually works as intended or not. For evidence that it probably does not work for e.g. software, start here: http://researchoninnovation.org/ Before reading the recent literature, however, I'd recommend reading Machlup's famous review: http://www.mises.org/etexts/patentsystem.pdf in which it is made clear that fairness is an outdated way of thinking about patents and a weak justification for them at best: the disclosure benefit is dubious, to say the least, and the patent privilege is something which needs to be justified as beneficial despite its potential for *unfairness* (and its various other negative effects).

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

I'm sure no one is in disagreement (at least on Slashdot) that software patents are wrong, because the underlying concepts provide the foundation for all sorts of things, not the least of which is mathematics.

No, I'm in disagreement. Sure, an algorithm can't be patented, but take a look at World of Warcraft and try to tell me that some hard work and invention didn't go into creating it, invention that, from an equitable standpoint, deserves protection.

But I for one feel that if you have patented anything, if you've no prototype.. invalid patent...
Patents like this one are cash-grabs. Microsoft (and the rest of the 22 companies) didn't fall off the OS turnip truck yesterday.

"No prototype, no patent" only aids large companies with lots of capital. That concept would push out the small inventor who, in his garage, draws up detailed schematics and rigorously tests an idea on a small scale, but doesn't have a million dollars to devote to building it. And if you suggest venture capital, it would be tough to get funding under your concept, considering that until it's prototyped, the idea is worth nothing.

The patent office used to require prototypes. They don't now for the reasons I just said, which have nothing to do with "patenting ideas" seeming foreign.

Simply put, we've seen the implementation asserted in this patent _many_ years ago...

And you throw this last line in without any evidence. [Citation needed].

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

World of Warcraft is a product. It may be a "virtual" product (meaning it's not a widget). But, it builds on un-patentable (and common things) like communications protocols, graphics algorithms (from the makers of the video cards, etc)... It's not an "idea" or an "algorithm" unless you can prove to me that the ratio of Orcs to Dark Elves is somehow mathematically patentable. Contrary to popular belief, MMO's weren't invented by Blizzard. They just found a way to make a profit from them.

A prototype doesn't have to be elaborate, or even very eye-catching, but the scribblings on a napkin shouldn't be patentable without someone doing some work to get the first one running (because how can you assert that something's workable if you don't even get past the paper stage?) Give a time limit from patent to prototype (not the length of the patent), and limit the time suits can be brought when it becomes obvious that the inventor/troll is simply "slipping one past the patent office" and hoarding this sort of thing to go after deep pockets. Force those who are given patents to actually WORK for it.... person or corporation, it's just that simple, and it'd be equitable too (in spite of your assertion to the contrary.) This patent is a prime example of the "idea" stage and 0 prototype... which creates and breeds these patent trolls that make life difficult for _ALL_ of us, not just big companies. Your assertion is missing the bigger picture. Considering when the patent was issued v. the time they decided to sue should give anyone with half a brain pause, and wonder why they sat on this for so long and ultimately have nothing to show for it but the patent itself. I don't see them submitting their own parts to an OS, or anything like that. Seems fishy to me, as most patent trolls do.

Go look at the specs for Unix or any multiuser OS in the big iron days... I think you can google it.... it's enough common knowledge that citations are implied. These folks patented something in the 90's that we've seen implemented ages ago. You honestly think their patent is a new thing? I certainly hope not.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

World of Warcraft is a product.

Since when is there a limitation that you can't patent a product? Pfizier, General Motors, and Sony would all beg to differ.

It may be a "virtual" product (meaning it's not a widget). But, it builds on un-patentable (and common things) like communications protocols, graphics algorithms (from the makers of the video cards, etc)... It's not an "idea" or an "algorithm" unless you can prove to me that the ratio of Orcs to Dark Elves is somehow mathematically patentable. Contrary to popular belief, MMO's weren't invented by Blizzard. They just found a way to make a profit from them.

Never said they were invented by Blizzard, and your example of a ratio would be unpatentable. I'm not sure where this particular strawman came from.
If you go back to my original post, you can see I was talking about an equitable principle, due to the work and inventive step involved in the creation. But if you want to go for a statutory principle, much like the AT&T patent on a long-distance carrier code, Blizzard's product involves concrete changes to a database on a server based on inputs on clients. It likewise qualifies for protection.
And before you go saying "ooh, changes on a database, prior art...", this is a discussion of patentability, not novelty. If Blizzard were to claim "a method of changing a database in response to an input", then yes, there would be prior art up the wazoo. But a rejection for the subject material not being patentable, even if novel, would be wrong.

A prototype doesn't have to be elaborate, or even very eye-catching, but the scribblings on a napkin shouldn't be patentable without someone doing some work to get the first one running (because how can you assert that something's workable if you don't even get past the paper stage?)

I could easily draw an electrical circuit on a napkin and using known laws of physics predict its output mathematically. Likewise, I could draw a system of gears to multiply an input torque and predict its output torque mathematically. Why don't you think I could assert that those are workable without having to build them?

Give a time limit from patent to prototype (not the length of the patent), and limit the time suits can be brought when it becomes obvious that the inventor/troll is simply "slipping one past the patent office" and hoarding this sort of thing to go after deep pockets.

Requiring prototypes, particularly within a set time limit rather than a requirement for reasonable effort, would allow only "deep pockets" to patent anything. Sure, you'd get rid of trolls, but you'd also get rid of all small inventors.
You hear this prototype requirement a lot these days, as part of the patent reform discussion. My guess is that the folks pushing it are big pharma - they always "prototype" since it's a requirement of testing that they have the product in hand.

Considering when the patent was issued v. the time they decided to sue should give anyone with half a brain pause, and wonder why they sat on this for so long and ultimately have nothing to show for it but the patent itself. I don't see them submitting their own parts to an OS, or anything like that. Seems fishy to me, as most patent trolls do.

There's no requirement in the statutes or the Constitution that you use your patent. Arguably, there's a limitation built in to the Constitution already - whether you use it or not, others will be able to use it after the patent expires.
Finally, an estoppel argument is a much better one than arguing that small inventors shouldn't get patents. If you know about infringement and don't do anything about it within a reasonable time, the infringer automatically gets a non-transferrable limited usage license.

Go look at the specs for Unix or any multiuser OS in the big iron days... I think you can google

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

In response to WoW I never said there was a limiation on patenting products only, I was referring to your example of it as a product, not an idea or method (this patent we're talking about here is not a product, per se). We're talking about ideas and concepts in this particular patent that I don't agree are patentable in the realm of Software Patents. Many people more astute than I have given great arguments against Software Patents and their detrimental effect on innovation within software, so I leave that to you to go read if you're more curious. I don't expect people to use their patents, but I expect that if you're going to go to the trouble to patent something you should at least do a little something with it, otherwise you're simply hoarding an idea and stifling others, which is not what patents are all about. Sitting on a patent for nearly the entire length of it, then shooting out a lawsuit after you've done nothing to advance anything with your patent (or usefulness in general) and the Founders did not intend for that to happen.

It's not a strawman, when you're referring to the concepts behind the MMO, which are not Blizzard's to begin with, thereby not patentable, because they follow the same model the every other MMO uses. (which shows us prior art).

As for specifics, Let me reiterate google is your friend. If you want to know more, I'm sure you can find it. I'm not in the business of pointing out domain knowledge. (The bigger picture here w/r/t patent trolls leaves me less space to specify this particular patent, suffice to say it's a troll..) If you'd like to see specific implementations, I'm sure google can point you that way as well (or the USPTO). Regardless of this patent's validity or not, we see the implementation exercised in various ways to great effect in operating systems and embedded systems (particularly in my field, for sure) MANY years before this patent was even submitted, much less granted.

The concept here, that I don't think you're fully understanding, is that there are people who get patents that are obviously covered by prior art or are things that shouldn't be patentable to begin with, but because the system is so broken (and we insist on allowing software patents into the mix, even though the courts now are striking them down), these people are allowed to sue others which is to the detriment of the system and patents themselves.(they're not always big corporations... sometimes these trolls sue the little guy who is trying to make something useful). We need to get back to the basics, stop allowing this sort of nonsense to continue, and turn patents back into what they were meant for in the first place. When someone sues in the "Eastern District of Texas", it's most likely a troll, because they feel like their best shot is the courts in that area's lack of understanding (or perhaps kickbacks... depends on the size of your tinfoil hat.) And when that happens, I find the patent holder suspect all the time. This time is no different. But it's fairly easy to decide that this patent suffers from what most do... a lack of proper consideration w/r/t prior art. It's really that simple.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[nwssa]

arguments against Software Patents and their detrimental effect on innovation within software

Untrue unless you drink Slashdot koolaid.

Small inventors/businesses come up with a disproportionately large number of innovations. Now assume a world without software patents - large corporations could work most efficiently if they leverage their resources, brand, experience in just scanning their competitors and re-implementing whatever looks most profitable. In other words, why would a large company innovate and not just monitor competitors + copy-paste their code. You see large corporations do not need to innovate - they just leverage their strengths (brand, position, existing customer base, ...). In fact, in software its even worse than that, once a client is hooked on a platform it is very costly to migrate even if better technology exists (look at operating systems, look at office suites, etc...).

When someone comes up with a way to protect small inventors from larger companies that copy-paste the results of their hard work and innovation THEN AND ONLY THEN we can abandon the current patent system. Sorry copyright doesnt cut it - large companies just re-implement.

