PDA

View Full Version : Did Microsoft Patent sudo?



Happy_Man
May 4th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Check here for the patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6775781.PN.&OS=PN/6775781&RS=PN/6775781

This is not good.

OffHand
May 4th, 2007, 02:56 PM
They can't... the patent agency has been sleeping again. Sudo has been around since the mid 80's - MS patent was filed in 2000.

Brunellus
May 4th, 2007, 03:01 PM
I'm not worried. They have a patent, but the KSR v. Teleflex ruling makes it much easier to invalidate the patent on obviousness grounds.

If MSFT tried to enforce this patent, they would be hit with a counterclaim of patent invalidity on obviousness (it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine known elements to arrive at the claimed invention)--if not outright anticipation (all elements of claimed invention were disclosed in a single prior art reference).

The curious thing about patents is that even when you've got them, you have to enforce them.

frup
May 4th, 2007, 03:03 PM
Microsofts next objective will be to patent jesus, before they move on to try and patent the all powerful root.

root I fear your power.

iPower
May 4th, 2007, 07:02 PM
microsoft can't use it anywhere

starcraft.man
May 4th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Microsofts next objective will be to patent jesus, before they move on to try and patent the all powerful root.

root I fear your power.

Nope, before that they will patent breathing, living, and thinking and turn you into a blob of nothingness if you refuse to conform :p

koenn
May 4th, 2007, 07:43 PM
Still, they can go around telling they have patents on technology that's being used in Linux, which apparently is true. they'd never try to enforce them because they'd loose the case and probaly have the patent revoked (prior art, obviousness, ...) but it may be enough to scare (business) people away from Linux. Better the devil you know, and all that.

mech7
May 4th, 2007, 08:03 PM
Doesn't MS patent stuff out of precaution so that other companies don't sue them. I thought they had a covenant not to sue or something like that.

Brunellus
May 4th, 2007, 08:11 PM
the covenant not to sue you're thinking of is with Novell. In any case, The patent is of dubious validity

PartisanEntity
May 4th, 2007, 08:18 PM
The current approach to patents is so crippling to humanity. Some years ago I watched a documentary about how German construction companies would purchase patent rights (in Germany) for certain types of construction techniques invented all over the world and then shelve these techniques and hide them.

They did/do this in order to prevent cost reducing techniques in construction from being used widely and thereby forcing them to charge less.

It's such a crippling approach to human innovation.

justin whitaker
May 4th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Two words: prior art. BSD had Root v. User privileges from the jump, way before this was filed.

Brunellus
May 4th, 2007, 08:27 PM
Two words: prior art. BSD had Root v. User privileges from the jump, way before this was filed.
the word you want is "anticipation."--that all elements of the claimed invention were present in a single reference in the prior art. The other word you want is "obvious," meaning that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements already known in the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.

"Prior art," merely means "the stuff that we already knew about." One proves patentability over prior art if one can prove utility, novelty, and nonobviousness.

aysiu
May 4th, 2007, 08:34 PM
By the way, Mac OS X also uses sudo.

StarsAndBars14
May 4th, 2007, 08:38 PM
Wow...

Can anyone say "Lawsuit"?

If not Novell (whose only pledge was not to sue Windows users, not Microsoft itself) I can imagine a whole truckload of other companies/organizations that would to my knowledge be willing and haven't already sued them a million times before. This smacks of BS.


It should be apparent that although the examples above are described illustratively as being computer appliances operating in a Microsoft Windows.RTM. environment, the invention is not to be limited to such specific examples, and the inventions may be practiced in general purpose computers or computers with operating systems other than Windows.RTM., such as Unix or Linux.

In English this is, Microsoft patents "the invention" -- rofl -- and they're "allowing" it to be used on other OS'es.

(Edit: OK, looks like the patent was filed in 2000, which means they were planning this for a while, long before Vista came out.)

MS just can't keep their hands clean.

floke
May 4th, 2007, 08:53 PM
sudo apt-get remove microsoft

...

...apparently it doesn't work...

...

...must be Microsoft :)

FuturePilot
May 4th, 2007, 08:59 PM
^:lolflag:
They tried to use sudo with their User Account Protection thing, but failed miserably.

blazemore
November 11th, 2009, 08:37 AM
I know in May '07 they patented UAC, but this time they've patented the concept of a "rights elevator"
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,617,530.PN.&OS=PN/7,617,530&RS=PN/7,617,530

Roasted
November 11th, 2009, 08:39 AM
What's that mean for us sudoers out there outside of the MS realm?

rich97
November 11th, 2009, 08:42 AM
I'm speachless.

How on earth can they patent something so abstract? I thought you could only patent a method, not just an idea? Aside from that this is just an s**ty thing to do.

NoaHall
November 11th, 2009, 08:43 AM
Very little, I suspect. sudo has existed for many more years than since they patened it. If you look, they did it in 2005, and sudo has been around much longer than that.

CJ Master
November 11th, 2009, 08:49 AM
Wow. Just... wow.

How the HECK can you patent RIGHTS ELEVATION? WHAT THE HECK. Is the patent office OUT OF THEIR FREAKIN MINDS?!

...that's all I have to say about that...

Roasted
November 11th, 2009, 08:52 AM
I still don't get it.

Sudo is something that pretty much all Linux distros use. How can Microsoft just decide, ya know, I want that, so I'll patent it.

How can you patent something that's been in use for such a long time? And as somebody else said, how can you patent such a broad idea? Maybe I want to patent the idea of an operating system launching applications from one source. There goes your start button, Microsoft!

blazemore
November 11th, 2009, 08:55 AM
They've probably already patented that. They patented the right-click menu. And the single-click = select, double-click = launch mechanism

Sand & Mercury
November 11th, 2009, 08:56 AM
I still don't get it.

Sudo is something that pretty much all Linux distros use. How can Microsoft just decide, ya know, I want that, so I'll patent it.

How can you patent something that's been in use for such a long time? And as somebody else said, how can you patent such a broad idea? Maybe I want to patent the idea of an operating system launching applications from one source. There goes your start button, Microsoft!
It's pretty common practice for companies in Microsoft's league. They'll apply for as many patents as they can think of. It's not really because they're trying to protect anything of their own, it's just extending the net so they might be able to catch a few folks that accidentally infringe on it in the future. It's just simple opportunism. Many of the patents they apply for are denied, many of them are just flat-out ignored even after they're awarded too.

