Microsoft patents Sudo

[Elliott]

Lordy, lordy, lordy. They have no shame. It appears that Microsoft has just patented sudo, a personalized version of it.

Here it is, patent number 7617530. Thanks, USPTO, for giving Microsoft, which is already a monopoly, a monopoly on something that's been in use since 1980 and wasn't invented by Microsoft. Here's Wikipedia's description of sudo, which you can meaningfully compare to Microsoft's description of its "invention".

This is why what the US Supreme Court does about software patents means so much. Hopefully they will address the topic in their decision on Bilski. Sudo is an integral part of the functioning of GNU/Linux systems, and you use it in Mac OSX also. Maybe the Supreme Court doesn't know that, and maybe the USPTO didn't realize it. But do you believe Microsoft knows it?

Perhaps Microsoft would like everyone in the world to pay them a toll at least, even if they don't want to use Microsoft's software? Like SCO, but with more muscle behind the request? Or maybe it might be used as a barrier to competition? What do you personally believe Microsoft wants patents on things like sudo for? To make sure innovative new companies can compete on an even playing field with Microsoft?

Source: Groklaw

Woah, what? :no:

[Quillz]

It says they've patented a personalized version of sudo, and not the actual command in of itself. Isn't there a difference?

[Simon Veteran]

"Systems and/or methods are described that enable a user to elevate his or her rights. In one embodiment, these systems and/or methods present a user interface identifying an account having a right to permit a task in response to the task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having that right."

Nope, sounds like straight up sudo to me.

[Elliott]

It says they've patented a personalized version of sudo, and not the actual command in of itself. Isn't there a difference?

They've basically patented the concept of rights elevation. The patent is even titled "Rights elevator" and the abstract describes something that's exactly like Sudo.

[Mr. Gibs]

Patents aren't about who created it first...more like its about who patents it first.

There's millions of examples of this

[Eric Veteran]

I don't think sudo is graphical or automated, is it? The patent specifies:

cause the computing device to perform acts comprising: determining multiple accounts capable of permitting a task not permitted by an account of a current user wherein the determining is based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the current user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; receiving indicators for the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; presenting a graphical user interface, the graphical user interface having: multiple account regions, each account region identifying one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; an authenticator region capable of receiving an authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; receiving, through the graphical user interface, the authenticator for one of the multiple accounts capable of permitting the task; and responsive to receiving the authenticator for one of the accounts capable of permitting the task, packaging, into a computer-readable package, the received authenticator and the account capable of permitting the task associated with the authenticator, the package effective to enable authentication of the account capable of permitting the task.

While it's similar to other authentication, this patent specifies automatically finding accounts that have the appropriate privileges to use and presenting them as options.

[hdood]

I thought the people who write Groklaw could read, but apparently not. This is a knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reaction. The patent is not for sudo, it is for a GUI that automatically presents a list of users that have the required rights so that the user doesn't have to remember and type it manually (something you need to do with sudo, which isn't a GUI, although it's sometimes configured to automatically substitute only root and given a graphical frontend). In fact, the patent application makes a large amount of references to sudo.

As for whether Microsoft intends to sue the entire world, like the article believes, I doubt it. All big companies have thousands upon thousands of patents like this, and they are intended primarily to prevent other people from suing them. Microsoft is a major target, and thus are going to use the patent system this way and attempt to patent anything they can think of. Business as usual. If this came as a shock to anyone, then sorry, but you are completely clueless as to how the world works.

[ichi]

Patents aren't about who created it first...more like its about who patents it first.

That's were prior art kicks in to invalidate those patents.

[adsadsads]

I thought the people who write Groklaw could read, but apparently not. This is a knee-jerk anti-Microsoft reaction. The patent is not for sudo, it is for a GUI that automatically presents a list of users that have the required rights so that the user doesn't have to remember and type it manually (something you need to do with sudo, which isn't a GUI, although it's sometimes configured to automatically substitute only root and given a graphical frontend). In fact, the patent application makes a large amount of references to sudo.

As for whether Microsoft intends to sue the entire world, like the article believes, I doubt it. All big companies have thousands upon thousands of patents like this, and they are intended primarily to prevent other people from suing them. Microsoft is a major target, and thus are going to use the patent system this way and attempt to patent anything they can think of. Business as usual. If this came as a shock to anyone, then sorry, but you are completely clueless as to how the world works.

