Microsoft patents "sudo"

[D-cat]

I just can't imagine what the honchos at Microsoft must be thinking. Patent sudo? Why would they even bother? Surely they can see that the downside to this exceeds the benefits.

As another commenter on Groklaw posted, it prevents them from being sued for things like UAC. Therefore, it's as much defensive preemption as it is offensive. MS does not have a rich history of suing people over "similar to MS patents", only direct infringements... not that they haven't been accused of mob-like tactics to extort money over asinine patent claims before anything ever reaches court.

Since this is a patent that on the face looks like gksu, and they include a little clause that does not limit this patent to the described "implementation," then we are faced with more confirmation that Microsoft is trying to make it's own operating systems the only ones you can legally use on any computer (hell, they already made it technically illegal to use a non-Microsoft keyboard... unless you pry off the PgUp/Dn keys); this has the potential to affect Macintosh as well. We should all pay attention.

[fguy64]

As another commenter on Groklaw posted, it prevents them from being sued for things like UAC. Therefore, it's as much defensive preemption as it is offensive. MS does not have a rich history of suing people over "similar to MS patents", only direct infringements... not that they haven't been accused of mob-like tactics to extort money over asinine patent claims before anything ever reaches court.

Since this is a patent that on the face looks like gksu, and they include a little clause that does not limit this patent to the described "implementation," then we are faced with more confirmation that Microsoft is trying to make it's own operating systems the only ones you can legally use on any computer (hell, they already made it technically illegal to use a non-Microsoft keyboard... unless you pry off the PgUp/Dn keys); this has the potential to affect Macintosh as well. We should all pay attention.

Fair enough, I see your point. I still think Microsoft has more to lose in terms of good will and legal headaches than they have to gain. Unless you think that this really has the potential to give a serious kick in the head to Linux. I guess I don't really know enough about sudo to answer that question.

[D-cat]

It has the potential to give a serious kick to any operating system that uses a tool to run a command as a different user.

The fact that they describe in scrutinizing detail how their method works is countered by the finishing paragraph which calls the whole thing a "preferred implementation" only and the patent is not limited to their description; thus it can be interpreted to cover the whole concept.

This could force a user of any other operating system to have to log in as another user (including root) to execute a command meant only for that user. While it derails the Ubuntu concept, it wouldn't really stop Desktop Linux in its tracks. It would mess up the likes of basic privilege control systems in Macintosh and make large server management in any *nix system more difficult by having to restructure users and command/group privileges.

[minthaka]

Thanks to Lord that America didn't manage yet to rule the Earth. Sudo may be patented in the States, but there are 501 000 000 square kilometers of free lands left for u, Linians. Bill Gates and his masonic maffia cannot stop us.

[D-cat]

United States of America strictly speaking. I wonder how other American nations (Canada, Mexico, all South America...) feel about hearing negative remarks meant for the US being simply directed to "America."

The biggest mistake made in the US was first giving corporations "personability," then passing the 13th amendment in all inclusive terms. The unintended effect was that corporations, who were/are legally recognized as persons, could no longer be restricted by the definition of their corporate charter; they were now free entities that could do what ever the heck they wanted in the interest of making a profit (which is still the legally required directive). It removed a major check to balance corporate power.

Then, we went ahead and signed on GATT and NAFTA, which extended this horror across the ocean. I'll summarize since it is not worded like this in the actual text; the basic idea is that any international corporation operating within the NAFTA/GATT soil has the right to make a profit... not pursue a profit, the right to make a profit. An international corporation that makes any excuse to show red can come up with unimaginable horrors LEGALLY in order to extort money from individuals until their books show black again.

Ohh, (a bit OT) the RIAA and MPAA love this one (and since least doesn't mean most, I'm sure just about anyone with a copyright or patent can use it):

NAFTA Article 1715:
4. With respect to the authority referred to in subparagraph 2(d), a Party may, at least with respect to copyrighted works and sound recordings, authorize the judicial authorities to order recovery of profits or payment of pre-established damages, or both, even where the infringer did not know or had no reasonable grounds to know that it was engaged in an infringing activity.

The US government over history has made some real stupid decisions that affect people the world over. I'd like to say that this unfairly categorizes the popular opinion of the people of the US... but then there's the 2004 election....

Now I'm getting too political, so I'll cut this here. I agree with you that it is good in general to have countries not interacting with the US legal system.

[nujinini]

I do not understand the legal implications of this for us SUDO users.

I just can't seem to understand when microsotians would just be contented with all the money they are making and just leave us linuxians alone.

drat

[jmadero]

what I don't get is....can't it be changed "relatively" easy.....let's say...."suda" or "sado" or "sadasticistc" <-- just kidding, but seriously, if they do get it (which I bet they will knowing the US system), is it that difficult to change it (I agree we shouldn't have to, and the initial changes will probably be hard but....in the end....is it doable)?

Also, is this a sign that Conical (Ubuntu) is growing in market share? Is this just MS trying to stomp out competition?

[D-cat]

What do you mean IF they get it? This was proposed months ago and riled feathers then... they HAVE the patent now as of November 10th.

United States Patent: 7617530

Edit:
The patent isn't so much on the name as it is on the concept:
Rights elevator

Abstract

Systems and/or methods are described that enable a user to elevate his or her rights. ...

Undoing this may be a simple process yet slow and costly procedure; will require good lawyers and deep pockets, with no guarantees.

[Bemk]

I feel blessed to live in Europe where software patents are vitrually non existent, but where the hardware interface is the pain in the neck (in the software form, meaning I can patent an API for a device I just created and patent it, so others can't distribute my API).

I think there should be a US version of Linux distro's which are US patents safe, and a rest-of-the-world version, where the rest of the world isn't affected by those bloody patents.

I think people are getting too greedy and regulations as in place in Europe are better for the economy by giving the legally weak players on the market, such as open source developers, a chance too, while other corporations may grow out to be big players.

[reed9]

The biggest mistake made in the US was first giving corporations "personability," then passing the 13th amendment in all inclusive terms.

Just a little fact checking. The 13th amendment abolishes slavery. Corporate personhood is asserted under the 14th amendment. The argument goes that the word "person" as used in the 14th amendment is not limited to natural persons, but also applies to artificial persons, ie, corporations.

This stems from an 1886 Supreme Court case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, regarding whether the state could tax the railroad company differently than they taxed people. (Specifically whether they could deduct their debts from taxable property, which people had the right to do.) The presiding judge before arguments were heard asserted

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

This statement is not part of the official ruling on the case, nor were arguments heard regarding it, but the court clerk (himself a former railroad employee) recorded this and it has been de facto law of the land since.