Roasted
November 11th, 2009, 08:57 AM
Ultimately, what does this mean to us in the Linux community? Can we expect 10.04 to lack the sudo option?

sloggerkhan
November 11th, 2009, 08:58 AM
Probably this will get added to patent to the list of patents in the EFF's patent busting project.

Exodist
November 11th, 2009, 09:09 AM
Very little, I suspect. sudo has existed for many more years than since they patened it. If you look, they did it in 2005, and sudo has been around much longer than that.

+1

M$ would patent typing if they could get away with it. Nothing new.
They constantly through possible patent ideas at the patent office every week in hopes some moron there will help pass them.

SunnyRabbiera
November 11th, 2009, 10:26 AM
+1

M$ would patent typing if they could get away with it. Nothing new.
They constantly through possible patent ideas at the patent office every week in hopes some moron there will help pass them.

Heck they would patent air too, I say burn down the patent office.

Exodist
November 11th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Heck they would patent air too, I say burn down the patent office.
I agree. Software Patents should not be allowed. Its slowing technology in the computing business down.

etnlIcarus
November 11th, 2009, 10:33 AM
Obvious prior art. MS won't do anything with this patent; they'd know it's only worth is as an minor addition to their patent portfolio, which they can allude to when negotiating with 3rd parties.

earthpigg
November 11th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Ultimately, what does this mean to us in the Linux community? Can we expect 10.04 to lack the sudo option?

worst case scenario:

the developers of your GNU/Linux distribution of choice choose to have their true names/locations remain anonymous. Note the people from "Earth" listed here (http://www.linuxmint.com/about.php) (that distro includes mp3, etc, codecs preinstalled.).

JBAlaska
November 11th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Patenting of software exploded in the 1990s based on judicial decisions changing the test for patentable subject matter. Software patents now number in the hundreds of thousands, and they cover abstract technology in vague and difficult-to-interpret terms. Because software products may involve thousands of patentable components, developers face the risk of having to defend weak-but-costly patent infringement lawsuits. A new class of business enterprise - patent trolls - has developed to file lawsuits to exploit this system.

The Federal Circuit set forth a clear test to determine if a process is patentable in stating that it must be either "tied to a particular machine or apparatus" or must "transform a particular article into a different state or thing."


The scope of patentable subject matter is an issue of critical importance to the future development of all software, including open source. The upcoming Supreme Court's Bilski decision could clarify the law and lessen the risks that innovation will be hindered by software patents. Oral argument is scheduled for November 9, 2009.

To read the full brief, visit http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/rh-supreme-court-brief.pdf.

3rdalbum
November 11th, 2009, 10:44 AM
Obvious prior art - there's about 10,000 pieces of malware on Windows that perform privilege escalation (attacks).

handy
November 11th, 2009, 10:49 AM
So will I have to pay MS a royalty every time I use sudo ?

If we change the name to cludo, will we have to pay the copyright holders of the game cludo every time we use that command?

Why do these people make me more stupid than I could be?

Can I sue them for that?

Where is the burden of proof?

wilee-nilee
November 11th, 2009, 11:17 AM
You can down load a sudo for admin for windows.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sudown/
I think that is funny, you all are to defensive if MS makes any move it is to mess with the open source OS. They have 90% of the desktop market, I think they will do okay without shutting down sudo, if that is their intentions.

blazemore
November 11th, 2009, 11:18 AM
Of course, software patents are only valid in the US.
Am I right in thinking that, as a UK (Isle of Man) based company, Canonical is safe in distributing "patent infringing" software?
What a lot of US companies don't realise is that US law only applies in the USA, it doesn't apply here in the UK for example. In most US states (I think) the age at which you can buy alcohol is 21, in the UK it's 18, but nobody sues a UK newsagent for selling drinks to an 18 year old (It's legal here).

howefield
November 11th, 2009, 11:31 AM
If we change the name to cludo, will we have to pay the copyright holders of the game cludo every time we use that command?

No, you're safe enough. It is cluedo.

:lolflag:

handy
November 11th, 2009, 11:36 AM
No, you're safe enough. It is cluedo.

:lolflag:

I knew that!

;)

abdusamed
November 11th, 2009, 11:51 AM
interesting.. i wonder when will MicroSHAFT will start patenting ubuntu 'ideas' and the source code??

i BET if u look at windows 7 source code 80 percent or more is ubuntu.. they MIGHT have created the theme.. THEY probably are thinkin to PATENT windows and release the source code to public.. .which bascially is a plan sue ubuntu for copyright infringement!

blazemore
November 11th, 2009, 12:02 PM
interesting.. i wonder when will MicroSHAFT will start patenting ubuntu 'ideas' and the source code??

i BET if u look at windows 7 source code 80 percent or more is ubuntu.. they MIGHT have created the theme.. THEY probably are thinkin to PATENT windows and release the source code to public.. .which bascially is a plan sue ubuntu for copyright infringement!

There's a difference between copyright infringement and patent infringement.

wilee-nilee
November 11th, 2009, 12:09 PM
interesting.. i wonder when will MicroSHAFT will start patenting ubuntu 'ideas' and the source code??

i BET if u look at windows 7 source code 80 percent or more is ubuntu.. they MIGHT have created the theme.. THEY probably are thinkin to PATENT windows and release the source code to public.. .which bascially is a plan sue ubuntu for copyright infringement!

MS just pulled their W7 dvd/cd/ISO to a bootable thumb drive it apparently had open source code.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10394191-56.html
I actually used this to load a thumb with a student upgrade and only hours ago because I had saved the .exe link to download was able to get it again. The link for the down load is off the market but they at this time haven't shut down the download of the program.

k3lt01
November 11th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Am I right in thinking that, as a UK (Isle of Man) based company, Canonical is safe in distributing "patent infringing" software?The Isle of Mann is not part of the UK it is actually a self governing British Island and has been for years. The Isle of Mann, and Iceland iirc, is the oldest known continuously running self governing democracy, about 1200 years I think. Yes QE2 has the Monarchical title but that hasn't vested 10 Downing Street with any real rights apart from the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of the Isle of Mann's inhabitants. Manx law is Manx law, English law can be very different. Furthermore the Isle of Mann, as far as I am aware, isn't even part of the EU and is likely never to become part of it either.

