<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390</a><div><br></div><div>Lordy, lordy, lordy. They have no shame. It appears that Microsoft has just patented sudo, a personalized version of it. <p> Here it is, <a href="http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,617,530.PN.&OS=PN/7,617,530&RS=PN/7,617,530">patent number7617530</a>.
Thanks, USPTO, for giving Microsoft, which is already a monopoly, a
monopoly on something that's been in use since 1980 and wasn't invented
by Microsoft. Here's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo">Wikipedia's description of sudo</a>, which you can meaningfully compare to Microsoft's description of its "invention".
</p><p> This is why what the US Supreme Court does about software
patents means so much. Hopefully they will address the topic in their
decision on <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091109191422928">Bilski</a>.
Sudo is an integral part of the functioning of GNU/Linux systems, and
you use it in Mac OSX also. Maybe the Supreme Court doesn't know that,
and maybe the USPTO didn't realize it. But do you believe Microsoft
knows it? </p><p> Perhaps Microsoft would like everyone in the world
to pay them a toll at least, even if they don't want to use Microsoft's
software? Like SCO, but with more muscle behind the request? Or maybe
it might be used as a barrier to competition? What do you personally
believe Microsoft wants patents on things like sudo for? To make sure
innovative new companies can compete on an even playing field with
Microsoft?<br><br> And how do you like the final wording of the patent?:</p><blockquote>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. </blockquote> Please don't ever again write to me that
software patents are good for us because they include full disclosure,
so others can build on the "invention".</div><div><br></div><div>Read the rest of the article here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390</div></body></html>