Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Patents Sudo's Behavior

Posted by timothy on from the rusty-shotgun's-right-twice-a-day dept.

Foofoobar writes "Just when you thought all was safe on the crazy patent front, Microsoft has come out of the obvious patent closet to file patent number 7617530, which basically duplicates the functionality of 'sudo' which is found in all Linux systems. PJ over at groklaw has a wonderful writeup on the entire fiasco."

10 of 657 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Much more specific than the summary suggests by CannonballHead · · Score: 0, Redundant

    gksudo escalates as required/when the system determines it is required?

    In all my usage of *IX systems, I've always had to either use sudo before I ran something, whether that's in a script or a program calling it and waiting for the user, etc.

    That's different from UAC. Which is why the OP said

    escalate when the system determines that escalation will be required, not about escalating manually before the task is attempted.

  2. Just like XKCD by kabloom · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Microsoft walked up to the patent office, and said "Give me a patent." The patent office said "No, there's prior art." Microsoft asked again "Sudo Give me a patent." The patent office replied "OK."

    http://xkcd.com/149/

  3. Re:Much more specific than the summary suggests by plasmacutter · · Score: 1, Redundant

    and I'm telling you macos x does that already.

    continually telling me the same thing over and over does not make it different.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  4. POLICY KIT! by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  5. Policy Kit! by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  6. Policy Kit by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  7. Policy Kit! by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/PolicyKit/

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
  8. Re:Penalties by Theaetetus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I don't condemn all software patents.

    I do. Copyright protects software, there's no need for patent protection.

    Copyright protects a specific implementation of software.

    Tell you what, send me copies of all your source code. I promise I won't copy them. However, when I come out with programs that do the exact same thing, but in a different language, and then refuse to pay you a license fee because I didn't infringe your copyright, then let's see whether you think software may need more protection than just copyright.

  9. Re:They didn't get it on their first try... by BobMcD · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Okay, since that got modded up, I feel guilty. I totally stole it.

    For bonus points, I stole it from what must be the Obligatory xkcd:

    http://xkcd.com/149/

  10. Re:Penalties by Theaetetus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In this case however, what has MS disclosed that would encourage innovation?

    A patent was supposed to be for the case, "I have this neato machine that does X and Y, it uses this method M to do X and Y"

    So anyone else could see a machine that does X and Y, and build there own as long as it uses some other method of their own devising O to complete X and Y.

    A software patent is a case "I have this neato program that does X and Y on a computer"

    And the patent is for doing X and Y, not the implementation M. M is not disclosed. No one else is allowed to do X and Y.

    Nope... A software patent is still "I have this neato computer that does X and Y. It uses this method M to do X and Y." If your software doesn't do anything useful, then it's not patentable.