So in answer to your question, you will need to check on the current state of Manx law to determine how it treats software patents to answer that question.

Giant Speck
November 11th, 2009, 12:17 PM
interesting.. i wonder when will MicroSHAFT will start patenting ubuntu 'ideas' and the source code??

i BET if u look at windows 7 source code 80 percent or more is ubuntu.. they MIGHT have created the theme.. THEY probably are thinkin to PATENT windows and release the source code to public.. .which bascially is a plan sue ubuntu for copyright infringement!

Sudo is not an Ubuntu idea. Sudo has been around longer than Linux itself has.

anaconda
November 11th, 2009, 12:17 PM
US patent laws are ridiculous. Basically you can patend about ANYTHING, but the validity of the patent is verified in the court. That is IF anyone wants to challenge the patent.


In CIVILIZED countries patents can only be applied to NEW inventions. And a patent will be denied, if the invention is known beforehand, or if the invention vould be obvious to an educated person...

MicrosoftFan
November 11th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Wow, there's a lot of people on this thread who haven't actually read the document.


... but this time they've patented the concept of a "rights elevator"


No they haven't.

My knowledge of sudo isn't great but afaict it doesn't infringe on this patent (yet).

Chame_Wizard
November 11th, 2009, 12:29 PM
Wasn't it Unix that started to use sudo/su in 1969/70?and *BSD in 1977?Linux since 1991?:confused:

Looks like M$ will do anything to destroy the FLOSS,so that 3rd parties companies has to pay M$ money for preventing being sued.

FUD is all what they can market(like the netbooks/patents ********).:rolleyes:

Glucklich
November 11th, 2009, 12:38 PM
Am I right in thinking that, as a UK (Isle of Man) based company, Canonical is safe in distributing "patent infringing" software?

I believe you are, since a online gambling law has passed in the United States and a certain site registered in the Isle of Man has remained untouched. Territorial/governmental frontiers have to be respected. Which, would not be true if you are using such a program in the United States, where you have to follow their governing laws. But, I think it's safe to state:

God bless the Isle of Man... Thank you for the software, the gambling and for keeping nut-jobs in check!

Oh... and by the way. I'm registering the patent for the idea of a zero dioxide carbon emission car. The people working on such projects are now officially my *******. LOL.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 12:47 PM
What a lot of US companies don't realise is that US law only applies in the USA, it doesn't apply here in the UK for example. In most US states (I think) the age at which you can buy alcohol is 21, in the UK it's 18, but nobody sues a UK newsagent for selling drinks to an 18 year old (It's legal here).

While the example you cite is true, it is not true that "US law only applies in the USA". A very huge and unavoidable example is the great heaving mass of criminality currently ensconced in Guantanamo. The vast majority of those prisoners committed no crime on US soil. Yet they have been arrested and imprisoned for actions in other countries for which the US has decided it has the right to punish them. (Remember they are expresly not prisoners of war. Most of them have been arrested for terrorism offences - crimes, not acts of war.)

There are other, less dramatic examples.

Glucklich
November 11th, 2009, 12:53 PM
While the example you cite is true, it is not true that "US law only applies in the USA". A very huge and unavoidable example is the great heaving mass of criminality currently ensconced in Guantanamo. The vast majority of those prisoners committed no crime on US soil. Yet they have been arrested and imprisoned for actions in other countries for which the US has decided it has the right to punish them.

There are other, less dramatic examples.

Different subjects. They were suspects of being terrorists and aiding/being part of a network that had committed a crime on US soil (9/11).

It's such a complex issue and not as simple as you try to make it sound. Even because they passed some laws to predict that "special" situations.
Were they infringing human rights? Definitely. A couple of other treaties? Probably. Were they infringing their own laws? Nop.

Except torture in the Prison. That is definitely against their laws and as far as the general public knows, the law-breakers' cases are being under study and they will be handled accordingly.

Just transmitting hard cold facts and hoping that this comparison helps the continuation of the discussion about software.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Different subjects. They were suspects of being terrorists and aiding/being part of a network that had committed a crime on US soil (9/11).


Uh no. Some of them have been accused of connection/complicity with the 9/11 attacks. Most have been arrested for being "unlawful combatants", which is a clear example of US law being applied in other countries (in this case Afghanistan while the Taliban were still in power). In effect the US government is saying that if they invade a country, it is illegal for anyone to fight back. They don't apply this equally everywhere - when the US invaded Iraq and the Iraqi army fought back, the US forces didn't arrest those Iraqi soldiers and cart them off to jail. Those soldiers who survived simply became unemployed when their aemy was disbanded; many of them are now in the current Iraqi army. They were professional soldiers and so not considered terrorists. But US forces did arrest fighters in Afghanistan; a lot of them foreigners who had gone to Afghanistan expressly to fight. Please note, I'm not trying to justify anyone's actions here, I'm just pointing out that US law can be applied in other countries.

It's not a different subject at all. The subject that blazemore and I are discussing is "US law (not) applying in other countries".

MicrosoftFan
November 11th, 2009, 01:09 PM
FUD...

A bit like this thread then.

Ms_Angel_D
November 11th, 2009, 01:11 PM
When I was little I thought, "Hey I love my country! I wouldn't want to live anywhere else because I have heard all those horror stories about how your not free and liberties we're taken away" (no thanks to my right wing conservative parents).

I'll be 34yrs old tomorrow and I wish I lived anywhere else in the world. This country has done nothing save keep me miserable all my adult life. I suffer physically(barely able to walk) because We make too much money to get assistance and not enough to buy our own coverage. We owe so much money to hospitals and doctors I don't even know where to begin.

I live in fear that every little thing I do might infringe on somebody else's thoughts. I can't create a website about the music I love in a way which celebrates the music because I might get taken to court.

I look around and all I see is greed and selfishness, or people willing to give but with strings attached. Children growing up with no discipline. People who think it's wrong to help those who can't help themselves, or are too greedy and selfish to do so. No respect for other thoughts or ways of life and no reason to hope for a better tomorrow.