You are confusing bringing something to market vs recognizing the actual innovation or improvement. The market can be more efficient for smaller companies to do the actual innovation and selling their innovations to the larger corporations. Software folks miss this point (so far). Really the problem is the small inventor or business does not have enough leverage - companies like the 20 in this suit just dismiss them and expect the small guy to disappear or to run them over in court with their lawyers.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[nwssa]

Rather than encourage development of new technologies, patents have become a way to choke the application of novel technologies in industry. So-called "patent holding companies" have become little more than extortion gangs, demanding their share of the money to which they have no right at all.

Or is it due to the fact that the large corporations completely ignore the little guy when he shows up with his innovation (e.g. years ago)?

It is common practice for these large corporations to get letters from the small inventor showing their innovations and asking for a royalty, the corporations patent counsel then thinks it over whether to

1. R&D/innovate a workaround,
2. negotiate and buy a license,
3. ignore him.

#3 has all sorts of nice tricks (like pretend to be interested and stall him, counter-sue, etc...).

In today's world the large companies have big-time advantages (leverage, afford $better lawyers, ...). If the small patent holder would stand a chance we wouldn't have these cases where the original patent owner had to sell his patent to a patent holding company that could make a go of it. Some of these cases are not "patent trolls" but rather just selling off of assets (in this case IP) - the inventor is rarely the best one to negotiate the legal waters and better off to take a smaller cut on what he/she does best - R&D.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

It's not the Slashdot kool-aid. Perhaps there's a disproportionate amount of people who believe in the danger of software patents here, but it's certainly not because it's somehow tied to the "groupthink" that sometimes appears on this site's comments section. :)

Just follow the EU's software patent battle and you'll see who it is who simply LOVE them, and it's not small inventors or small businesses. It's the big corporations that spend more time patenting the color blue than anything else (even the corporation I work for has a team of patent lawyers that rival some entire business' staff, and the company frequently begs us for "patentable stuff" if we've seen it or made it).

If a person or small business wants to patent something and then negotiate with a larger company to do the muscle work beyond a prototype, I have no problem with that, and there needs to be a bit more clarification and protection for those who choose to do so. I couldn't say where in that method we need improvement, but I can say that if a person sits on a patent waiting for someone else to come up with it so they can sue in East Texas, that person needs shot in the eye. :) That is what is torpedoing our patent system (besides the re-patenting of the obvious).

Corporatism is to blame for small business' lack of leverage, and this sort of patent we're discussing here is a poor example of the "little guy" trying to get leverage to bring something to market. (It reeks of troll.) Copyright isn't the solution because Corporate meddling has turned that into a farce as well, favoring only the giant copyright holders' portfolios rather than the guy who actually created the work(s). I don't advocate a complete abandonment of the patent system, all I really want is for it to be equitable, less prone to moronic patents of obvious prior art, and the East Texas Patent Trolls need to have their honeypot dry up so we can stop wasting time with this frivolous shit and work on the real patent system and how it needs to be saved before it becomes the next Copyright... useful only to those with deep pockets and armies of lawyers. None of us, not even the free software zealots, want to see that.

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[nwssa]

Just follow the EU's software patent battle and you'll see who it is who simply LOVE them, and it's not small inventors or small businesses. It's the big corporations that spend more time patenting the color blue than anything else (even the corporation I work for has a team of patent lawyers that rival some entire business' staff, and the company frequently begs us for "patentable stuff" if we've seen it or made it).

1) Large corporations get patents as a protection racket to throw mud back at. Most of those patents aren't innovative. Show me some that are (...and Google patents don't really count - they innovated and just happen to have grown so fast (actually due to innovating)).

2) Explain to me why the small inventors or businesses dont' see the use in them again?

If a person or small business wants to patent something and then negotiate with a larger company to do the muscle work beyond a prototype, I have no problem with that

ahh but herein lies one of the problems - without patent protection a medium-large corporation will almost always tell the inventor to buzz off, and then depending on the usefulness of the innovation - copy&paste the idea. You'd be surprised. Remember, these are soulless corporations who's sole purpose is to maximize profits for investors - and that means reduce expenses (e.g. technology license fee's).

but I can say that if a person sits on a patent waiting for someone else to come up with it so they can sue in East Texas, that person needs shot in the eye

I believe the problem lies in that the system too heavily favors the bigger guy. To start an infringement suit you need many things - one is due diligence - big time proof that they are infringing. This is intense and can take years to collect the evidence. Remember our law - defendent is innocent. So the larger corporation will make a business decision whether its more cost-effective to negotiate and buy a license or let him drag you through court. An infringement suit is easily over $1million. Now of course, the little guy should recognize this and not be too greedy - but in this case we're talking about innovating AV software here - no trivial innovation and so probably felt it worthwhile to pursue for higher amounts.

Corporatism is to blame for small business' lack of leverage

Interesting, but how so? Corporatism is one of the factors behind Western civilization that isnt going to be easy to get rid of, how is it to blame for small business lack of leverage? Corporations can be small - even one man (owner+employee) and provides certain advantages.

this sort of patent we're discussing here is a poor example of the "little guy" trying to get leverage to bring something to market. (It reeks of troll.)

I disagree. I suspect that what happened in this case was:

1. guy recognizes a problem in the early 90's (viruses)
2. guy see's there is no existing solution (contrary to other posters, chmod, VMS, etc... are not prior art)
3. guy comes up with innovative way to solve problem
4. guy asks himself - if I go to big company to license this then what's stopping them from stealing my idea? and weighs that against building software himself. The guy figures he's no software developer, doesn't have money to hire software developer, has other things to do (maybe more innovations - this guy has 100+ patents)
5. guy patents innovation
6. guy waits until patent issued (back then not so long, nowadays this is often 5-7 years)
7. guy finally has patent, approaches companies on friendly terms - naively (he's an engineer not cut-throat businessman) thinking "I've got a way to solve this that nobody is doing yet, surely they will be somewhat fair"
8. company(s) either play him, laugh at his "innovation"
9. company(s) goes ahead and builds product
10. guy notices product, ex

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

I don't expect people to use their patents, but I expect that if you're going to go to the trouble to patent something you should at least do a little something with it, otherwise you're simply hoarding an idea and stifling others, which is not what patents are all about. Sitting on a patent for nearly the entire length of it, then shooting out a lawsuit after you've done nothing to advance anything with your patent (or usefulness in general) and the Founders did not intend for that to happen.

Well, they kind of did. First, step back a second. Pretend (or realize, depending on facts) that you own a house and a dozen acres of some very fertile land. Good land for growing wheat, say. But, you decide that you don't want to be a farmer and you say "fark wheat, I'm gonna let it go wild." And you like your privacy, so if anyone comes on your property, you'll sic your dogs on 'em. You're hoarding that fertile land and preventing others from using it, right? But that's fine! It's your land, and we highly value property rights, and in particular, the "right to exclude others" from access.

Now turn to patents... The way the statutes and Constitution are crafted, patents are a property right, just like the deed to those acres of fertile farmland. You can "grow wheat" with them and market your idea, or you can sit on it and shoot people who enter. The distinction is that no matter what you do with your "land", title passes to the public at large after a limited time. But neither Congress nor the Founders ever said anything about a requirement to sow seeds in that field. And if they did, they may well have left out the time limitation - if the point was solely to aid the advance of science and aid the public, then why not give you the right forever, provided you sell products using it to the public at a reasonable price? But that would stifle competition, which is another goal.

Anyways, patents are really complicated from an academic jurisprudence point of view - they're exclusionary, like property, but time-limited. You can't really say that the Founders intended X, without also saying (and Y, Z, and probably Z' and Z'').

It's not a strawman, when you're referring to the concepts behind the MMO, which are not Blizzard's to begin with, thereby not patentable, because they follow the same model the every other MMO uses. (which shows us prior art).

As an aside, I'm not saying WoW is patentable just for being a really big MMO. Only that there's a strong chance - which I haven't looked into beyond simply being a player - that they have some patentable technology. It was merely an example of the difference between a major application and a basic algorithm... Same reason the Courts allowed AT&T's patent on a method that happened to use Boolean algebra - they weren't patenting the algebra, they were patenting a specific idea of how to use it in a tangible way.

When someone sues in the "Eastern District of Texas", it's most likely a troll, because they feel like their best shot is the courts in that area's lack of understanding (or perhaps kickbacks... depends on the size of your tinfoil hat.) And when that happens, I find the patent holder suspect all the time.

This is a common meme (I believed it too until I dug deeper) and it's not true. The Eastern District of Texas aren't a bunch of illiterate rednecks who rubber stamp anything with "patent" on it. In fact, defendants win the majority of cases in the ED. The reason that so many cases are filed there is that, frankly, nothing else goes on in the Eastern District. Federal Courts handle patent matters (patent law is all Federal so it has to be Federal rather than state court), and the Eastern District is woefully deficient in Federal racketeering, drug smuggling, interstate postal fraud, murders of FBI agents, etc. They don't have much else to do. So, while a patent infringement case may take years to get on the docket in

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

Just follow the EU's software patent battle and you'll see who it is who simply LOVE them, and it's not small inventors or small businesses. It's the big corporations that spend more time patenting the color blue than anything else

[Citation needed]
Other than as part of a design patent, it is impossible to patent "the color blue". If you're asserting it is, you're going to have to find at least one example.

(even the corporation I work for has a team of patent lawyers that rival some entire business' staff, and the company frequently begs us for "patentable stuff" if we've seen it or made it).

