Warp wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
> 
>   If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
> is, it's just crazy.
> 
>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. Many systems have
> had automatic graphical sudos for a long, long time, including eg. Suse
> Linux.)

Simply interpreting the U.S. Constitution as if it meant what it says 
would put a stop to this.

Given any computational task, there is probably one best way to compute 
it.  The person who discovers this algorithm has done just that, he has 
*discovered* it.  The USC grants authority to protect the interests of 
"Authors and Inventors," and not to discoverers.

It would be as if the discoverer of the postulated transuranic stable 
element applied for, and was granted, a patent on the physical data of 
the element, and demanded a fee from anyone who, say, decided to publish 
the data in a chemistry textbook (or even mention that it existed, since 
that is an inherent part of the discovery).

Now if M$ is patenting the *idea* of sudo (either in or out of a GUI), 
then it's still time to call BS, because ideas in themselves are not 
subject to copyright; or else Walt Disney can sue anyone who animates a 
mouse.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message