This comes to a surprise? Groklaw is trash and appeals to asinine zealots.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

does that mean the original creator is going to su microsoft :D

[ichi]

something you need to do with sudo, which isn't a GUI, although it's sometimes configured to automatically substitute only root and given a graphical frontend

That's just the default config on most distros, but you can customize the behaviour far beyond that.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I don't think sudo is graphical or automated, is it?

gksudo is graphical, and comes up when necessary for elevation.

The patent specifies:

<snipped quote>

While it's similar to other authentication, this patent specifies automatically finding accounts that have the appropriate privileges to use and presenting them as options.

Yes, that is the difference here. Microsoft is providing a list of people that have the authorization to elevate.

Not sure if that is a small security liability, as any unprivileged user can now get a list of account names with elevated privileges. But it does sound convenient. I guess trading a bit of security for convenience is what's going on with this.

But I agree that it is an "enhancement" that is getting the patent, not the sudo concept.

[Ricardo Gil]

They've basically patented the concept of rights elevation. The patent is even titled "Rights elevator" and the abstract describes something that's exactly like Sudo.

You can't patent a concept, Microsoft just patented one possible implementation of a "sudo" like utility. Nothing wrong with that.

[Lechio]

Microsoft at its best. Let's just hope the US patents law doesn't back this one up. Shame on these people. :no:

[markwolfe Veteran]

Microsoft at its best. Let's just hope the US patents law doesn't back this one up. Shame on these people. :no:

I don't see a problem with this one. The patent is only for a specific type of elevation, one that also lists the users with the required permissions.

[Lechio]

As for whether Microsoft intends to sue the entire world, like the article believes, I doubt it. All big companies have thousands upon thousands of patents like this, and they are intended primarily to prevent other people from suing them. Microsoft is a major target, and thus are going to use the patent system this way and attempt to patent anything they can think of. Business as usual. If this came as a shock to anyone, then sorry, but you are completely clueless as to how the world works.

True, until they sell those same patents to patent trolls to create problems in the open source community. Wouldn't be anything new coming from Microsoft, the company that is holding back software development and the progress of societies.

[Ricardo Gil]

True, until they sell those same patents to patent trolls to create problems in the open source community. Wouldn't be anything new coming from Microsoft, the company that is holding back software development and the progress of societies.

Overreacting much?

[majortom1981]

Hasnt microsoft had the runas command for a while?

Also why must people search for things to attack microsoft on. They are not patenting the general elevating a users rights. They are patenting their way of doing it.

I am getting tired of these microsoft witch hunts. Especially when they have no real basis.

[Lechio]

I don't see a problem with this one. The patent is only for a specific type of elevation, one that also lists the users with the required permissions.

There's no significant difference between what Microsoft is trying to patent and the sudo authentication. We're not talking about the command that is used in UNIX here, nor the graphical interface for it, but the process and method that is used. Microsoft is trying to patent all of that and justifies it by including a graphical interface that lists a number of users.

How many times have we seen this? Copy something then develop and add new features. Finally patent it.

ICQ/AIM - MSN messenger

Netscape - Internet Explorer

(...)

[majortom1981]

There's no significant difference between what Microsoft is trying to patent and the sudo authentication. We're not talking about the command that is used in UNIX here, nor the graphical interface for it, but the process and method that is used. Microsoft is trying to patent all of that and justifies it by including a graphical interface that lists a number of users.

How many times have we seen this? Copy something then develop and add new features. Finally patent it.

ICQ/AIM - MSN messenger

Netscape - Internet Explorer

(...)

Microsoft is patenting their way of doing it . If we go by what you just said then linux shouldnt have any patents on say anything that resembles a window because xerox would hold all the patents. If we go buy what you say then any OS should not be able to patent anything resembling a mouse and pointer also since xerox would hold alll the patents.

Considering windows works differently then linux whats wrong with them patenting how to do it inside windows? Since windows and linux are different in their code and how they do things why is this bad?

[Lilrich]

mmmmm why bother patenting it at all? Is it going to damage their buissness model if they don't?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Hasnt microsoft had the runas command for a while?

Run as isn't quite the same, as I understand it (not a big Windows user here, so I may be wrong). But a user can try to run a program as a normal user, and get a gksudo graphical prompt to elevate. I think run as can only be initiated ahead of program execution.

There's no significant difference between what Microsoft is trying to patent and the sudo authentication.

