Microsoft patents Sudo

[majortom1981]

It would be sort of amusing if Microsoft tried to force Ubuntu to pay for the use of sudo in America.

They wouldnt because this only patents the way microsoft does it. Unlike what most people think here this patemnnts the way microsoft does it not the idea.

[Eric Veteran]

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".

Until you actually read the history and timeline of web browsers I'm not discussing this with you anymore. Netscape and IE came from the same code base.

[Lechio]

Until you actually read the history and timeline of web browsers I'm not discussing this with you anymore. Netscape and IE came from the same code base.

I don't actually need to read it, I've lived it. :rofl:

No-one is saying that Netscape and IE didn't had the same origins, never even implied such thing.

[AgentGray]

Every time i hear people talking bout software patents I get crys that it's somehow holding up development...

and yet Microsoft is "stealing" from *nix/osx/whatever and patenting it...

so... which one is it? Is microsoft stealing from *nix or are you guys upset because your platform of choice can't steal from microsoft?

[ichi]

Every time i hear people talking bout software patents I get crys that it's somehow holding up development...

and yet Microsoft is "stealing" from *nix/osx/whatever and patenting it...

so... which one is it? Is microsoft stealing from *nix or are you guys upset because your platform of choice can't steal from microsoft?

If you were trying to make a point for software patents I missed it :huh:

[Ambroos]

This patent covers the way UAC works. When a user with standard rights opens something that needs administration rights, UAC shows all possible accounts that HAVE enough rights to do it, and offers you quickly to just enter the password for one of them.

The showing of accounts that do have the needed rights to do whatever you wanted to do, and allowing you to quickly enter the password to use them for that single application is what is patented. NOT sudo, NOT anything that any other OS uses right now.

It's Microsoft's invention. Let them patent it. Why not?

[Farstrider]

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

nice :yes:

+1 :D

Nice one Colin, I see it took about 20 replies before anyone picked up on your intentional pun! :laugh: :laugh:

[Lechio]

Shown is a GUI tool called gksu (frontend for su), this tool allow to run a command or a program as a different user. By clicking on the combobox a list of users is displayed, from which, one can be selected:

[Malisk]

The patent is way more specific than sudo. It's sad that Groklaw miss that. Didn't they read the patent claims? sudo is a console command, ffs.

Whether the patent is similar to some other random validation GUI is another matter.

[hdood]

Shown is a GUI tool called gksu (frontend for su), this tool allow to run a command or a program as a different user. By clicking on the combobox a list of users is displayed, from which, one can be selected:

Yeah, still not the same thing as Microsoft's patent. All you've got there is a program that shows a list of all users on the system and that lets you manually run a program as one of those users.

[Syanide]

Every time i hear people talking bout software patents I get crys that it's somehow holding up development...

and yet Microsoft is "stealing" from *nix/osx/whatever and patenting it...

so... which one is it? Is microsoft stealing from *nix or are you guys upset because your platform of choice can't steal from microsoft?

The most non-consistent and non-comprehensive post I've read in a while.

[Farstrider]

Quote - (AgentGray @ Nov 12 2009, 21:35)

Every time i hear people talking bout software patents I get crys [WTF?] that it's somehow holding up development... [??]

and yet Microsoft is "stealing" from *nix/osx/whatever and patenting it... [??]

so... which one is it? [Yes, please tell us!] Is microsoft stealing from *nix or are you guys [Pure flame bait AFAIAC!!] upset because your platform of choice can't steal from microsoft? [Why would "we" want to?]

The most non-consistent and non-comprehensive post I've read in a while.

QFT: Comments like the one above [^^] are symptomatic of what Neowin has become/ is becoming! Some of the drivel that get spewed here is beyond comprehension. It is a sad state of affairs!

Edited November 12, 2009 by Farstrider

[Subject Delta]

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?

That is irrelevant, and you know it, the facts of the matter as they exist are

<snipped>

Come back with a legitimate argument, and I may well take you seriously, but right now all you are doing is coming into every thread and making Anti Microsoft comments at every opportunity, even in threads where it isn't warranted. Whether you like it or not that is trolling.

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.

As most of these products are distributed in the same form in my region, I can assure you it does effect me. For the record I am not a big fan of software patents, it just seems to me you are complaining for the sake of more anti-Microsoft banter, because the fact is that this patent will not affect Linux or OSX in any way due to its specific nature, but you choose to jump in and start bashing on Microsoft without even reading up on the patent, you really should try wiping the foam away from your mouth and looking at this more objectively. Not to mention that Linux seems to be flourishing all on its own even with these 'patent trolls' going, in fact I spent all day getting Kubuntu setup with all the software that I need and its usability has increased a great deal, impressive considering how badly you seem to think these 'patent trolls' are holding them back.

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... :)

Reading your posts can sometimes be nauseating. Seriously, who cares who copied what. Firefox wasn't the first browser to have tabs, yet that feature got copied from another browser. Microsoft could have put tabs into IE6 but they chose not to, tabs where added because of user requests not because of some desire to copy everyone else.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Colin-uk

[Growled Member]

Reading your posts can sometimes be nauseating. Seriously, who cares who copied what. Firefox wasn't the first browser to have tabs, yet that feature got copied from another browser. Microsoft could have put tabs into IE6 but they chose not to, tabs where added because of user requests not because of some desire to copy everyone else.

To me, a copy would be a direct copy and paste of the code. No software developer does that. They implement ideas from other sources because of customer requests. They then develop their own spin to the idea. It is not technically a copy.

