New Microsoft patent may put Linux security components at risk

[Ocky]

New Microsoft patent may put Linux security components at risk (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-Microsoft-patent-may-put-Linux-security-components-at-risk-857848.html%22%22)

-{ Quote: "Microsoft has been granted a patent on a privilege escalation system which appears to cover the functionality of PolicyKit, which is used for fine grain authorisation on Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE and other Linux systems." }-

[Pedro]

Microsoft Patents Sudo?!!
-{ Quote: "Lordy, lordy, lordy. They have no shame. It appears that Microsoft has just patented sudo, a personalized version of it.

Here it is, patent number7617530 (http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,617,530.PN.&OS=PN/7,617,530&RS=PN/7,617,530). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091109191422928). 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? " }-
Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390)

[chrisretusn]

The copyright system is just plain broke. :(

[Pedro]

An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers
-{ Quote: "If I had to describe the fairly universal geek reaction to the oral argument (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091109191422928) at the US Supreme Court on Monday in In Re Bilski (http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2009022607324398), I would have to say it's a worry that some of the participants didn't seem to understand computers or the tech behind software very well.

Groklaw member PolR has written an explanation for lawyers of computation theory to try to fill a gap in their knowledge that he has observed from reading legal briefs
" }-
Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785)
-{ Quote: "Let's illustrate the importance of computation theory with one of the legal issues computation theory will help resolve. Consider the following list of statements.

* All software is data.
* All software is discovered and not invented.
* All software is abstract.
* All software is mathematics.

If my understanding of the US patent law is correct, whether or not any of these statements is true could determine whether or not software is patentable subject matter. The resolution of this issue has serious consequences to the computer electronics and software industries.

When you know computation theory, you know without a shred of a doubt that each of these statements states a fact that is grounded in well-established mathematics. If you don't know computation theory, these statements will probably look to you like debatable issues. " }-
By PolR

[Pedro]

Some thoughts on software patents and the Supreme Court
-{ Quote: "In several questions, the justices appeared to recognize that it simply isn't always the case that patents foster innovation. Justice Breyer, for one, noted that patents raise prices and can slow the pace of progress. Justice Sotomayor observed that patents limit the free flow of information by requiring licensing. Similarly, Justice Scalia noted that patents block the public from using ideas." }-
http://opensource.com/law/09/12/some-thoughts-software-patents-and-supreme-court

[dw426]

01001001001000000110010001101001011001000010000001101110011011110111010000100000011010110110111001101111011101110010000001101110011101010110110101100010011001010111001001110011001000000110001101101111011101010110110001100100001000000110001001100101001000000111000001100001011101000110010101101110011101000110010101100100

Alright, alright, for you lazy types, I just wrote " I did not know numbers could be patented" :) Seriously, Microsoft would try to patent oxygen if they could somehow come up with an argument for it.