That's because, for many corporations, the intellectual property is much more valuable than the brick and mortar building you're sitting in. Since we're discussing this on the Internet, I would think that the potential value of intangible property would be obvious.

If a person or small business wants to patent something and then negotiate with a larger company to do the muscle work beyond a prototype, I have no problem with that, and there needs to be a bit more clarification and protection for those who choose to do so.

But haven't you've also said that you don't believe that the person or small business should be able to patent anything without the muscle work necessary to do a prototype? That means that the small inventor has to go to the big company with nothing of actual value - no filing date for a patent, no "pending" application, nothing. Just an idea that, as soon as he tells them what it is, is no longer his. They'll just build the prototype and claim they invented it. And his proof to the contrary? Well, we don't see him holding a prototype now, do we?

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

Citation? Don't you read slashdot? Or are you living under a rock? Google is your friend.

Look, it appears you have decided that somehow it's your personal mission in life to make as big a deal about this as possible... Tell me where I said they had to have a prototype before they could patent something? I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant to fix is the group of people and companies who SIT on patents with NOTHING to show for them but the patent paper, allow someone ELSE (big or small) to make said implementation of the product, which based on MANY patent applications is something a little patent reform would've caught as PRIOR ART, and sue the other person. It's extortion no matter how you paint it. But I guess I wasn't entirely clear because we're talking about generalities and the current patent troll in the parent story. Those two ideas are sometimes intertwined, but for the sake of argument, I should've made it clear when I was referring to this particular patent and when I was being more general.

I know corporations patent things. I am against Software Patents. Sorry. The evidence is obvious, mountainous, and already out there. It's up to you to inform yourself if you're willing to discuss this further. Otherwise we're at an impasse. I assumed it would be obvious to someone who read slashdot, much less someone who posts responses here, that over the last 5 years or more, the arguments against software patents have been provided (and the arguments for...rather unconvincingly). It's not my job to be the RSS feed for someone unwilling to read a bit more.

And get a sense of humor... the "color blue" (which by the way, is really trademarked by Ford I believe in their engine block color.. but that's not a patent). I was referring to the most ridiculous sounding thing to patent off the top of my head. There is still such a thing as a sense of humor, or has that rock you've been living under sapped that out of you too?

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Doctor_Jest]

yes, you hit the nail on the head... it DOES favor the big guys. Just about everything does these days. The problem I have with this sort of thing is that his implementation (though in terms of "antivirus" protection) is vague enough that file permissions that exist in every OS since NT 3.1 would qualify... meaning unauthorized use and/or modification of such is actually already accomplished (without implicitly saying "virus"), but in his mind, and I agree here, Windows didn't use to have this feature in their consumer level OS. Perhaps that's the rub after all. I still smell a troll, because the previous information is what I immediately thought of when reading about this patent (and the patent itself). Maybe I'm proceeding from a false premise, but it sure seemed that way to me. But I think we're in agreement on one thing... the big boys are too heavily favored in this process. East Texas or not (for most patent trolls), there needs to be more oversight in the granting of patents and the cleanup of said patents should start immediately before more of this gets flung around like so much shit. And I go one step further... patenting software is patently wrong. ;)

Re:Time to rethink patent laws

[Theaetetus]

And get a sense of humor... the "color blue" (which by the way, is really trademarked by Ford I believe in their engine block color.. but that's not a patent). I was referring to the most ridiculous sounding thing to patent off the top of my head. There is still such a thing as a sense of humor, or has that rock you've been living under sapped that out of you too?

No, if it it had been funny, it would have been a joke. Instead, it just was readily apparent that you don't understand the difference between trademarks and patents. Fortunately, that makes it easier to dismiss all your prior incorrect assertions about patent law. Once you've studied intellectual property a bit, we can have this discussion again. Cheers.

Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there prior art for this dating back to the 70s?

Re:Prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I would start with RACF and TOPSECRET. I would also look at MVS's concept of authorized program libraries.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I know that there's a GmailFS that uses your Gmail space as a filesystem that you can mount and stuff. Is there an equivalent one for AnonymousPostFS that encrypts and replicates your data out to open comment fields (you'd probably need a few copies incase one died)

This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[plasmacutter]

Apparently, a six year delay negates patent protection (the patentee has "unreasonably and inexcusably" delayed prosecution) under the same laches idea as made above.

Enforcement Laches does not require detrimental reliance. However, the patentee must be shown to have "unreasonably and inexcusably" delayed bringing suit and that the alleged infringer subsequently suffered material prejudice. A six year delay creates a presumption of laches.

Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Laches and Equitable Estoppel.

This is a very informative post.

By the way, unix, which incorporated the archetypal permission system, was developed in 1969.
This is a clear case of prior art which even a "patent troll judge" cannot ignore. It's neither obscure nor contestable as its history is very well documented.
Any judge who doesn't throw it out of court after unix is brought forward as an example of prior art should be immediately scheduled for competency hearings.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Theaetetus]

By the way, unix, which incorporated the archetypal permission system, was developed in 1969.
This is a clear case of prior art which even a "patent troll judge" cannot ignore. It's neither obscure nor contestable as its history is very well documented.
Any judge who doesn't throw it out of court after unix is brought forward as an example of prior art should be immediately scheduled for competency hearings.

[Citation needed]
... Or at least a better understanding of what prior art is, before you go calling for competency hearings. The Unix permissions system doesn't disclose all of the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically "establishing a program authorizing information data structure for storing a plurality of authorization entries each indicating at least one of those computer resources and information processing related functions which may be used by an associated program;"

Unix works with user permissions... This is application permissions. You have rwx access to /user/[name]/library, but maybe you don't want /application/fubar to have full access there, even though you're the same user running it. Look, it's right here in the patent:

Thus, the present invention advantageously protects a user from any program to be executed. The present invention is particularly advantageous in light of current data processing practices where programs are obtained from a wide range of diverse, untrustworthy places such as computer bulletin boards or other users of unknown trustworthiness.

99% of what you read on Slashdot regarding patents is not just wrong, but the complete opposite of reality. Such as calling for competency hearings for a judge refusing to invalidate a patent on file permissions at application-specific levels because "unix was developed in 1969".

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[billybob_jcv]

How about this for irony: "Bell Labs used this initial "text processing system", made up of Unix, roff, and the editor, for text processing of patent applications." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[plasmacutter]

ok, by that description the concept of user accounts combined with the standard rwx permission system " advantageously protects a user from any program to be executed".

Programs executed in one user space do not affect the programs or data in another user space unless the rwx permissions are changed properly.

in your example:
Unix works with user permissions... This is application permissions. You have rwx access to /user/[name]/library, but maybe you don't want /application/fubar to have full access there

change the permission of the folder to exclude /application/fubar's group. BAM, same thing.

my point still stands.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Theaetetus]

change the permission of the folder to exclude /application/fubar's group. BAM, same thing.

my point still stands.

User running /application/fubar still has full rwx access to the folder. So does fubar. Whups. Your point fails.

You may have a point if you're talking about multiple users, but then, again, your point fails, because this patent is talking about a single user.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[plasmacutter]

change the permission of the folder to exclude /application/fubar's group. BAM, same thing.

my point still stands.

User running /application/fubar still has full rwx access to the folder. So does fubar. Whups. Your point fails.

You may have a point if you're talking about multiple users, but then, again, your point fails, because this patent is talking about a single user.

"application permissions" would be called file associations (also around for a long time), or encrypting the file and attaching a module to the desired application allowing access to the file.

encryption and file associations have also been here since our parents were children.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Twanfox]

File associations are not permissions, they are conveniences that the operating system uses to allow a program to predefine what application runs a particular data file. IE: Notepad is the application assocated with .txt, but Wordpad, Word, Textpad, and any number of other applications can be associated with .txt or even run it when the association is not with them.

Also, if you have a binary program that understands .txt files, but you don't want it to go modifying any of those .txt files in your home directory because you're testing it for viruses or just want to see what it is, you could specify that that application is to be giving read access only (not write) to any .txt file in your home directory. THAT is what the patent describes, not associations or fancy applications that do some sort of proprietary encryption on a particular data file.

I don't agree with the patent, I find it reprehensible to wait so long to sue someone, or even to just troll, but at least get your facts straight before spouting off about what you think constitutes prior art.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[plasmacutter]

that's what the cp function is for in terminal.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[bit01]

People like you need to get it through their heads that the because of the ill-defined nature and boundaries of ideas, not to mention the patent office's wild incompetence in differentiating words and the ideas they represent, it means that to say something is, or is not, prior art is a very ill defined idea indeed. They, and you, are just hand waving when you say something is [not] prior art.

As to your example about text files; utterly trivial to implement using Unix group permissions and setgid.

Pretty much all software patents are bogus because the ill defined nature of software blobs and of software terminology means that patent office bureaucrats are endlessly confusing new words with new ideas.

---

The name "Copy Right" is incorrect. It's really "Copy Control Privilege". "Patent" is incorrect. It's really "Idea Control Privilege".

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[JimboFBX]

I see your point, although his point was that the method used are identical. Unix uses a method to keep users from running things other users dont want them to. This patent is about keeping a program running where it shouldn't or running at all. Just replace "keeps track of x from accessing/running y" with whatever you want, they are done the same way.

Patents should be entirely about solving problems. You should be able to list a problem on a patent application, survey a bunch of experts in a field as to how they would solve that problem, and compare that to the patent's solution. If a bunch of people came up with the patent's solution or comparably a similar or better solution then the patent is obvious. If everyone says "I have no idea", then the patent should be awarded.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

MULTIX even before that, it's where UNIX came from.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Eunuchswear]

By the way, unix, which incorporated the archetypal permission system, was developed in 1969.