[Lechio]

To me, a copy would be a direct copy and paste of the code. No software developer does that. They implement ideas from other sources because of customer requests. They then develop their own spin to the idea. It is not technically a copy.

Exactly. Now imagine that idea has a patent. Stops that same idea from being implemented, adopted and developed by others.

[Subject Delta]

That is irrelevant, and you know it, the facts of the matter as they exist are

<snipped>

Come back with a legitimate argument, and I may well take you seriously, but right now all you are doing is coming into every thread and making Anti Microsoft comments at every opportunity, even in threads where it isn't warranted. Whether you like it or not that is trolling.

As most of these products are distributed in the same form in my region, I can assure you it does effect me. For the record I am not a big fan of software patents, it just seems to me you are complaining for the sake of more anti-Microsoft banter, because the fact is that this patent will not affect Linux or OSX in any way due to its specific nature, but you choose to jump in and start bashing on Microsoft without even reading up on the patent, you really should try wiping the foam away from your mouth and looking at this more objectively. Not to mention that Linux seems to be flourishing all on its own even with these 'patent trolls' going, in fact I spent all day getting Kubuntu setup with all the software that I need and its usability has increased a great deal, impressive considering how badly you seem to think these 'patent trolls' are holding them back.

Reading your posts can sometimes be nauseating. Seriously, who cares who copied what. Firefox wasn't the first browser to have tabs, yet that feature got copied from another browser. Microsoft could have put tabs into IE6 but they chose not to, tabs where added because of user requests not because of some desire to copy everyone else.

Wow, apparently our resident censorship team doesn't consider the possibility of making a garbled and unintelligible mess of our posts before they make their edits :/. Wonderful.

I am done with this debate, I am not going to bother if our staff insist on messing my posts up, Lechio I will be happy to converse with you using the PM system if you have any further queries about my opinions, also despite disagreeing with you a lot, sorry if I have been offensive.

[Growled Member]

Exactly. Now imagine that idea has a patent. Stops that same idea from being implemented, adopted and developed by others.

It could happen but it rarely does. Everyone is afraid of pushing this patent thing too far, because it might just backfire in all of their faces. They mainly stick to things they have developed. One day someone will make a mistake and the entire house of cards is going to come tumbling down around them.

[Ricardo Gil]

Why?

Say you come up with some revolutionary way of compressing data.

If you can't patent it, everyone can just copy your way of doing it for free, leaving you with a big pile of nothing.

People are usually quick to say that patents stifle innovation, but forget that when it comes to software, most good inventions came out from the big companies, not individuals. Since they're in this for the money, if they can't protect their investment, R&D will cease, also stifling innovation.

[ichi]

Say you come up with some revolutionary way of compressing data.

If you can't patent it, everyone can just copy your way of doing it for free, leaving you with a big pile of nothing.

You don't need patents, just copyright it.

[Ricardo Gil]

You don't need patents, just copyright it.

:huh: Copyrights don't cover my example, only patents do.

[ichi]

:huh: Copyrights don't cover my example, only patents do.

Copyright covers the implementation of that new compression method. Your work is protected unless your intention is to not implement anything and just sit on top of your idea.

That idea behind it, the algorithm, should not be patentable for the exact same reasons pure mathematical algorithms cannot be patented.

[Ricardo Gil]

Copyright covers the implementation of that new compression method. Your work is protected unless your intention is to not implement anything and just sit on top of your idea.

That idea behind it, the algorithm, should not be patentable for the exact same reasons pure mathematical algorithms cannot be patented.

That's not quite it, as copyright if for tangible things like a painting, or a song.

A clever algorithm is an idea, which can only be patented. The patent's purpose is to protect the cleverness of your idea, as there are many ways one can get from A to B.

So in the end, copyright wouldn't protect my work at all, because my work was the idea. Having it patented would protect that specific method of doing compression, while at the same time allowing anyone else to come up with their own.

[ichi]

That's not quite it, as copyright if for tangible things like a painting, or a song.

A clever algorithm is an idea, which can only be patented. The patent's purpose is to protect the cleverness of your idea, as there are many ways one can get from A to B.

So in the end, copyright wouldn't protect my work at all, because my work was the idea. Having it patented would protect that specific method of doing compression, while at the same time allowing anyone else to come up with their own.

Your implementation is a tangible thing, and that's what's protected by the copyright.

Your idea on the other hand, the abstract, is a mathematical algorithm, and it would be based on previous existing algorithms. How much would suck if all of them were patented? Because surely lots of them were impressive ideas, some even revolutionary.

[Ricardo Gil]

Your implementation is a tangible thing, and that's what's protected by the copyright.

Your idea on the other hand, the abstract, is a mathematical algorithm, and it would be based on previous existing algorithms. How much would suck if all of them were patented? Because surely lots of them were impressive ideas, some even revolutionary.

There are limits to what can be patented, obvious algorithms can't.

I'm talking about breakthroughs in design, just like what happens with desktop processors. If you can't patent your designs, your ideas, you might as well just work for free.

Companies would drop R&D because they could simply wait for someone else to "think" for them.

[ichi]

There are limits to what can be patented, obvious algorithms can't.

I'm talking about breakthroughs in design, just like what happens with desktop processors. If you can't patent your designs, your ideas, you might as well just work for free.

Companies would drop R&D because they could simply wait for someone else to "think" for them.

But we were talking about software patents here, not patents as a whole.

Besides a few countries the rest of the world is doing pretty well without them, so I just don't see any disaster waiting around the corner if they get abolished in those few countries that still allow them.

Software is code, and the ideas behind it are for the most part just maths, so I think plain copyright fits the role pretty well.