This little patent may be silly or not a big deal, but to me it symbolizes all that is wrong in the country that I live in. I fear for how things might be when my children are grown, what type of mess will they or my grandchildren have to attempt to clean up?

I don't know what else to say but that this makes me very sad indeed.

Glucklich
November 11th, 2009, 01:12 PM
Uh no. Some of them have been accused of connection/complicity with the 9/11 attacks. Most have been arrested for being "unlawful combatants", which is a clear example of US law being applied in other countries.

It's not a different subject at all. The subject that blazemore and I are discussing is "US law (not) applying in other countries".

But that capture was only permitted because the US were officially at war with that country. Because, the FBI has no jurisdiction in my country, therefore they cannot come to my house and take me away. It would be a completely different issue if my country were at war with the US and they had military forces to make their laws prevail. Otherwise, if it was as you say... frontiers wouldn't mean nothing.

jeb800e
November 11th, 2009, 01:16 PM
What does this mean for Linux, or do you think Microsoft will be kind and let us all still use it?

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 01:18 PM
But that capture was only permitted because the US were officially at war with that country. Because, the FBI has no jurisdiction in my country, therefore they cannot come to my house and take me away. It would be a completely different issue if my country were at war with the US and they had military forces to make their laws prevail. Otherwise, if it would be as you say... frontiers wouldn't mean nothing.

No no no. They are not prisoners of war. They are "illegal combatants".

If you do some certain acts, the US will feel that they do have the right to come to your house and arrest you. regardless of where you live. I will come back and post examples soon. Being at war has nothing to do with it. And anyway, just because the US is at war with a country, does not give them the right under international law to enforce US law in that country. Law and order is a strictly local affair, unless the government of that country actually asks the US forces to help in law enforcement. Even then, it is local law that will be enforced, not US law.

ukripper
November 11th, 2009, 01:18 PM
US patent laws are ridiculous.



+1 ..I hope EU blows M$ boll*cks off if M$ ever come to them for sudo patent in europe wide.

chucky chuckaluck
November 11th, 2009, 01:20 PM
obviously a ploy by microaretheyreallythatsoft to force ubuntu to enable root by default. "kill the bosses!!1"

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 01:26 PM
If you do some certain acts, the US will feel that they do have the right to come to your house and arrest you. regardless of where you live. I will come back and post examples soon..

Here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A6Zv37Bs5-UC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=US+laws+enforced+abroad&source=bl&ots=2-Y73GRCmQ&sig=Q4eLUpMFv4K27rsqHFag2osWBNY&hl=en&ei=nKv6SsSeJd-6jAee9umwBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)'s one example:


From: The Antitrust Laws: A Primer by John H. Shenefield, Irwin M. Stelzer

It has, of couirse, always been the case that American antitrust jurisdiction extends abroad, and there has always been a steady stream of enforcement activity focused on international transactions and conduct by foreign companies that have an effect in the United States. US enforcement authorities, as well as private treble damage plaintiffs, can use the US antitrust laws to challenge conduct that takes place abroad...And a pretty complicated example here (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4181914/American-prosecutors-as-democracy-promoters.html):


Yet it was the first time that a former leader of a foreign country was convicted in a U.S. court in part for breaking his own country's laws. The U.S. offenses with which Lazarenko was charged criminalize transactions involving money obtained from an underlying illegal act. (3) While these underlying criminal activities typically occur within the United States, Lazarenko stole property and committed extortion within Ukraine. Nevertheless, the district court instructed the jury that it could find him guilty of violating U.S. laws against money laundering, wire fraud, ITSP, and conspiracy if it found that his activities in Ukraine violated Ukrainian law.

Lazarenko was tried and imprisoned in the USA for breaking Ukranian and US law in the Ukraine.

Joe Ker1086
November 11th, 2009, 01:34 PM
They've probably already patented that. They patented the right-click menu. And the single-click = select, double-click = launch mechanism

Well I suppose if these things have been patented and they are still around then we should all be fine. I believe that it would only apply to new OSs......but even so that leaves the question would a new distro of linux fall into that? i would think no but then why would microsoft even bother pattenting that..? Maybe we will see some development when Google Chrome OS comes out...

Glucklich
November 11th, 2009, 01:44 PM
I don't know what else to say but that this makes me very sad indeed.

The health system is, indeed, a big problem in the United States. Not sure if there's much I can say than: Keep fighting.
Unfortunately, greedy and selfish people (and consequently institutions and governing bodies) are no localized phenomena. It is a world-wide social problem.


And anyway, just because the US is at war with a country, does not give them the right under international law to enforce US law in that country. Law and order is a strictly local affair, unless the government of that country actually asks the US forces to help in law enforcement. Even then, it is local law that will be enforced, not US law.

Correct. My apologies for mixing practicality with legality. But legally they can't arrest you outside of US soil. Which practically, might happen differently, as you well pointed out.

Giant Speck
November 11th, 2009, 01:47 PM
I'd like to point out that the legal talk in this thread is straying further and further away from what is allowed. Just sayin'...

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Well I suppose if these things have been patented and they are still around then we should all be fine.

I dunno about that. Just cos Microsoft haven't done anything with these patents yet, doesn't mean they never will. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that Microsoft have been granted patents on ideas that so obviously existed before Microsoft ever thought of them. What on earth is the US Patent Office thinking? Okay, so if it came to a lawsuit there are plenty of examples of prior art to challenge Microsoft's right to the patent. But if it comes to a lawsuit, maybe the target won't be able to afford to challenge Microsoft. The law is a pricey game in the USA (and elsewhere) and the guy with the deepest pockets usually wins. Of course, Microsoft has very deep pockets.



I believe that it would only apply to new OSs.

And why on earth do you believe that? If Microsoft had a legitimate, valuable patent, then discovered that OSX violated it, do you really believe Microsoft wouldn't sue because OSX isn't new? Or that the law wouldn't be on Microsoft's side because OSX has been around for a while?

fela
November 11th, 2009, 01:49 PM
Patenting rights elevation isn't far off patenting the concept of users and groups, which UNIX developed am I right?

