Microsoft patents "sudo"

[jmadero]

I don't see your statement as reasonable unfortunately because if each of us is left with the ability to judge if laws are reasonable or not you get people pirating 1000 movies a month and saying "well they make too much money anyways", I don't respect that practice at all. But I can agree that it's unlikely that this law will change our community and it's likely that we'll continue using what we've used for years, a hierarchical sudo type system which allows regular users to become admin users...I don't see a lawsuit happening out of it

[jmadero]

Did Microsoft Patent Sudo? Doesn't Look Like It - Reviews by PC Magazine

[reed9]

There are so many insane laws being passed that I have very little respect for most laws anymore. Patent and copyright laws are some of the ones that seem to be written for the benefit of corporations only, so my personal opinion is that corrupt laws should be ignored.

Patent and copyright law both have their place. But the current system is ripe for abuse. However, strong copyright law is what allows the GPL and other free software licenses to work.

Patents...I'm ambiguous about. I'm not sure current patent law in any way encourages innovation, or if it does, if that benefit is outweighed by the harm. Or indeed whether patents should exist at all. Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to patents at one point in his life, though moderated his stance with time. But always believed patents had to be very carefully regulated to avoid abuses.

Whether or not patents have a place in the world, though, there are things that simply shouldn't be eligible and software is one of them.

Groklaw has a very good article explaining why software should not be patentable. Fascinating read.

[Rubberman]

Did Microsoft Patent Sudo? Doesn't Look Like It - Reviews by PC Magazine

Having just read the article in PC World, all I have to say is WHAT A BUNCH OF DREN! They seem to think that because the MS patent talks about using a GUI that it isn't the same as sudo. BS to that, I say! Just because a GUI element is involved does NOT make it non-obvious to anyone with normal skills in the domain. As a software engineer with over 25 years in the field, and having gone through the patent process for what were much more worthy (IMO) innovations, this is "patently" obvious stuff and not suitable for such legal protections. Just MHO, but then I am only considered an "expert" in the field, and have been hired to consult on other software patents - what do I know?

[Bemk]

Having just read the article in PC World, all I have to say is WHAT A BUNCH OF DREN! They seem to think that because the MS patent talks about using a GUI that it isn't the same as sudo. BS to that, I say! Just because a GUI element is involved does NOT make it non-obvious to anyone with normal skills in the domain. As a software engineer with over 25 years in the field, and having gone through the patent process for what were much more worthy (IMO) innovations, this is "patently" obvious stuff and not suitable for such legal protections. Just MHO, but then I am only considered an "expert" in the field, and have been hired to consult on other software patents - what do I know?

I would call it a graphical sudo, which also has been invented, gksu ...

[D-cat]

I would call it a graphical sudo, which also has been invented, gksu ...

...which when invoked by itself presents you with a gui asking you what command to run, and a pull down offering what user to run it as... so no MS innovation there either.

[darkrose0510]

Having just read the article in PC World, all I have to say is WHAT A BUNCH OF DREN! They seem to think that because the MS patent talks about using a GUI that it isn't the same as sudo. BS to that, I say! Just because a GUI element is involved does NOT make it non-obvious to anyone with normal skills in the domain. As a software engineer with over 25 years in the field, and having gone through the patent process for what were much more worthy (IMO) innovations, this is "patently" obvious stuff and not suitable for such legal protections. Just MHO, but then I am only considered an "expert" in the field, and have been hired to consult on other software patents - what do I know?

Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological steps, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or steps described. Rather, the specific features and steps are disclosed as preferred forms of implementing the claimed invention.

They're trying to cover all bases too.

[elija]

I made the mistake of removing my tin foil hat.

This will so obviously fail the "prior art" test that I am now scouring the inter tubes looking for what else Microsoft has done while the entire open source world is distrated by this one.

If it passes the "prior art" test, I'm going to patent the concept of computer Windows.

[Kieren]

I'm going to patent the concept of computer Windows.

I think either Apple or Microsoft already have that one but I can't remember which one

[Rubberman]

I think I'll apply for a patent for a device and means of displaying abstract information in a human-understandable format using computational components to aggregate and render the information to such a device. Then I'll demand royalties from all the computer system and display manufacturers that currently exist. Let's see, at a $1 USD per "computer" or "display" device, I think I could afford the very lavish lifestyle to which I would like to become accostomed...