You could not be more wrong. The Unix permissions system was a big step back from already existing models - Multics for example.

Re:This needs a mod-up, also - 1969, UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix works with user permissions... This is application permissions. You have rwx access to /user/[name]/library, but maybe you don't want /application/fubar to have full access there

change the permission of the folder to exclude /application/fubar's group. BAM, same thing.

my point still stands.

Sorry, no. Unix' permissions are additive, not subtractive. You need ACLs to do anything like that. You can still use permissions like 705 to exclude access for one group only, but in order to set permissions for multiple groups you need ACLs.

This is even ignoring the fact that on regular Unix, programs are executed with the credentials of the user, so you need a complete mess of setuid/setgid settings to even be able to differentiate between programs that the user is running.

Re:What?

[Binary Blob]

Forget to check the little "Post Anonymously" box, did we? Douche.

Texas cannot secede

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried that once, remember? I think it was called The War of Northern Aggression.

Contrary to rumor, Texas didn't join the United States by treaty. I know, I know, you never said they did.

What Texas did get was the right to divide itself into up to 5 pieces without asking further permission of Congress.

Re:Texas cannot secede

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried that once, remember? I think it was called The War of Northern Aggression.

Contrary to rumor, Texas didn't join the United States by treaty. I know, I know, you never said they did.

What Texas did get was the right to divide itself into up to 5 pieces without asking further permission of Congress.

Uh, that document thingy that gives Texas the right to subdivide? It was called, let's see, oh yeah - the _Treaty of Annexation_.

Re:Texas cannot secede

[atraintocry]

The one that never got past the Senate, you mean?

Texas was annexed via a joint resolution.

A Modest Proposal ...

[KwKSilver]

With apologies to Jonathan Swift...Most of this crap seems to come out of LLCs (limited liability companies). That allows LLCs to go on wanton suing binges like this and never have to face the consequences of losing. However, if the principals had to personally face the consequences if their bogus patents are overturned by prior art, or they otherwise lose, it would be a lot more interesting. Patent suits by outfits which produce no products are just shakedowns. Lets treat them like shakedowns....

Try it and lose, the corporate officers, the partners, the corporate account, and the stockholders (if any) should be held personally liable) not only for the legal fees of the successful defendants, but also for treble damages. No bankruptcies allowed. That would be real interesting. Wonder how many bogus suits we'd see then.

Legal changes required: 1) definition of a patent troll; 2) stripping patent troll LLC's of their protected liability status; 3) stripping them of bankruptcy eligibility, both as corporations as as individuals; and, 4) loser pays winner's legal fees + triple punitive damages. Better still, add patent-troll lawyers to the list of liable parties. Finally, make three time losers eligible for life in prison, and strip them of the right to file or own patents. This would have no effect on legitimate companies that produce real products, such as those being sued by patent-troll parasites. /end soapbox rant

Now, mod me into oblivion.

Re:A Modest Proposal ...

[shentino]

I'd be happy for a loser pays system.

One other thing...

The USPTO should be held to a duty of care not to issue a bullshit patent in the first place. Particularly, if the USPTO issues a bad patent, and a company is damaged by a patent troll that uses said patent, then the USPTO should be liable for that party's legal bills.

Re:A Modest Proposal ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A good idea, except...what if you're wrongly accused of being a patent troll?

ie: You sue someone because they legitimately are infringing on your patent, but you have an inferior lawyer.

Re:A Modest Proposal ...

[CodeBuster]

That allows LLCs to go on wanton suing binges like this and never have to face the consequences of losing

The real world is full of consequences, some of them settled "out of court", for pissing off the wrong people. Those who use the legal system as a club to beat others into submission should be wary of unintended consequences, the world can be a dangerous place after all and particularly so when one plays for high stakes.

Re:A Modest Proposal ...

[KwKSilver]

It's not a perfect world. Look back at the list of companies being sued. Who do you think will ultimately pay the costs should the troll win? Symantec? Microsoft? Novell? I don't think so. Everyone who uses products from those companies will foot the bill. That's hundreds of millions of people vs a handful of "inventors." Personally, I'm no fan of any of these companies ... however, it's bullcrap for them them be held up at the point of a [legal] gun. No better than extortion in my opinion.

Re:A Modest Proposal ...

[nwssa]

I wouldn't be so sure. How do you know that letters weren't sent ahead of time and these larger corporations ignored them? I tend to believe that small company/inventor wants to avoid an infringement suit since they easily cost over $1million.

Yes we all pay due to higher costs, but in many cases this all could have been avoided. I'm assuming the patent is valid and innovative.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Filter error: Don't use so many GPLs. It's stupid.
Filter error: Don't use so many GPLs. It's stupid.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at his name/UID/comment history, do you think he gives a shit? Dickhead.

tactics

[alieneye]

I'm guessing they don't have a real case so their tactic is to sue all companies at once, and cash in on the few that settle. They risk losing all if they start with just one case and lose it.

Patent trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

They always makes me think of the "surprise, buttsecks" meme...

If you're looking for prior art

[symbolset]

Start here.

Direct Link to the more recent patent. USPTO needs to look into tinyurl code for short link redirects to content. They're not alone.

It looks like your basic troll patent. They try to get all of the possible potential access control mechanisms for programs in the hope that in the future some of them are employed, without bothering to check that all of them are not already employed decades since. Shoddy work, as one would expect. Is it this easy to get a patent? Maybe I should field a few. What are they, $500?

Somebody will settle anyway. More and more I'm coming to the controversial point of view that asshats like this are doing us a service. They're illustrating that the copyright and patent system we have now works against its stated purpose: to promote progress of science and the useful arts. If only we could start over...

Re:If you're looking for prior art

[DustyShadow]

What are they, $500?

More like $10,000 if you hire a good attorney to write it for you. Just the filing fees (USPTO fees) will exceed $500 though.

Some like to be ripped off

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Actually, some companies don't mind being ripped off. MS for one. Look at how they were quick to pay unnecessary licensing from SCO. By doing so, MS give SCO some funding for their warchest and gave SCO's case some credibility thereby undermining Linux for a while and doing MS competition more damage than the amount they paid. ie. Net win for MS.

No doubt MS will do the sums here and do the same thing if the spreadsheet tells them to. They'll happily pay up if it puts more hurt on their rivals.

Re:Some like to be ripped off

[cdrudge]

How can it be defined as being ripped off if Microsoft benefits from it? To you and I anything over $1.98 is probably going to be considered too much to pay for a license to this patent. But if Microsoft can settle/license it for a million or two, which to them is about the same as what $1.98 is to us, AND undermine the competition at the same time, they they are getting some benefit out of the money the are spending. It's only a rip off if they cough up the money but don't get anything in return, and they probably couldn't undermine Linux to the same degree with marketing and PR alone using the same money.

Setuid + Setgid = Prior Art

[coppro]

Seriously. Make a new user & group. Chown a binary to that user & group. chmod ug+s the binary. Ensure you have execution permissions. Run it. That pretty much satisfies everything in the patent - the program has a limited set of permissions associated with it that can be loaded on a per-program basis every time it executes.

Re:Setuid + Setgid = Prior Art

[smallfries]

No that doesn't do it at all. The patent is describing a more fine-grained security model than users/groups/permissions and as such allows the user to do things that can't be done with the standard posix file permissions. If memory serves tt's normally called capabilities, and although it has been around for at least 10 years, the patent probably predates it shipping in unix/nt systems.

In particular, if you try and describe capabilities using groups, lets say that you have two permissions that you want to give an application: B & C, how would you do this in normal posix permissions? A file can only be in a single group at a time. This problem is exactly why ACLs were bolted onto linux, and the patent describes another way of solving the problem.

It is not standard unix file permissions, even if it has already been around for a decade.

This is about capabilities not ACLs

[Pinky's Brain]

That said, the guys who developed KeyKOS did it (and patented it) a long time before they did.

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~KeyKOS/

No Problem

[MrKaos]

chown ritchie_thompson 5,412,717

all fixed :-)

prior art all the way

[cenc]

Prior art all the way.

It is a bit satisfying however to have MS be the target of a patent troll.

It is even nicer that some how they could not figure out how to name open source projects as defendant.

Eventually everyone will figure out that open source will be as close as you get to judgment proof in this patent system.

Re:prior art all the way

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is a bit satisfying however to have MS be the target of a patent troll.

The next time it's going to be the Mozilla Foundation or Google, and I bet you
won't be feeling so satisfied when that happens.

Re:prior art all the way

[Kalriath]

A lot of open source projects ultimately form an incorporated entity to handle development. ClamAV, for example, is Sourcefire, Inc (which I'm surprised got missed).

Don't think for a second that Open Source is immune.

Also, why are you so happy Microsoft got targeted? For all the sabre rattling, the reality is that Microsoft virtually never exercises their patents offensively. Yet they still get targeted by some scummy patent troll (to all their customers detriment) once a year or more. Remember Eolas and "Click here to activate and use this control" because they patented plugins?

Re:prior art all the way

[cenc]

In my post I said nearly as close to judgment proof as there is. It is the decentralized way of developing the software that creates the shield.

Perhaps we need to figure out a new license and open source project model that keeps the authors identity hidden to make it even more difficult for the patent trolls.