Here's hoping the guys in the patent office are sobered up when microsoft come along. As long as they're sober and sane, Microsoft won't get this patent. They didn't even invent rights elevation so how can they patent it?

Zoot7
November 11th, 2009, 02:04 PM
I look around and all I see is greed and selfishness, or people willing to give but with strings attached. Children growing up with no discipline. People who think it's wrong to help those who can't help themselves, or are too greedy and selfish to do so. No respect for other thoughts or ways of life and no reason to hope for a better tomorrow.

This little patent may be silly or not a big deal, but to me it symbolizes all that is wrong in the country that I live in. I fear for how things might be when my children are grown, what type of mess will they or my grandchildren have to attempt to clean up?

I don't know what else to say but that this makes me very sad indeed.
Very well put. I couldn't agree more.
However sadly capitalism has turned the world into a truly disgusting place. Profit (at any cost) gets put before people wherever you go. :(
All the crap going on with patents are just yet another one of the countless examples.

TBOL3
November 11th, 2009, 02:10 PM
All of you are over reacting. If microsoft tries to sue anyone over this patent, all the defenders have to do is show that there is prior art (aka Linux, OS X, etc.).

Zoot7
November 11th, 2009, 02:21 PM
Well think of it like this; there's tonnes of abstract ideas already patented. (Opening Windows, double clicking etc.), but yet Linux (as a whole) hasn't suffered in any way up until now.

Swagman
November 11th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I'll be 34yrs old tomorrow

!snip



Happy Birthday for Tomorrow

koshatnik
November 11th, 2009, 03:11 PM
The Isle of Mann is not part of the UK it is actually a self governing British Island and has been for years. The Isle of Mann, and Iceland iirc, is the oldest known continuously running self governing democracy, about 1200 years I think. Yes QE2 has the Monarchical title but that hasn't vested 10 Downing Street with any real rights apart from the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of the Isle of Mann's inhabitants.

isle of man is a crown dependency, protectorate of the UK and the head of state for the isle is Queen Elizabeth II.



Manx law is Manx law, English law can be very different. Furthermore the Isle of Mann, as far as I am aware, isn't even part of the EU and is likely never to become part of it either.

It has special status in the EU as a crown dependency of the UK.



So in answer to your question, you will need to check on the current state of Manx law to determine how it treats software patents to answer that question.

Patents are subject to trade agreements between countries, so apply depending on any diplomatic arrangements between states. In may countries certain areas are excluded from patent law. I'm guessing that this would fall into that category in the UK.

sledge73
November 11th, 2009, 03:22 PM
I don't really see m$ suing over this cause there is a) no money to be made b) at this point linux is not a popular enough operating system. So there is really no motivation for them to sue. Now on the other hand if linux was to take over say 35% of the market share & popular computer companies started selling more linux computers than m$ computers we might have something to worry about.



just my $.02

Sporkman
November 11th, 2009, 03:27 PM
It's pretty common practice for companies in Microsoft's league. They'll apply for as many patents as they can think of. It's not really because they're trying to protect anything of their own, it's just extending the net so they might be able to catch a few folks that accidentally infringe on it in the future. It's just simple opportunism. Many of the patents they apply for are denied, many of them are just flat-out ignored even after they're awarded too.

It's also legal defense - if a company tries to sue them for patent violation, then they have their own arsenal of patents with the attacker has likely infringed upon in some way, which they can counter sue with.

Slug71
November 11th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Quite simply they cannot patent it as they did not invent it and its already in use and has been for a long time.

PryGuy
November 11th, 2009, 04:43 PM
+1. How can the patent thing that was invented in the times they had Windows 286? I have no words here! Is there any justice and common sense? Not to blame America, 'cause we see such things in Russia also, but well, this is nonsense!

Joe Ker1086
November 11th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I dunno about that. Just cos Microsoft haven't done anything with these patents yet, doesn't mean they never will. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that Microsoft have been granted patents on ideas that so obviously existed before Microsoft ever thought of them. What on earth is the US Patent Office thinking? Okay, so if it came to a lawsuit there are plenty of examples of prior art to challenge Microsoft's right to the patent. But if it comes to a lawsuit, maybe the target won't be able to afford to challenge Microsoft. The law is a pricey game in the USA (and elsewhere) and the guy with the deepest pockets usually wins. Of course, Microsoft has very deep pockets.



And why on earth do you believe that? If Microsoft had a legitimate, valuable patent, then discovered that OSX violated it, do you really believe Microsoft wouldn't sue because OSX isn't new? Or that the law wouldn't be on Microsoft's side because OSX has been around for a while?

I am certainly no lawyer and i am not positive about this but i was under the impression that if a patent is granted for something but someone else currently uses whatever the patent was granted for, in this case a process, then they would be grandfathered in.. but your right, the pockets of ms are much deeper than that of an open source OS and microsoft could probobally get a good enough lawyer to convince a jury pretty much whatever they want....kinda scary when you think about it.....

Maheriano
November 11th, 2009, 04:57 PM
Ultimately, what does this mean to us in the Linux community? Can we expect 10.04 to lack the sudo option?

It means non Microsoft keyboards will ship with only 100 keys.

Chame_Wizard
November 11th, 2009, 05:19 PM
Remember this (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Microsoft_claims_235_patent_breaches_by_open_sourc e_software)?

:popcorn:

vredley
November 11th, 2009, 05:22 PM
It means non Microsoft keyboards will ship with only 100 keys.

Don't forget that they've already patented the Page Up and Down keys.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10023492-16.html

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 05:33 PM
+1 ..I hope EU blows M$ boll*cks off if M$ ever come to them for sudo patent in europe wide.

Unfortunately, your wish is unlikely to become true. Certain EU states seem determined to ensure that software patents become a reality in Europe. And in a way that is wholly compatible with US law. Some European governments are very much in love with the USA. Meaning, very much in love with the particular class in America that likes to formulate ever more restrictive property laws.

Not a political statement. Just an observation.

The Funkbomb
November 11th, 2009, 05:38 PM
It's stuff like this that makes me angry at MS.

Despite the problems with Windows, they make a pretty good operating system that is used by most of the world. Most of the problems can be attributed to user ignorance/error.

