Pshaw... with our patent office? Hell, if it says "Microsoft" on the application the monkey with the "Approved" stamp will happily apply the ink to the paper. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote:
On 20 Dec 2001, at 9:20, Michael Motyka wrote:
My thought is that it is not novel in any way save that it witholds root access from the owner of the machine.
I think it does a little more than that. "Deny the luser owner root access" is sufficient to explain how the luser is prevented from copying or modifying the trusted content, but it doesn't explain how "trusted" apps can access the data. In essence, deny the luser root access + all programs signed by microsoft automatically run as root. Neither piece alone would be innovative enough to be patentable, but maybe the combo is.
George