As for MS, it is just dose of their own medicine.

Re:prior art all the way

[Kalriath]

You're still spouting the same bullshit. "Dose of their own medicine" - what the fuck? Microsoft (or rather individual idiots within it) might ramble on about patents and how Linux violates them, but have they ever actually launched a lawsuit against anyone? No. In fact, if you search Google for "Microsoft patent lawsuit" I'd bet the only thing you'd find is story after story about Microsoft being sued by the "patent troll du jour" for some obvious software concept.

Re:prior art all the way

[cenc]

yea, they do it by proxy to cover their legal ass.

Among others:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/12/1239205

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141

Re:prior art all the way

[Kalriath]

That's not evidence. That's a company suing Redhat and Novell, and typical Groklaw and Slashdot (pinnacles of rabid anti-Microsoft sentiment that they are) claiming that because employees of those two companies once worked for Microsoft, clearly Microsoft is involved.

Jesus fucking christ, go back to looking for aliens in your backyard, because that sort of crap is just as rational. The government is lying to you, you know, it isn't a weather balloon.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot to read his name, tard?

Used in CP6

[PeterJFraser]

I believe that this permission structure was built in to Honeywell CP6 OS dating from the mid 70's, and possible it's predecessor Zerox CP5

Filed in 1992?

[jcr]

Sorry, that's bullshit. This is just the latest in many patents that were only issued because the USPTO is incapable of properly searching prior art.

limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predened resources (e.g., data les, disk writing capabilities etc

KeyKOS had already done this back in the 1970s.

-jcr

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, wealth is created by making stuff , and not by just pulling ideas out of one's arse. If the ideas can be used to make something, then they might be worth a bit, but an idea alone is worth exactly bupkus.

Cheers,

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[plasmacutter]

Yah, wealth is created by making stuff , and not by just pulling ideas out of one's arse. If the ideas can be used to make something, then they might be worth a bit, but an idea alone is worth exactly bupkus.

Cheers,

You may agree with the idea i'm expressing, but my comment is off topic and will be treated as such.

I'm willing to accept that. I have karma to burn : )

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

but an idea alone is worth exactly bupkus.

I confirm his point. I have ideas all the time. Sadly, I have many thousands of bupkuses. I just wish they'd stop eating all the food in the house and breeding like crazy.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[An ominous Cow art]

> I'm willing to accept that. I have karma to burn : )

Just what we need, more karma monoxide polluting the atmosphere.

Some quick investigation

[pha3r0]

In a former life I did high balance corporate skip tracing for collection purposes. I just did a quick skip on IPAT Texas Comptroller's Filing Record. I haven't called yet but there's a nice lady that works there that will usually pull up the actual files and get all the goods from the original filings i.e. who signed the original corp documents. However if you look Fischer is the only registered "member" of that corp. Usually in Texas that means he was on the original papers as President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Which if I had to guess means he registered the corporation and "sold" his ideas to it in order to protect himself from backlash of a fraudulent lawsuit. This will be fun to see go to court.

Would that be permissions in software?

[kawabago]

The Court of Appeals recently threw out software and business method patents. This is just some schmuck's feeble last hope that someone will settle before his patents are inevitably invalidated. SCO HO HO HO it's not going to work me thinks.

Re:Never.

[b4dc0d3r]

Don't expect the C&D.

I read the patents, the first one (5,412,717) basically functions as a whitelist to protect users from a computer virus. It includes hashes and specific actions a program can or cannot do. chmod functionality protects data from users, while this invention protects users against viruses. It includes a description of a certification authority system much like SSL certificates, which authenticate the contents of the whitelist explicitly or implicitly.

5,311,591 seems to include something to monitor this activity inside an operating system.

In both cases, emphasis is on the trust hierarchy to provide authority for trusting that such a list is valid.

they missed Intel?

[HJED]

Dose not the x86 architecture contain something like this.
those idiot they could sue almost every company in the world!

x86 architecture

[HJED]

Dose not the x86 architecture contain a method to do this with the Protection layers or something?
It stop applications excuting at the wrong level and manages system calls.

What about obviousness?

[zooblethorpe]

Partially side-stepping the question of prior art, I'm wondering about the patentability of these claims on obviousness grounds. From Wikipedia:

One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.

I'm certainly no patent lawyer, but an awful lot of the things we've seen coming out of the USPTO seem to fail the obviousness test on a prima facie basis, such as the infamous Method of swinging on a swing, or the Method of concealing partial baldness. It seems relatively clear that at least some of the patents being granted are failing the obviousness test. Given this background, is it reasonable to inquire whether "a person having ordinary skill in the art" of computer systems security might not find IPAT's claims to be, well, obvious as a natural extension of Unix's user-based security apparatus?

Cheers,

Re:What about obviousness?

[Theaetetus]

an awful lot of the things we've seen coming out of the USPTO seem to fail the obviousness test on a prima facie basis

The problem here is that everything is obvious in hindsight. So, the Office has to go to greater lengths to give an obviousness rejection, saying why something is obvious, and this can be refuted in indirect ways: no one else made this product before, and look at how fast commercial sales of it took off, for instance.

I agree, it's a tough area. Any ideas on how to solve it?

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's twitter!

Even older prior art from IBM?

[Cherveny]

Seems like MVS on IBM mainframes had the capabilities that are covered by this patent, and it's been around for ages.

ACL in VMS

[www.sorehands.com]

They differentiate this based on a per program ACL that allows programs accessing what resources. If I remember correctly (it has since 1994), there was options to limit programs and control programs access to the internet.

These features were advertised.

$10k? For what?

[symbolset]

I'm looking over the application linked above and it looks unlikely a lawyer ever read it before it was filed. It seems nearly certain a Unix SVR3 admin never did or the claims would be fewer. So what was the lawyer for again? Does he help with the engineering? Does he proof the application? Does he have a historical background in technology that will tell him things like "All this stuff in your claims is ancient tech"? For $9500 I would expect him to work the 'scope for me. I think for $9500 you get the typing skills of the paralegal he pays $14/hr, and he expects you to proof it yourself.

I'm going to go with... no. Just no.

And... good attorney? In patent law? Are you kidding? Is that one that self-combusts or what? The symbolic dissonance is causing some serious pain here.

It's in the name..

[saxoholic]

Am i the only one that sees the irony that their acronym is "iPAT"?

That seems oddly convenient....

An attempt at a precedent?

[rtfa-troll]

Hmm.. Judging from a number of entries, that's a list of fairly patent friendly companies. Two things come to mind.

a) since these companies support patents they can't use anti-patent arguments.
b) if they gave in and paid up it might make it easier to sue someone else.

I guess a). I think this is more likely to be a list of companies who have argued in court that software patents are valid and so when they try to argue otherwise their own arguments can be used against them. I guess this is an attempt to squeeze the last value out of software patents before recent supreme court decisions end up making them worthless.

Yes, it's called RACF

[ishmalius]

And it has been around forever, and quite likely is exactly the required prior art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACF

Re:What?

[Tubal-Cain]

What encryption did they use? Rot-13 twice?

Look at 1970s Capability Architecture Systems

[karl.auerbach]

There is a strong chance that many of the claims in these patents have predecessors in the Capability Based operating systems of the 1970's.

Check out the Intel 432 architecture.

Check out IBM's "SWORD" project.

Check out UCLA Data Secure Unix.

Check out the Plessy capability systems from that period.

SRI did a lot of work in this area as well. And so did we at System Development Corp. (SDC).

The idea of a capability is a descriptor that defines access rights in an extensible manner - for example one can say that the disk driver can't deal with tape hardware or that a text editor can only do certain things to a particular SQL database.

Re:Look at 1970s Capability Architecture Systems

[bigsteve@dstc]

And check out CAP, developed at Univ of Cambridge in the late 1970's.

Here is more prior art!

[FlyingGuy]

And this should be all it takes

Novell Netware 286!

The date is 1981!

Once again it is up to Novell to save everyones ass!

Re:Here is more prior art!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me a Capability based OS does this, and the idea of capabilities has been around since the 60's

Re:Here is more prior art!

[FlyingGuy]

We need the site. The more prior art the better. Find specific examples and post them.

MOD PARENT UP!

[FlyingGuy]

Novell has current working prior art dating back to 1981!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[geminidomino]

Novell has current working prior art dating back to 1981!

Really? I thought they were mostly Netware back then. ^_^

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[FlyingGuy]

The company has always been Novell, the product has always been NetWare.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[geminidomino]

I know. It was a joke about "Netware" and "Working"

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[FlyingGuy]

I will put Novell's NetWare up against ANY Linux installation in the file and print service space and it will smoke them every time. Sorry Linux is a Great application server, But NetWare with NDS is just superior by any metric you would care to use in either the Closed Source or Open Source worlds.

Re:Yes, it's called RACF

[Cherveny]

Thanks. Couldn't remember the name. The mainframe I work with uses ACF2, but I knew that was a more recent product.

Re:$10k? For what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The attorney obfuscates the patent. A "good" one can obfuscate a patent on the wheel well enough to get it through.

Hm, VMS?

[Arimus]

Doesn't VMS predate their prior art by a few years? And VMS had lots of the features they claim as part of their patent (and a few more besides)...

The Technology is Very Old

[herwin]

These technologies were developed about 30 years for the US Government (Multics). See Karger and Schell. Pity that patent trolls can't be sued for misusing the patent system.