They aren't happy with 90%+ share of the market? They have to ruin things for everyone else?

vagrantrooper
November 11th, 2009, 05:41 PM
I still don't get it.

Sudo is something that pretty much all Linux distros use. !


Mac uses sudo too at the command line.

t0p
November 11th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Quite simply they cannot patent it as they did not invent it and its already in use and has been for a long time.

You have not been paying attention. Microsoft (and many other companies) hold patents for lots of ideas/intentions that they did not intent. For some reason that I don't understand, the US Patent Office are happy to grant such patents. If anyone wants to challenge these patents, they must do so in court - where the richest combatant wins.

US patent law is sick. No one is prepared to cure it. The whole world suffers accordingly.

vagrantrooper
November 11th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Ultimately, what does this mean to us in the Linux community? Can we expect 10.04 to lack the sudo option?


Ubuntu comes out of the UK (EU), this patent is only for the U.S

Delvien
November 11th, 2009, 05:53 PM
That's it. I'm moving to Canada...


Or the UK.... oooh i like the brits.

Slug71
November 11th, 2009, 06:02 PM
You have not been paying attention. Microsoft (and many other companies) hold patents for lots of ideas/intentions that they did not intent. For some reason that I don't understand, the US Patent Office are happy to grant such patents. If anyone wants to challenge these patents, they must do so in court - where the richest combatant wins.

US patent law is sick. No one is prepared to cure it. The whole world suffers accordingly.

A C/P from uspto.gov:


Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

However im not saying what you said isnt true but MS might have a hard time with this one.

hoppipolla
November 11th, 2009, 06:05 PM
I don't get patenting laws. I mean how can a patent go through when it's blatantly obvious you didn't come up with the idea first? Surely that's not right...

jaceleon
November 11th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Oh, heck, they really are trying to become a mogul in OS industry, even though they already are...

So what do they expect, people begging them for mercy?

sudo already have been there! Even before the NT architecture is born, sudo/su is already there, so it's not a unique idea that can get patented. Not to mention that sudo/su is used by UNIX first, not Macros**t.

Techsnap
November 11th, 2009, 06:18 PM
You can stop bashing Microsoft now. You're getting it wrong about this patent and the way that sudo works.

What Microsoft are patenting here is user elevation, changing the permissions on the fly of the profile in question being used and wanting to access an administrative program.

sudo does NOT change the permissions of the profile. It's running the su command to root for that ONE command you tell it do, so for example if you're removing a package you'll be using:


sudo aptitude remove (package)

Which is basically, subsitute user do this command. By default su is root so it's root doing the command, it's not elevating your profile at all, it's using roots instead of yours, your permissions have NOT changed by using sudo.

Also su does NOT = root. It defaults to root.

The Funkbomb
November 11th, 2009, 06:18 PM
I think part of Microsoft's goal is just to make it difficult for everyone else. They have the money for patent attorneys to scour around and find something like this and try to defend it. They know competitors don't have as much money. If they lose, they lose money that's a drop in a bucket for them. If they win, they win big time.

slakkie
November 11th, 2009, 06:19 PM
Ultimately, what does this mean to us in the Linux community? Can we expect 10.04 to lack the sudo option?

There is a thing called prior-art. So if it has been invented before, or used before, it cannot be a patent, due to prio-art. Don't worry about sudo, it will be there.

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 06:23 PM
I was just about to respond, but slakkie said exactly what I wanted to say.

samh785
November 11th, 2009, 06:25 PM
We need to make a big deal about this. It makes me sick inside that a company can patent something that they obviously did not invent.

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001859

subdivision
November 11th, 2009, 06:31 PM
We need to make a big deal about this. It makes me sick inside that a company can patent something that they obviously did not invent.

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000001859

See this post:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8294540&postcount=70

MS is NOT patenting sudo. How is it that so many of you don't understand this command?

Ric_NYC
November 11th, 2009, 06:39 PM
The same folks behind Mono and Moonlight...
Yeah... Trust them.

KiwiNZ
November 11th, 2009, 06:40 PM
folks you need to re examine Microsofts filing . It has nothing to do with with Sudo and little affect if any onwhat one would do with Linux at present.

Lets all return to the respective happy places and put the bashing tools in the holsters.

Go in peace

MaxIBoy
November 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
This patent will NOT stand up in court.

However, now Ballmer will go on TV and say that Linux violates 236 of its patents instead of 235.

Actually, I imagine that most of these patents hold about as much weight as this one.

Martje_001
November 11th, 2009, 06:43 PM
1. Big company's just have to patent everything. If they don't, they will get sued by some I-want-to-be-rich Americans..
2. Read this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8294540&postcount=70).
3. Microsoft isn't thát bad. They often patent things.. and then license it under their community license.

ubuntu-freak
November 11th, 2009, 06:52 PM
The Isle of Mann is not part of the UK it is actually a self governing British Island and has been for years. The Isle of Mann, and Iceland iirc, is the oldest known continuously running self governing democracy, about 1200 years I think. Yes QE2 has the Monarchical title but that hasn't vested 10 Downing Street with any real rights apart from the responsibility of protecting the freedoms of the Isle of Mann's inhabitants. Manx law is Manx law, English law can be very different.
It's essentially British, though. Parliment can impose laws on the Isle of Man, just as they did regarding pirate radio stations. Also, the UK Patents Register extends to the Isle of Mann and obviously doesn't include software patents.

aaaantoine
November 11th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Okay, I skimmed through this thread, and I think people missing the scope of the patent.

They're not patenting ALL rights elevation. They're patenting the following idea.

1. Unprivileged user tries to run a program.
2. Unprivileged user is restricted from access...
3. ...But, unprivileged user is then shown a list of one or more people who are sufficiently privileged.
4. Which then I suppose allows you to run the program as one of those users, provided you put in the user's password.

At least that's how I interpret it. It's a stupid patent anyway. You could easily pick out prior art by pointing to every POSIX program that says "you must run this program as root."

Chronon
November 11th, 2009, 07:00 PM
Okay, I skimmed through this thread, and I think people missing the scope of the patent.

They're not patenting ALL rights elevation. They're patenting the following idea.

