Microsoft patents Sudo

By Elliott
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Elliott

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

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.

That'd be all well and good (insofar as a vague software patent like this can be), except that's not where it ends.

Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.

That's from the end of the patent. With that statement, they've basically been given the patent to rights elevators of just about any form as long as it's some GUI.

Grand Master

Ricardo Gil

Posted
Posted
Software patents are evil anyway. This is just one more example of why they need to be abolished.

Abolishing software patents would be disastrous. What we need is a complete reboot of the patenting process, so that the usual abuse of it stops.

Grand Master

hdood

Posted
Posted
That's from the end of the patent. With that statement, they've basically been given the patent to rights elevators of just about any form as long as it's some GUI.

No, it is still limited to the specific invention, they can just change the design and implementation a bit instead of being tied to the exact one described in the application (which includes detailed screenshots and drawings, and point by point details of a specific implementation). It does not seem to give them the rights to elevation in general.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted
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

(...)

So Netscape invented a browser? Thanks for just-because-it's-Microsoft-it-must-be-evil-comment of the day.

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted
So Netscape invented a browser? Thanks for just-because-it's-Microsoft-it-must-be-evil-comment of the day.

No I didn't say that, Netscape didn't invent the Web browser. Microsoft copied the way Netscape worked and bundled it with Windows OS, same as there MSN messenger, Windows Media Player...

Adopt > "improve" > patent > extinguish > lock-down.

Grand Master

Eric Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
No I didn't say that, Netscape didn't invent the Web browser. Microsoft copied the way Netscape worked and bundled it with Windows OS, same as there MSN messenger, Windows Media Player...

Adopt > "improve" > patent > extinguish > lock-down.

Internet Explorer was purchased from Spyglass. It predates Netscape, which was also bought from another company: Mosaic. Microsoft actually tried to license Netscape but they apparently weren't interested. Oops. Firefox could've been the Windows default browser. :)

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
Internet Explorer was purchased from Spyglass. It predates Netscape, which was also bought from another company: Mosaic. Microsoft actually tried to license Netscape but they apparently weren't interested. Oops. Firefox could've been the Windows default browser. :)

I bet at one point they regretted that move... lol

Community Regular

Eice

Posted
Posted
No I didn't say that, Netscape didn't invent the Web browser. Microsoft copied the way Netscape worked and bundled it with Windows OS, same as there MSN messenger, Windows Media Player...

Adopt > "improve" > patent > extinguish > lock-down.

For your own sake, I hope you aren't serious.

You're not really that ignorant... right?

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted
Internet Explorer was purchased from Spyglass. It predates Netscape, which was also bought from another company: Mosaic. Microsoft actually tried to license Netscape but they apparently weren't interested. Oops. Firefox could've been the Windows default browser. :)

Yeah. I think you forgot that at that time Netscape was far from resembling anything like Mosaic, with all the innovations that were made and then "adopted" by Microsoft. Eh, I think you even forget that tabbed browsing in IE is something that was copied only recently. :rofl:

Grand Master

Growled Member

Posted
  • Member
Posted
Abolishing software patents would be disastrous. What we need is a complete reboot of the patenting process, so that the usual abuse of it stops.

Either way, there needs to be a fundamental change in the way patents are extended. This is so stupid.

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted
Yeah. I think you forgot that at that time Netscape was far from resembling anything like Mosaic, with all the innovations that were made and then "adopted" by Microsoft. Eh, I think you even forget that tabbed browsing in IE is something that was copied only recently. :rofl:

People copy each other's ideas all the time, in every industry. It isn't new, and you are trolling for the sake of it because it is Microsoft. If you look through any Linux distribution, you will find ideas not original to Linux. Same for OSX, Windows, Solaris, ETC...

Grand Master

hdood

Posted
Posted
If Microsoft can patent thing that they never invented, why not?

Can you tell us where Microsoft's "invention" is already implemented? Don't say sudo, because sudo doesn't do what the patent describes (and the people who approved the patent and who studied sudo as part of the approval process don't seem to think so either.)

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted
People copy each other's ideas all the time, in every industry. It isn't new, and you are trolling for the sake of it because it is Microsoft. If you look through any Linux distribution, you will find ideas not original to Linux. Same for OSX, Windows, Solaris, ETC...

Yes, but answer this will you Frank: do you see the "FOSS guys" (as you call people who contribute to Free Software) behaving like Microsoft and even going to the point of selling patents to others to create problems?

The US "Software Patents" laws are absurd as they exist now. It does nothing but hold back development.

You don't live in the US should understand this, and be more informed of what your own country defends on this matter.

Grand Master

Eric Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Yeah. I think you forgot that at that time Netscape was far from resembling anything like Mosaic, with all the innovations that were made and then "adopted" by Microsoft. Eh, I think you even forget that tabbed browsing in IE is something that was copied only recently. :rofl:

Maybe you should read up on computer history and the browser wars? :) It's kinda irrelevant whether Netscape resembled Mosaic or not. Spyglass licensed Mosaic, Microsoft bought Spyglass, Netscape was started by the former Mosaic people. Both browsers came from the same source, so nobody ripped anyone off.

Several companies licensed Mosaic to create their own commercial browsers, such as Spry Mosaic and Spyglass Mosaic. One of the Mosaic developers, Marc Andreessen, founded Mosaic Communications Corporation and created a new web browser named Mosaic Netscape. To resolve legal issues with NCSA, the company was renamed Netscape Communications Corporation and the browser Netscape Navigator. The Netscape browser improved on Mosaic's usability and reliability and was able to display pages as they loaded. By 1995, helped by the fact that it was free for non-commercial use, the browser dominated the emerging World Wide Web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

Also, many Linux distributions are compiled and distributed by corporations now. Kinda breaks the anti-corporate free mentality to me. I guarantee you that Canonical and Red Hat would sue each other over stealing each others' non-open additions.

EDIT: They do exactly that: http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/120117

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted

You forgot to continue the story:

And then came Microsoft with IE which copied all of the innovations made by Netscape and eventually bundled it with its Windows OS.

Later on came the EU with a big stick... And you know the rest of the story... :)

EDIT: They do exactly that: http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/120117

But you know why that happens, it's explained in that page.

Grand Master

Eric Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
You forgot to continue the story:

And then came Microsoft with IE which copied all of the innovations made by Netscape and eventually bundled it with its Windows OS.

Later on came the EU with a big stick... And you know the rest of the story... :)

But you know why that happens, it's explained in that page.

The "story" is right there in my previous post and in the Wikipedia article. Microsoft did not "come with IE." They licensed the same exact browser engine that Netscape used. The story is no different than the WebKit one. WebKit came from Konquerer and is now used in multiple browsers.

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted
The "story" is right there in my previous post and in the Wikipedia article. Microsoft did not "come with IE." They licensed the same exact browser engine that Netscape used. The story is no different than the WebKit one. WebKit came from Konquerer and is now used in multiple browsers.

It's quite different indeed, when you talk about what a Web browser was right after Mosaic and what it became after Netscape implemented all of their innovations, later copied by Microsoft. I'm not against copying features (quite the contrary), I'm against copying features, then "improve" them and make it proprietary based on a stupid, ambiguous, senseless US patent "law".

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.