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.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

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.)

The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
with screens on each key.

And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
being produced and sold already.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
> with screens on each key.

  I find the whole "patent pending" thing just ridiculous. Here if you
publish something before patenting it, you don't get the patent, period.
Simple and effective.

> And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
> being produced and sold already.

  At least patent lawyers and the patent office are getting rich. As
I understand it, patenting is quite expensive in the US. With all those
completely ridiculous patents one would think that it's free, or at least
really cheap, but AFAIK it's quite expensive.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. 

I'm guessing the innovation is in part limiting the presentation to accounts 
with permissions to do the job and sorting those so they come before 
accounts with permissions to do more than needed.

Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged account.

Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.

For example, if your graphical sudo doesn't have a help feature, it's not 
infringing on this patent. On the other hand, help features are "obvious" so 
this isn't sufficient to distinguish this patent enough that it should have 
passed based just on that. IANAL.

If you have only root and non-root, you aren't infringing this patent. If 
you don't have a way to have accounts "associated with users" (by which I 
assume they mean "in the same group"), you don't infringe. If you don't have 
"sufficient but not unlimited rights", you're not infringing the patent. If 
you don't adjust the list based on frequency of use, you're not infringing 
the patent. If you don't have pictures associated with user accounts, you're 
not infringing the patent. If you don't authenticate to the system based on 
passwords, you're not infringing the patent.

Note that if you have *all* of these elements, you're no tinfringing the 
first claim. (I didn't delve into the second claim much, except to see it's 
basically "claim 1, only with capabilities".)  Usually when a patent has 300 
clauses in the first claim, it's because it *needs* all 300 to be considered 
different from what has come before.  *Then* you have to read all the mail 
that went between the patent office, where the patent office said "You say 
authenticator, but we already have smart cards to do this" and MS says "We 
don't mean smart cards, then. How about now?"

Which is not to say I'm not joyous that the Supreme Court is looking at 
whether to throw all this kind of crap out, but it looks like MS at least is 
already trying to work around that by claiming to patent a computer disk 
with a program on it.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged account.

  Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
different groups which have different access privileges, and then you can
use sudo to perform a command with the privileges of any of those accounts
(not just the root account).

  (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
system, but at least the command-line version does.)

> Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.

  Wouldn't be the first time that patent infringement has been claimed on
someone infringing only a part of the patent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged
>> account.
> 
>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
> different groups which have different access privileges, and then you can
> use sudo to perform a command with the privileges of any of those accounts
> (not just the root account).
> 
>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
> system, but at least the command-line version does.)

And there's even something called "PolicyKit" that lets you elevate enough 
privileges to execute one particular operation, instead of getting full-
blown root access.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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.)
> 
> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
> with screens on each key.
> 
> And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
> being produced and sold already.
> 
They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards 
don't they? Seriously, how the frack hard would it be to, at minimum, 
develop a computer DB and semi-smart AI that could catch even 50% of 
this stuff, freeing up people to look at the 50% it didn't?

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
> different groups which have different access privileges, 

You mean like file permissions and such? Sure, that makes sense.

>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
> system, but at least the command-line version does.)

I've never seen a UNIX system that would say "you can't delete that file, 
but do you know the password to any of these accounts that are in the same 
group as that file? If so, type it in." :-) That would be user friendly, and 
UNIX doesn't like user friendly. ;-)

Actually, it's more like a leak of security information you probably 
shouldn't be leaking. That's a joke.

>> Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.
> 
>   Wouldn't be the first time that patent infringement has been claimed on
> someone infringing only a part of the patent.

Well, sure. There are infringement claims on things you're not infringing at 
all. The question is whether you *win* the case, in which case the answer is 
"no".  Not that you don't have to fight the case, but it's hard to imagine a 
patent system where infringement is obvious on its face.  The ruling being 
discussed by the Supreme Court would go a long way towards helping.

-- 
   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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards 
> don't they? Seriously, how the frack hard would it be to, at minimum, 
> develop a computer DB and semi-smart AI that could catch even 50% of 
> this stuff, freeing up people to look at the 50% it didn't?

What makes you think they don't?  Do you actually understand what the rules 
are on what is "obvious"?  Hint: It doesn't mean "Gee, I could have thought 
of that."

It's like all the people complaining about the patent on PB&J sandwiches, 
without actually reading any claims.

-- 
   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

On 11/17/09 17:02, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez<nic### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only
>> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard
>> with screens on each key.
>
>    I find the whole "patent pending" thing just ridiculous. Here if you
> publish something before patenting it, you don't get the patent, period.
> Simple and effective.

	Are patents granted quickly where you are?

	I don't really know the details or the legal significance, but over 
here, I view "patent pending" as a courtesy notice to all others that if 
you happened to get the same bright idea after I've submitted the patent 
papers, then be warned that you shouldn't try to base your business off 
of it because you'll be forced to stop in a few years when I get the patent.

	Patent pending need not be simply for those who've published stuff. 
It's for those who've applied for a patent and want to start creating 
the product - why wait till the patent has been granted?


-- 
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.

Post a reply to this message