It is real

[dabadab]

It's interesting to see that bullshit like this is taken seriously by the /. community.
Of course, you can say that "intellectual property" is just a "social construct". It is - just like any other property. But you should not forget that all that stuff (software, entertainment, etc) are stuff that people find useful - and they are even useful in the sense that they enable us to make more (or more advanced) stuff. If you go down this 'ony real stuff counts' path, soon you will arrive to the point that only work that actually produces "real stuff" counts - so management, engineering, R&D etc is absolutely unneeded. I don't know if it's necessary to point out that if the world would be really so focused on "producing real stuff" it would itself real soon in the stone age.
If you need actual evidence, take a look at the socialist countries of the second half of the 20. century: the prevailing idea was there that farmers and blue-collars are the ones that really do something - the "intellectuel" class was considered suspicious and kept as small as possible. Well, needless to say, it didn't do any good to the economy.

Re:It is real

[UncleTogie]

If you need actual evidence, take a look at the socialist countries of the second half of the 20. century: the prevailing idea was there that farmers and blue-collars are the ones that really do something - the "intellectuel" class was considered suspicious and kept as small as possible. Well, needless to say, it didn't do any good to the economy.

...which explains why darn near everything we buy here is made in China...

They didn't sue SCO???

[AliasMarlowe]

They must be scared of SCO's proven legal prowess in these IP matters...

The non-defendants

[AliasMarlowe]

Hmm... IBM, HP, and Sun are not on the list (nor is SCO, curiously enough).

Re:The non-defendants

[Kalriath]

They're going solely for Antivirus vendors for some reason - Microsoft's on there because of OneCare, not Windows. Not sure on Novell.

Also the NSA is likely immune on National Security grounds.

Disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

What should be done is that if the patent disclosure doesn't give the solution then the disclosure is not advantageous to the practitioners of the art and therefore not a patent.

If a patent could not be operated as described as a trade secret, there is no disclosure benefit and it is not a patent.

If a patent could cover different implementations then it is not specific enough and is not a patent.

A prototype isn't necessary for these yardsticks.

And for those who bleat that the parent's idea could not work because a company would just take the idea of a little inventor (since that little inventor has no patent yet because they can't afford a prototype), the little inventor is ALREADY fucked because the larger company could sue for patent infringement and even if it were bogus the cost would drive the little guy out of business. And the inventor could use NDA anyway.

That is nonsense.

[jotaeleemeese]

Services are something tangible for which there is genuine demand.

Financial services, tourism services, movie making, game programming, they are real things for which there is real demand.

If you want to compete in manufacturing then be prepared to lower the standards of living of your population.

Manufacturing will not become fashionable again in rich countries for at least a couple of generations, once our manufacturing powerhouses are Burkina Fasso and Kazakhstan then that would mean that their is competition to be had again, for the time being rich countries have no chance in hell to compete, to pretend otherwise is wishful thinking.

Impersonation?

[ThePhilips]

Other systems are also designed to protect system files from being modified by an application (say, a virus), but IPAT's patent goes one step beyond that, with a system that can prevent programs from modifying a user's files.

The "one step beyond that" part what is called "impersonation," when program works in context of a user. Impersonation is word from WinNT universe, though setuid is pretty much the same thing.

It's needless to talk about prior art. There are piles of it.

Re:Impersonation?

[Software Geek]

From your piles of prior art, could you please name a system that offered both "capabilities" AND "impersonation" prior to 1995?

Re:Impersonation?

[ThePhilips]

OpenVMS had both "impersonation" and "capabilities" (or "privileges") (See here). Where from they have actually came to WinNT.

Capabilities might be hard to spot, because in *nix universe (of which VMS is distant relative) they are bound to access to special files (normally under /dev in *nix and magic file names in VMS). By defining who has access to the special files, you define their capabilities.

I'm not a VMS historian so I cannot tell when the features went into the OS, yet AFAIK most of VMS development and core feature were stabilized by mid 80s. E.g. ACLs in VMS apparently appeared in 1984. Probably googling for "vms history" would bring more info. (Name change to "OpenVMS" happened in 1991.)

Here's a hint to patent trolls:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to sue more than ten different companies at once, chances are your "idea" is something any idiot can come up with, and thus cannot be protected by anything but a patent office staffed by idiots.

90's?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant '90s. The apostrophe takes the place of the missing characters, in this case the "19". Placing it before the "s" would make it the possessive form of 90, but I don't think the number 90 owns anything.

Please also refrain from writing such monstrosities as "CD's", "DVD's", or "banana's" when "CDs", "DVDs", and "bananas" work perfectly well.

Entire model is broken

[CarpetShark]

Yah, wealth is created by making stuff , and not by just pulling ideas out of one's arse. If the ideas can be used to make something, then they might be worth a bit, but an idea alone is worth exactly bupkus.

I would have agreed with you, except for the existence of, and rapid improvement of, Fabbers. Give it a decade or two, and kids/techies will be downloading designs to build what they need, and only ordering raw materials from amazon. Since some fabbers are self-replicating, not even making fabbers will be a safe job/revenue stream. Given that mining and other resource harvesting is becoming more and more automated too, ideas are soon going to be all that's left.

Essentially, we're moving towards the society the (fictional) Krell had. They were smarter than us, and their own tech wiped them out. Let's see how we do. One thing's for sure: if we stick to the RIAA model, we're all screwed.

Re:Entire model is broken

[ThosLives]

The problem here is your post proved that ideas aren't "all that's left." What good are the designs without the Fabbers (wealth) or raw materials (wealth)? The OP was right: without realization, ideas are just potential energy. So there is some value in having the potential for work around, but that's not nearly as much value as actually performing the work.

(Even if you consider the "automation" of mining and resource gathering, you still need real, manufactured wealth to perform that automation.)

The fundamental problem with basing an economy on ideas is that ideas are not economically scarce resources. If you made the subtle change to an economy based on the ability to create ideas, then I'd say you have a sustainable economy, because the ability to create ideas is a scarce resource. This is actually why software can bring in income, because the ability to create the software is scarce and you have to compensate the people who make it - yes, even those that make "free" software get compensation in some form, albeit mostly indirectly.

Re:Entire model is broken

[mhall119]

There is also money in the information, like the information you feed to a fabricator to actually make the things you want. Future economies will not be based on selling widgets, but rather on selling widget designs.

Re:Entire model is broken

[DamnStupidElf]

There is also money in the information, like the information you feed to a fabricator to actually make the things you want. Future economies will not be based on selling widgets, but rather on selling widget designs.

Kind of like how people are buying and selling basic algorithms and mathematical formulas? Or buying and selling GNU, Linux, and BSD software? Honestly, I think home fabrication will be the final nail in the coffin for "intellectual property".

Re:Entire model is broken

[on the 8ball]

Philip K Dick foresaw this about 50 years ago in his SF novels, they're worth a re-reading.

Re:Entire model is broken

[ultranova]

Even if you consider the "automation" of mining and resource gathering, you still need real, manufactured wealth to perform that automation.

Actually, if the automatons can be build by fabbers, and fabbers can also build more fabbers, then you only need to manufacture a single fabber and enough raw materials for a single automaton to get started. After that it all runs itself and expands its capacities exponentially with no more labour required by humans.

The grandparent poster forgot to discuss the energy needs of the device, thought.

The fundamental problem with basing an economy on ideas is that ideas are not economically scarce resources.

Seeing how the whole point of economy is to manage scarce resources, the lack of scarcity is a problem to economy in the same way than the lack of crime is a problem to a police department: it makes it unnecessary.

Another way of looking at this is that if everyone can simply manufacture anything they need or want at will, the whole concept of wealth becomes obsolete, because everyone has limitless amounts of it.

If you made the subtle change to an economy based on the ability to create ideas, then I'd say you have a sustainable economy, because the ability to create ideas is a scarce resource.

Given leisure time, humans create. This has been proven time and again; the whole Internet is full of everything from art to music to books created by hobbyists and uploaded for all to use for free. In a post-scarcity world, I'd imagine that these activities would be further accelerated.

It's not the ability to create which is scarce, for all have it; no, what is scarce is the patience to hone the skill to the point where one can create something worthwhile.

Re:Entire model is broken

[CarpetShark]

Oh, really? Cool, I'll check that out. Thanks :)

MSx11 published 1979, DECYS 11-SP-6

[Anonymous Coward]

...implemented Bell-LaPadula including protection by user and by program, with many other bits. Ran as a distributed system on pdp11 (standalone on a network of such, or emulated on a large pdp11 under RSX - for debugging and development). Full source code was published and it is clearly dated from 1979 (sorry, don't recall date any more). The package was better known for a distributed symbolic debugger but MSX was published fully in 1979. There should be no trouble showing it was out long before 1992! contact gce@gce.com for info...

"competition" is not a "goal" of economics.

[plasmacutter]

Additonally, I find it interesting that you are opposed to government helping diminish competition, but you're perfectly fine with their governments diminishing competition by allowing multinationals to work their citizens 20 hours a day at 5 cents a week and chuck out any worker who has to go to the bathroom or develops a cold.

I'm sorry but competition and efficiency are not a "goal" of economics, economics is a tool, much like physics or chemistry, which should be used to enrich our lives and solve problems.

As such, there are times when "free market fundamentalism" does not create public welfare. International "free trade" without protections to assure parity of rights and labor standards between nations simply allows one nation to funnel jobs and wealth from the other like a mosquito.

The consumer and the third world farmer are the biggest losers,

the third world farmer is not having problems because of US trade policy, he is having problems because of political and climactic issues in his own.