The way patents work, is on a specific implementation of a process. When they specified the alternate user listing, then that entirety is what is patented. Any implementation that does not show that listing as described is non-infringing.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Sudo was first conceived and implemented by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer around 1980 at the Department of Computer Science at SUNY/Buffalo. It ran on a VAX-11/750 running 4.1BSD. An updated version, credited to Phil Betchel, Cliff Spencer, Gretchen Phillips, John LoVerso and Don Gworek, was posted to the net.sources Usenet newsgroup in December of 1985.

In the Summer of 1986, Garth Snyder released an enhanced version of sudo. For the next 5 years, sudo was fed and watered by a handful of folks at CU-Boulder, including Bob Coggeshall, Bob Manchek, and Trent Hein.

In 1991, Dave Hieb and Jeff Nieusma wrote a new version of sudo with an enhanced sudoers format under contract to a consulting firm called "The Root Group". This version was later released under the GNU public license.

In 1994, after maintaining sudo informally within CU-Boulder for some time, Todd Miller made a public release of "CU sudo" (version 1.3) with bug fixes and support for more operating systems. The "CU" was added to differentiate it from the "official" version from "The Root Group".

In 1995, a new parser for the sudoers file was contributed by Chris Jepeway. The new parser was a proper grammar (unlike the old one) and could work with both sudo and visudo (previously they had slightly different parsers).

In 1996, Todd, who had been maintaining sudo for several years in his spare time, moved distribution of sudo from a CU-Boulder ftp site to his domain, courtesan.com.

In 1999, the "CU" prefix was dropped from the name since there has been no formal release of sudo from "The Root Group" since 1991 (the original authors now work elsewhere). As of version 1.6, Sudo no longer contains any of the original "Root Group" code and is available under an ISC-style license.

In 2001, the sudo web site, ftp site and mailing lists were moved from courtesan.com to the sudo.ws domain (sudo.org was already taken).

In 2005, Todd rewrote the sudoers parser to better support the features that had been added in the past ten years. This new parser removes some limitations of the previous one, removes ordering constraints and adds support for including multiple sudoers files.

sudo, in its current form, is maintained by:

Todd Miller

Todd continues to enhance sudo and fix bugs.

Maybe one of these guys should have gotten a patent on it. The whole thing is much ado about nothing.

[Subject Delta]

True, until they sell those same patents to patent trolls to create problems in the open source community. Wouldn't be anything new coming from Microsoft, the company that is holding back software development and the progress of societies.

Seeing as millions of businesses turning over trillions of dollars every year use Microsoft software, I don't think somehow that it is holding back the development of society :laugh: but it is a source of amusement to me how you FOSS guys always cry foul over things like this and go on your inane rants about how evil Microsoft are, even though this patent is no real threat to free software due to how specific it is. It wouldn't be possible for them to patent use of the command sudo, or other elevation designs because they have been in use in OSX and Linux for years.

More of you guys should listen to Markjensen, he is one of the few Linux users on here that uses his brain instead of spreading Microsoft FUD everywhere he can go, he appears to understand the issues at play here, it confuses me that you do not.

[hdood]

That's just the default config on most distros, but you can customize the behaviour far beyond that.

As far as I know there is no way to configure sudo to present the user with a list of users with the appropriate rights. Sudo only lets you manually substitute from a pre-defined list of users.

Microsoft at its best. Let's just hope the US patents law doesn't back this one up. Shame on these people. :no:

<insert random company> at its best. The patent has already been granted, and is actually extremely tame compared to other patents out there (including ones owned by both Microsoft and Apple). It's business as usual.

There's no significant difference between what Microsoft is trying to patent and the sudo authentication. We're not talking about the command that is used in UNIX here, nor the graphical interface for it, but the process and method that is used. Microsoft is trying to patent all of that and justifies it by including a graphical interface that lists a number of users.

No, they are patenting only their version that automatically looks up users with the appropriate rights. As far as I know Sudo cannot do this, nor can any frontends for it.

mmmmm why bother patenting it at all? Is it going to damage their buissness model if they don't?

To quote a younger Bill Gates:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then they have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. "

Maybe one of these guys should have gotten a patent on it. The whole thing is much ado about nothing.

Sudo is referenced several times in the patent papers, so clearly whoever approved the patent is absolutely aware of Sudo's existence, but doesn't consider the two to be the same.