1. Unprivileged user tries to run a program.
2. Unprivileged user is restricted from access...
3. ...But, unprivileged user is then shown a list of one or more people who are sufficiently privileged.
4. Which then I suppose allows you to run the program as one of those users, provided you put in the user's password.

At least that's how I interpret it. It's a stupid patent anyway. You could easily pick out prior art by pointing to every POSIX program that says "you must run this program as root."

Thanks aaaantoine. I actually didn't read anything about the patent. My previous post only indicated that sudo would be safe from any such patent, as it is prior-art.

ViperChief
November 11th, 2009, 07:06 PM
This patent doesn't really come close to what sudo is, anyway.

vagrantrooper
November 11th, 2009, 07:09 PM
folks you need to re examine Microsofts filing . It has nothing to do with with Sudo and little affect if any onwhat one would do with Linux at present.

Lets all return to the respective happy places and put the bashing tools in the holsters.

Go in peace


Somewhat a troll thread then?

MicrosoftFan
November 11th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Woohoo, finally some people actually read the document before commenting on it.

ViperChief
November 11th, 2009, 07:16 PM
interesting.. i wonder when will MicroSHAFT will start patenting ubuntu 'ideas' and the source code??

i BET if u look at windows 7 source code 80 percent or more is ubuntu.. they MIGHT have created the theme.. THEY probably are thinkin to PATENT windows and release the source code to public.. .which bascially is a plan sue ubuntu for copyright infringement!

Well, based on what I'm hearing about 9.10 and what I know from using earlier versions of Ubuntu and from using Windows 7 for the past year, I'm pretty sure the code isn't even close.

But, if Microsoft did use Ubuntu code, they did a much better job implementing it then Canonical did.

omar8
November 11th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Microsoft owns so many patents, many of which they do not mind if other companies or products violate (ubuntu is probably breaking hundreds of Microsoft patents), it is probably being patented so that nobody else can get the patent and use it against them.

KiwiNZ
November 11th, 2009, 07:23 PM
I will restate this

folks you need to re examine Microsofts filing . It has nothing to do with with Sudo and little affect if any onwhat one would do with Linux at present.

Lets all return to the respective happy places and put the bashing tools in the holsters.

And before this thread goes completely south as it is showing signs of that migration I am going to thank those who participated and close it

Go in peace

therabyte
November 12th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Patent number 7617530 (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),

Via Sladshot (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/11/2055226/Microsoft-Patents-Sudos-Behavior)

WTF ???

Does it mean future releases of Linux will have to pay royalties to Microsoft?

subdivision
November 12th, 2009, 12:46 AM
There was already a thread about this. It has nothing to do with sudo. Please try reading the actual patent.

jerrrys
November 12th, 2009, 05:05 PM
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Microsoft-Patents-Sudo

I find this sad

RiceMonster
November 12th, 2009, 05:09 PM
First of all, there was already a thread about this (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1322569&highlight=Microsoft+patents+sudo)

Second, they are NOT patenting sudo.

As seen in this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8294540&postcount=70).


You can stop bashing Microsoft now. You're getting it wrong about this patent and the way that sudo works.

What Microsoft are patenting here is user elevation, changing the permissions on the fly of the profile in question being used and wanting to access an administrative program.

sudo does NOT change the permissions of the profile. It's running the su command to root for that ONE command you tell it do, so for example if you're removing a package you'll be using:


sudo aptitude remove (package)

Which is basically, subsitute user do this command. By default su is root so it's root doing the command, it's not elevating your profile at all, it's using roots instead of yours, your permissions have NOT changed by using sudo.

Also su does NOT = root. It defaults to root.

jerrrys
November 12th, 2009, 05:33 PM
a day late and a dollar short, what can i say.

but thanks RiceMonster for cheering me up again

kio_http
November 12th, 2009, 05:37 PM
This thread is as useless as its clone!:o

aysiu
November 12th, 2009, 05:49 PM
I will restate this

folks you need to re examine Microsofts filing . It has nothing to do with with Sudo and little affect if any onwhat one would do with Linux at present.

Lets all return to the respective happy places and put the bashing tools in the holsters.

And before this thread goes completely south as it is showing signs of that migration I am going to thank those who participated and close it

Go in peace
Merged and re-closed.

tom66
November 12th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Microsoft have filed a patent that sounds very similar to the sudo command in Linux and OS X.

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

coldReactive
November 12th, 2009, 10:43 PM
I thought the old thread concerning this was locked?

blur xc
November 12th, 2009, 10:44 PM
I think there might need to be a forum announcement regarding this topic. I think it's the third one today I've seen posted. (I might be exaggerating a teensy bit)

BM

NoaHall
November 12th, 2009, 10:46 PM
It's not sudo. And it won't stand up in court. And ubuntu is outside of america.

markp1989
November 12th, 2009, 11:05 PM
It's not sudo. And it won't stand up in court. And ubuntu is outside of america.

sudo isnt made by ubuntu, its a linux program

NoaHall
November 12th, 2009, 11:10 PM
sudo isnt made by ubuntu, its a linux program

So? I'm clearing it up for newbies who think the American patents would affect Ubuntu.

vagrantrooper
November 12th, 2009, 11:10 PM
A big ever expanding load of FUD.

coldReactive
November 12th, 2009, 11:10 PM
so? I'm clearing it up for newbies who think the american patents would affect ubuntu.

+1

Ric_NYC
November 12th, 2009, 11:13 PM
From the same company that has a "deal" with Novell.

Elfy
November 12th, 2009, 11:20 PM
This was started as a discussion earlier today, that thread was closed and so is this one now.

Thread from earlier is here - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=432741

tommynz1975
November 13th, 2009, 12:12 AM
I got today a txt

Microsft has patented sudo
patent 7617530

a link to this is


http://lwn.net/Articles/361730/rss

is this just more FUD??

Quote from above link.


For what it's worth, here's a copy/paste of Tom Miller's reaction on the sudo-users' mailing list this morning:
-- Pat

I've already received a number of questions about US patent 7,617,530
that some people seem to believe might cover sudo. I don't think
that is the case.