As for "the consumer", nominal prices mean nothing. When offshoring renders you unemployed and drives down wages across the board the lower nominal prices mean nothing, and much more often people end up spending a much higher fraction of their income on the products they buy.

"Free trade" with nations without socioeconomic parity drives down real wages through this process as upper management siphons off more and more for their already fat pockets.

Please take into account all economic forces rather than just quoting incomplete and incompetently taught high school econ 101

Re:"competition" is not a "goal" of economics.

[TapeCutter]

"economics is a tool, much like physics or chemistry, which should be used to enrich our lives and solve problems."

I agree. The problem with your whole post is that you are defining "our" in the above quote as a subset of mankind.

Re:"competition" is not a "goal" of economics.

[plasmacutter]

I'm defining "our" as the US where I live, where the cost of living is much higher.

The same economic policies were used against us by britain and europe when we were developing. A sound policy which gave limited protection to business and at the time the labor standards which resulted in a consuming "middle class" gave rise to our economic power.

The problems with less prosperous nations are not US trade policies, but their own domestic policy and in many cases political unrest. (please don't apply the fallacy of composition to this statement. This is very different at the level of individual people and families)

As Bill Maher would say, "New Rules"

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on, anyone attempting to make money off of others in such a way that they have produced no original work and no concrete product (concrete does not necessarily mean physical) will be shot on sight. It will not be a crime to kill such people. It will be a mitzvah. This would take care of patent leeches, investment banker parasites, and other vampiric scum of the earth who purport to "generate wealth" but who actually are generating excrement. I am filing for a patent for this idea immediately.

And DEC as well

[Exp315]

DEC's RSX and VMS operating systems had this exact feature and implementation back in the 1980s as well. The patent is ridiculously invalidated by prior art.

Capabilities: S/38, AS400 - 1978

[raftpeople]

Not sure when KeyKOS patented it but the System 38 (introduced in 1978) and it's successor the AS400 use capability based security (every 128 bit pointer has a 64 bit security key embedded).

I see two main failings in USPTO

[zooblethorpe]

Any ideas on how to solve it?

Well, there seem to be two main issues, roughly speaking, that get in the way here. One would appear to be a conflict of interest, in that patent officers are apparently paid based on how many applications they complete. Since approval is a much quicker and less complicated process than rejecting, and then having to deal with refutations, patent officers have a clear incentive to approve as many patents as possible, regardless of their merit. This might be what spawned such bizarre and utility-less patents as the two I linked to previously.

• What would solve this issue? Changing the pay structure. And, since the current pay structure was likely put in place precisely to incentivize moving through the patent application backlog as quickly as possible, it would no doubt behoove us as a country to increase USPTO funding to increase the number of patent examiners. At the same time, measures like Bilski to limit and more clearly define the realms of the patentable, and thereby reduce the number of applications at the source, would likely also help.

The other issue that has been discussed here on Slashdot is the simple fact that no patent office staff, no matter how large, can possibly have the expertise required to honestly and effectively evaluate the flood of multi-varied patent applications. This is a structural incompetence, and by incompetence here I don't mean "bumbling idiots" (though some no doubt would say so), I mean instead simply "not capable of performing the duties of adequately examining all patent applications".

• How might this be overcome? One proposal that makes some sense has also been mentioned here on Slashdot before, and that is to open the patent examination process to comment from the public, allowing others, possibly with greater expertise in the relevant subject areas, to have some input regarding prior art and obviousness.

I'm not sure how effective these proposed changes might be, but it's clear that the current system is failing with regard to its constitutional mandate: to promote the progress of science and useful arts (Constitution, Article I). I find it fascinating that Justice Joseph Bradley, back in 1883, accurately described our current situation by extrapolating what would happen if any advancement at all, not just the notable, truly novel, and useful, were deemed patentable (emphasis mine):

The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country without contributing anything to the real advancement of the art. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to law suits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.
(source: Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883))

US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas built on this argument in a written opinion in 1950 (emphasis mine):

Every patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. The Framer

Re:I see two main failings in USPTO

[Theaetetus]

Well, there seem to be two main issues, roughly speaking, that get in the way here. One would appear to be a conflict of interest, in that patent officers are apparently paid based on how many applications they complete. Since approval is a much quicker and less complicated process than rejecting, and then having to deal with refutations, patent officers have a clear incentive to approve as many patents as possible, regardless of their merit.

I would offer a correction here - patent examiners are paid based on how many applications they conclude; yes, there's incentive to deal with the backlog, but they get paid the same for granting as they do for rejecting.

This might be what spawned such bizarre and utility-less patents as the two I linked to previously.

As an aside to the debate, I don't see those two as utility-less. Bear in mind that utility is a really broad requirement, and "providing entertainment" or "reducing embarrassment" are perfectly legitimate uses. The patent system does not have noble endeavors as a requirement, in spite of what Justice Douglas said. Consider the analogous argument that the copyright clause (in the Constitution next to the patent clause) should only apply to true literary works that advance the human spirit, and not this new-fangled pulp. You know, Shakespeare, not this "Mark Twain" or Dickens person, or Heinlein, or Terry Pratchett. Just as literary worth is not always best measured by contemporaries, the usefulness of an invention is not always best measured by how it advances abstract and objective science. To put it another way, leisure and entertainment are noble goals, too.

... it would no doubt behoove us as a country to increase USPTO funding to increase the number of patent examiners. At the same time, measures like Bilski to limit and more clearly define the realms of the patentable, and thereby reduce the number of applications at the source, would likely also help.

Agreed on both counts.

The other issue that has been discussed here on Slashdot is the simple fact that no patent office staff, no matter how large, can possibly have the expertise required to honestly and effectively evaluate the flood of multi-varied patent applications. This is a structural incompetence, and by incompetence here I don't mean "bumbling idiots" (though some no doubt would say so), I mean instead simply "not capable of performing the duties of adequately examining all patent applications".

How might this be overcome? One proposal that makes some sense has also been mentioned here on Slashdot before, and that is to open the patent examination process to comment from the public, allowing others, possibly with greater expertise in the relevant subject areas, to have some input regarding prior art and obviousness.

Here, I disagree. Patent Examiners are grouped into art units, and only deal with the area of their expertise. A biologist isn't going to be reading a software application, and an electrical engineer isn't going to read a pharmaceutical application. There are somewhere close to a thousand different art units, so I don't think they're being spread too thinly.

Consider this, too... Theoretically, at least, the examiners are working with new inventions, stuff no one has thought of before - it's therefore impossible for them (or anyone else other than the inventor) to be an expert on the invention already.

Finally, I have mixed feelings on the public comment process as we've seen in Peer2Patent. On the plus side, yes, a lot of prior art gets found. On the minus side, a lot of shiat gets found too - as we see from these discussions, there are more people on Slashdot who know nothing about patents than people who do... so a public comment system leads to people citing unix for the patent application here, or (in a prior thread) citing an ice cream store allowing samples for an

Re:I see two main failings in USPTO

[zooblethorpe]

Wow, some fun, interesting, and smart goings-on here at Slashdot! Oh yeah, that's why I still come here... :)

As an aside to the debate, I don't see those two as utility-less. Bear in mind that utility is a really broad requirement, and "providing entertainment" or "reducing embarrassment" are perfectly legitimate uses.

Forgive me, I should have been more explicit. I don't consider the ideas claimed to be utility-less, but rather the patents themselves, w.r.t. any advancements -- both "inventions" have likely been around at least as long as swingsets and male pattern baldness, respectively. :) Any utility either patent would have would therefore lie not in expressing the claimed inventions to the public and thereby advancing public knowledge, given that neither "invention" really is one, but rather purely in the short-term monopoly granted to the patent holder, and since these two "inventions" were in all likelihood both fully extant prior to being patented, the granting of such monopolies constitutes little more than a power grab, should the grantee actually seek to exercise their exclusivity rights.

On the minus side, a lot of shiat gets found too...

< sigh. > Yes, this is indeed a problem with allowing public comment. Crowd-sourcing anything, be it prior art research or Wikipedia or even democracy, will produce crap from time to time, and possibly more often than not if there is no QA mechanism. I don't suppose you have any QA mechanism ideas for the Peer2Patent process? Specifically, QA that would vet prior art references before reaching the patent examiner's desk? I can't think of anything useful off the top of my head.

Theoretically, at least, the examiners are working with new inventions, stuff no one has thought of before - it's therefore impossible for them (or anyone else other than the inventor) to be an expert on the invention already.

It might be a subtle distinction, but my concern in my previous post, and I guess in this thread in general, has more to do with patent examiners being experts in their respective fields, not necessarily being experts regarding the claimed inventions per se. Such an expert should be able to effectively evaluate any application for obviousness and prior art. While perhaps not the best example, an expert on swingsets, for instance, would realize offhand that swinging sideways is both an obvious and widely used means of deriving entertainment, and such an expert would therefore have rejected the application to patent a Method of swinging on a swing on both obviousness and prior art grounds. W.r.t. TFA itself, an expert in computer security systems should be aware of not just POSIX permissions (a red herring many others have brought up), but also capabilities (which sound much closer to what IPAT claims to do). Given that capabilities have been researched, written about, and implemented since at least around the late 1970s (KeyKOS, for example), even if IPAT's claims go beyond capabilities themselves, and would therefore not be subject to rejection on prior art grounds per se, in such a case they should be stringently evaluated for obviousness as a possibly inevitable outgrowth from or extension of capabilities. (Note that I'm not saying that such evaluation did not occur -- I have no way of knowing. I *am* saying that the existence of dubious patents such as the swingset and combover patents does raise suspicions that due diligence has not been fully carried out, for pretty much *any* patent.)

