> 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.

This is not unique to software patents, and don't worry, just because a 
patent was granted doesn't mean it will stand up in court.  I highly doubt 
this will prevent any competitor from making a graphical sudo.

Post a reply to this message

>>  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.
> 
> This is not unique to software patents, and don't worry, just because a 
> patent was granted doesn't mean it will stand up in court.  I highly 
> doubt this will prevent any competitor from making a graphical sudo.

Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the side 
with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue. Also, I'm 
told it's not uncommon for a company to go out of business just because 
somebody *threatens* to sue them. Even if they don't have a hope in hell 
of winning.

Post a reply to this message

> Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the side 
> with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue.

Well if one side can't afford any lawyers then it might make it tricky, but 
after that I don't think the money each side has will have much influence.

> Also, I'm told it's not uncommon for a company to go out of business just 
> because somebody *threatens* to sue them. Even if they don't have a hope 
> in hell of winning.

Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, you're 
a bit screwed.

Post a reply to this message

>> Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the 
>> side with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue.
> 
> Well if one side can't afford any lawyers then it might make it tricky, 
> but after that I don't think the money each side has will have much 
> influence.

Seems to me more like a case of "the most expensive lawyer always wins".

> Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
> relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, 
> you're a bit screwed.

Threatening to sue somebody is a good way to make investors go elsewhere.

Post a reply to this message

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

John VanSickle wrote:

> ideas in themselves are not 
> subject to copyright; or else Walt Disney can sue anyone who animates a 
> mouse.

Oh, what irony that would be...

(Mickey Mouse is a minor modification of an earlier animated mouse, 
created to get around copyright issues.)

Post a reply to this message

> Given any computational task, there is probably one best way to compute 
> it.

For each definition of "best" there is probably one optimal algorithm, but I 
doubt many of those optimal algorithms exist anywhere.

> The person who discovers this algorithm has done just that, he has 
> *discovered* it.

Discovering something implies that the thing exists to start with.  If 
nobody has ever written such an algorithm before then it doesn't exist!  I 
could use your same argument to say that I *discovered* a really clever 
mechanical design rather than actually inventing it.  How is that any 
different?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
> relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, you're 
> a bit screwed.

  Isn't there a constitutional right to get free legal defence?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 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

  Copyright has nothing to do with patents, or the other way around.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't there a constitutional right to get free legal defence?

Only in criminal cases. I.e., if the government arrests you and threatens to 
put you in jail, then the presumptions are that the government (a) has so 
many more resources than any individual could muster and (b) is supposed to 
be working for the people anyway, so you get the free lawyer if you want.

If Company A says Company B owes them money, then no, Company B doesn't get 
any lawyers for free.

Once again, it's protection from the government and not so much from each 
other that's written into the constitution.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message