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

[moniker127]

What the hell are you babling about?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

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

[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.

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/

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.

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!

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

[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: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

[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:What?

[Binary Blob]

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

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.

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...

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.

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: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.

Re:Texas cannot secede

[atraintocry]

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

Texas was annexed via a joint resolution.

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.

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!

MOD PARENT UP!

[FlyingGuy]

Novell has current working prior art dating back to 1981!

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...

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.

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.

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.

"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.

[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)