So, to restate my concerns here, I am worried that USPTO patent examiners appear to not have adequate expertise to p

Re:I see two main failings in USPTO

[Theaetetus]

As an aside to the debate, I don't see those two as utility-less. Bear in mind that utility is a really broad requirement, and "providing entertainment" or "reducing embarrassment" are perfectly legitimate uses. ... I don't consider the ideas claimed to be utility-less, but rather the patents themselves, w.r.t. any advancements -- both "inventions" have likely been around at least as long as swingsets and male pattern baldness, respectively. :)

I understand what you mean now... Sorry - "utility" has a specific definition in the patent world ("does it do something?") as opposed to "novelty" ("was it known to anyone else?") or "nonobviousness" ("even if it wasn't known, would it have become known had they stopped to consider it?"). I agree - I certainly remember swinging sideways on a swing when I was a kid.

Incidentally, an amusing (?) consequence of the reexamination procedure for issued patents is that the swing one can't be overturned... During examination, you can get affidavits or even a video of a kid swinging sideways to show it was known, but for reexamination to get the patent invalidated, you have to provide published literature. And I'd bet no one previously wrote a book teaching kids how to swing on a swing. ;)

On the minus side, a lot of shiat gets found too... Yes, this is indeed a problem with allowing public comment. Crowd-sourcing anything, be it prior art research or Wikipedia or even democracy, will produce crap from time to time, and possibly more often than not if there is no QA mechanism. I don't suppose you have any QA mechanism ideas for the Peer2Patent process? Specifically, QA that would vet prior art references before reaching the patent examiner's desk? I can't think of anything useful off the top of my head.

The only one that comes to mind is a Slashdot-type moderation and meta-moderation system involving karma or an equivalent. Thing is, that works great on Slashdot with a million users... probably not as well on P2P with maybe as much as a thousand "involved" users. Additionally, it could encourage unethical or fraudulent registrations and voting-down of references that may hurt your own application, or voting-up of those that may hurt a competitor's application.

It might be a subtle distinction, but my concern in my previous post, and I guess in this thread in general, has more to do with patent examiners being experts in their respective fields, not necessarily being experts regarding the claimed inventions per se. Such an expert should be able to effectively evaluate any application for obviousness and prior art.

Ideally, that's the USPTO's goal when hiring Examiners. I think this one is again a flaw of lack of money. If you're an expert at biotech chemistry, or at least pretty dang sharp, are you going to take a middle-income government job or go private sector? There's an analog in teaching... Many teachers suck, 'cause all the ones who would be great go private sector and make double or triple the money. Every once in a while, you get someone who does it for the love of teaching, but the majority are there because they can't do anything else. That doesn't mean that the education system should be disbanded - just that it's broken and needs reworking. Same with the patent system. :)

... even if IPAT's claims go beyond capabilities themselves, and would therefore not be subject to rejection on prior art grounds per se, in such a case they should be stringently evaluated for obviousness as a possibly inevitable outgrowth from or extension of capabilities...

Obviousness is really tough, particularly in software patents. Not that they are always obvious or not, but software moves so fast in comparison to the patent office... A patent applied for in 2000 may get examined in 2002, bounce around a bit with a f

Capabilities: older than 10 yrs

[raftpeople]

If memory serves tt's normally called capabilities, and although it has been around for at least 10 years

The System38 and follow on machine as400 both use capability based security (every 128 bit pointer contains a 64 bit security/capability key).

S/38 was introduced in 1978

Re:Capabilities: older than 10 yrs

[smallfries]

Then that sounds like prior art for most of the patent.

Re:Capabilities: older than 10 yrs

[FlyingGuy]

Since 1981 Novell Netware has and still has the ability to assign or deny the following rights to any object:
WRMFACES+DI+RI+EI where:

W=Write
R=Read
M=Modify
F=Filescan
A=Access Control
C=Create
E=Erase
S=Supervisory
DI=Delete Inhibit
RI=Rename Inhibit
EI=Execute Inhibit

These rights can be applied in any combination. Want to create a drop box, assign a directory only the create right and the only thing you can do is create a file and that is it.

Pretty damn fine grained if you ask me.

Capability: S38 and AS400

[raftpeople]

The System38 and follow on machine AS400 have had capability based security since 1978 (everything is accessed through 128 bit pointers which contain a 64 bit capability/security key).

What about MULTICS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of curiosity, did MULTICS do anything that could be construed as prior art?

Re:$10k? For what?

[DustyShadow]

Patent attorneys know how to write claims correctly. It is not an easy task. Only a foolish inventor would write his patent for himself if he has no prior training in doing so. BTW, I have not read the patent involved in this current case so I can't comment on its quality.

Re:What?

[Tanktalus]

Apparently, it's a form of steganography using the GPL text as the carrier. If my decoding is correct, I think it says, "This is the geekiest troll EVAR!" but I think they misspelled "EVAR" so I can't quite be sure.

Egads....

[GPLDAN]

It sounds like.... The Crimson Permanent Assurance!

You missed the point completely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please understand the ideas you're criticizing before coming out with some half-ass comparison to communism that has nothing to do with the argument at hand! We're talking capitalism here.

And the point is NOT that ideas don't do any good, it's that they're not scarce (again, note how this is a capitalistic concept)! If you imagine an economic pyramid, the ideas should be at the top.

Putting them as our base gives us an inverted pyramid that will topple over given time, no matter how hard we work to support it. Yes, ideas are necessary and good and useful. But we're trying to get everyone to pretend that they're scarce. They're not. Anyone can copy them. That's the entire problem notions of IP are supposed to solve. And they're not solving it.

prior activity - not prior art

[FewClues]

Well we at least know where the SCO lawyers wound up!

"Free Trade" revisited

[Tablizer]

Protectionisim (in all it's forms) stiffles trade, kills competition and creates mountains of unwanted food in one place while others starve in another place.

But lack of it over-leverages the economy. Comparative advantage encourages a country to put all its eggs in one (or fewer) baskets. Diversification in investments is an important consideration for both individuals AND countries because it reduces risk. Comparative-advantage and diversification are at odds. Think about it.

Economists tend to ignore the downsides to full-out "free trade" because they are harder to model, NOT because they are less important. Economists don't really understand risk. Otherwise, they would have prevented the mess we're in now. Diversification (via tariffs) is one way to reduce risk, even if Walmart trinkets are slightly more expensive as a result.
                   

But....

[ibsteve2u]

the US Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to involve itself in Education, but requires it to provide national defense

I would venture the opinion that our public educational system is part of our defense system, particularly as our defense systems get ever more intricate and technical. Beyond that, our nation has always benefited from having soldiers who were trained to think and solve problems independently - skills which our educational system, no matter its hit-and-miss nature, provides them.

The Army needs a Few Good Educated Men; let the morons run for public office as they always have.

Re:But....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree entirely, unfortunately the link between defense and education is weak enough to be a slippery slope -- it could be applied to childhood nutrition or hate speech limits as well (in other words, almost anything that is "good" is sufficiently related to defense to give the Federal government control)

If we had proper standards for a HS degree across the United States, anyone with a HS degree could be trained for most of the technology the military uses. Indeed, this is something the military is VERY good at -- taking a mix of people of ordinary skills and training them to be an awesome collective machine.

Agreed about there being plenty of morons to run for office - maybe we should let anyone discharged with an honorable discharge from the military designate one person who will NEVER be allowed to hold a Federal elected office again. Maybe that would offset the problem with morons in office.

Re:But....

[AG the other]

Or we could go the route of one of Robert A. Heinlein's novels and have only military veterans hold office. Hopefully that won't happen because it's going to take a pretty awful catastrophe to bring something like that about and military men have a history of being pretty awful rulers. AG

Free PDF patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Download IPAT's patents in PDF format for free at Patent Retriever http://www.patentretriever.com/

alt sugestion of prior art - Oracle?

[grey1]

Given the arcane and apparently obfuscated way in which patents are written I find them hard to untangle, but isn't Oracle an alternative example that works at the data level and which has (and has had for some time) the ability to manage access to data structures in a complex manner?

Alternatively, surely the 'trust' certificate hierarchy that's been kicking around in web browers has been there for some time... a very quick search seems to point to X.509 certs - see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.509. X.509 issues in 1988..

VMS and Prior Art

[BBandCMKRNL]

Now, if you want to infringe the patent, you'd have to tell us the command you could issue to allow any program except say, GIMP, from accessing your data. This is 'program access', not 'user access'.

I did just that in a VMS System Service in 1986. Certain resources were secured against all non-privileged access. If the application required access to one of those resources, it called the System Service which granted or denied access to the resource depending upon what image was requesting the access.

How did they even get this patent?

[WindShadow]

A quick look at the protections in MULTICS from the 1960's would show that the claims in the patent are either prior art or totally obvious from the original (like using a one instead of a zero in a bitmap).

MULTICS had one of the most complex permissions arrangements ever put in an OS, the best practice supported in hardware by GE (who built the original GE-645 computer to support it) and MIT who worked on the refinements like protection enforcement on a page fault level

This reminds me of childhood Italian pasta cooking, grab a bunch and throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. I don't know if a court will allow these companies to couter sue for legal costs, but I won't be buying stock in IPAT.