My reading of the patent indicates that it is geared towards GUI-based
environments where the user may need to perform some action (such
as setting the clock in a control panel) that requires increased
privileges. The actual "invention" appears to be that the user is
able to perform an action as a different user without having to
type in the name of that other user when authenticating. One example
given in that patent is the ability to click on a name in a list
of privileged users as opposed to having to type in a user name.

witeshark17
November 13th, 2009, 01:35 AM
Well, it could have made a good late night joke. The command is as old as leaves; it's been in the OS X terminal for as long as I have known either.

falconindy
November 13th, 2009, 02:48 AM
You should read the patent yourself. They're not trying to patent sudo -- its the dialog box that comes up asking you to escalate your privileges in order to run a program. It's roughly as ridiculous as their attempts to patent the pgup and pgdn buttons a few years back.

witeshark17
November 13th, 2009, 03:51 AM
Why would anyone actually read a m$ patent? \\:D/

Lars Noodén
November 13th, 2009, 09:28 AM
Why would anyone actually read a m$ patent? \\:D/

Because there are people from or for Microsoft working very hard to make the linux distros dependent on Microsoft patents. And because there are people in the linux distros who, perhaps naively, think that some common understanding can be reached if only linux cedes/removes enough of its core advantages like quality, freedom and cooperation.

For some of these Microsoft things, patents or not, there is a paper trail saying they are pay-to-use Microsoft technologies. Here's a letter of complaint about one of the sets of paper trails:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061221081000710

HaikuOS (http://www.haiku-os.org/) has been visible lately. It's inspired by BeOS, which was launched by an early Apple employee. He, too, though that a compromise could be reached with Microsoft employees (or groupies). However, he learned a hard lesson (http://www.birdhouse.org/beos/byte/30-bootloader/). It's become a little unclear about which road Ubuntu is going down (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/110).

M$ used to have Team99 and its successors pop up when their search engines hit the string Microsoft in a forum or blog post. So an open discussion is always difficult.

witeshark17
November 13th, 2009, 04:53 PM
I don't like to waste time with trivial details; m$ has proven far too often to be unworthy of any form of respect. The quality of its central OS is absurd, and its attempts to monopolize are beyond acceptable. That is all.

alphaniner
November 13th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Nothing new. Look at the patents MS used to attack TomTom:

* 5,579,517 Common name space for long and short filenames.
* 5,758,352 Common name space for long and short filenames (again).
* 6,175,789 Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture.
* 6,202,008 Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity
* 6,256,642 Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory.
* 6,704,032 Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms.
* 7,054,745 Method and system for generating driving directions.
* 7,117,286 Portable computing device-integrated appliance.

These patents really are as ridiculous as they sound. For example, '6,202,008 Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity' is Microsoft claiming to own the idea or the concept of integrating a wireless enabled computing device in a car. Not a specific technology. Just the concept. Can you say pathological narcissism?

I was a Microsoft apologist before I saw this. Look here (http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3807801/Bruce-Perens-Analyzing-Microsofts-Linux-Lawsuit.htm) for more info if you are interested.

falconindy
November 14th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Why would anyone actually read a m$ patent? \\:D/
You might think that their actions are unimportant, but I realize that given their size, they can and do have an effect on the greater market. Because of that, I don't mind taking 5 minutes here and there to brush up on what their next (and worst) plan is.

Stuff like this is also good for a chuckle.


I don't like to waste time with trivial details; m$ has proven far too often to be unworthy of any form of respect. The quality of its central OS is absurd, and its attempts to monopolize are beyond acceptable. That is all.
Good thing you're not bitter about it.

witeshark17
November 14th, 2009, 03:50 AM
You might think that their actions are unimportant, but I realize that given their size, they can and do have an effect on the greater market. Because of that, I don't mind taking 5 minutes here and there to brush up on what their next (and worst) plan is.

Stuff like this is also good for a chuckle.


Good thing you're not bitter about it. I'm not at all bitter; why would I be? My sig shows the 2 OS solutions that relieved any problems I had. And what I posted there is proven fact ;)

falconindy
November 14th, 2009, 06:54 AM
I'm not at all bitter; why would I be? My sig shows the 2 OS solutions that relieved any problems I had. And what I posted there is proven fact ;)
What you posted is clearly an opinion soured by previous experiences with Microsoft. It's hardly based on any sort of facts. They clearly took your bottle away and you're mad about it.


I don't waste my time with trivial details"
Not anymore you don't. You've clearly evolved and know better now.


m$ has proven far too often to be unworthy of any form of respect
Either you have past experiences with MS that have left a bitter taste in your mouth having moved on to other operating systems, or you're showing an absurd amount of arrogance.


The quality of its central OS is absurd, and its attempts to monopolize are beyond acceptable.
While some of us feel that Windows is inferior as a product, it does, believe it or not, fulfill the needs of some people. MS has been slapped on the wrist more than a few times regarding its marketing behaviors. If you feel that they have an unnatural hold on the industry, maybe you should read up on the evolution of consumer operating systems.


That is all.
Ultimatum mode off. Do not question me.

Did a salt truck explode in my room? Nope, that's just your post.

witeshark17
November 14th, 2009, 04:44 PM
So, how's the weather in Redmond? Oh, that's right; you wouldn't know, what with that big, stone bridge obscuring your view of the sky. I hear the trolling is great off the Pac northwest coast by the way. :p

SuperSonic4
November 14th, 2009, 04:49 PM
So, how's the weather in Redmond? Oh, that's right; you wouldn't know, what with that big, stone bridge obscuring your view of the sky. I hear the trolling is great off the Pac northwest coast by the way. :p

So they're a troll for questioning you? I would give you my true opinion but it would not sit well with the moderators. Suffice to say you're exhibiting the close-mindedness that Microsoft are known for


Also I don't care if they do, I'll just run a root shell - it's not that hard

witeshark17
November 14th, 2009, 05:22 PM
So they're a troll for questioning you? I would give you my true opinion but it would not sit well with the moderators. Suffice to say you're exhibiting the close-mindedness that Microsoft are known for


Also I don't care if they do, I'll just run a root shell - it's not that hard Thanks for the laugh! Oh yeah, a root shell, of course! Back to the topic, no one can patent a simple CL command, let alone one that's been in common use everywhere but Mars. But if they must patent one, let's offer a substitute; let's see, they can have... oh.... I got it! cuduu :-({|= :lolflag: