Ralph Wallis <mischief@optushome.com.au> wrote :
On Wednesday, 19 Dec 2001 at 00:38, Graham Lally <scribe@exmosis.net> wrote:
Ralph Wallis wrote:
On Monday, 17 Dec 2001 at 07:58, Michael Motyka <mmotyka@lsil.com> wrote:
Could someone who knows more than I do explain to me why this MS "IP" is anything other than making the owner of a PC unable to have root access to their own hardware/OS? If so it seems to be an idea unworthy of protection from lawyers and men with guns.
A more correct analogy is with speed limiters on cars.
On your own roads. And the car maker tells you where you can go to. And which route you have to take. And where you can end up. And then forces you to pay for a map.
If the patent hasn't been picked up by the courts yet, then why not? *If* the SSSCA were to come into effect (and I have heard little about it for several months now... biding its time?), then surely all other
OSes (subject to legal boundaries) would be prevented by the patent from implementing the requirements in the bill?
...and to appease the pedanty, it's hard to have a /more/ correct analogy when there was no analogy in the first place. There, got it out of my system...
pedanty isn't a word, and the original poster mentioned "denying root access", which is an analogy.
I have no idea why speed limiters on cars is even close to being a relevant analogy. I had a more simple and direct analogy in mind - it seems to me that what Microsoft is trying to do is what many of us put up with at work everyday - I use SPARC workstations to which I do not have root access. I run programs that I cannot modify and those programs can use data areas and drivers that I cannot access directly. This is fine at work - the company owns the computers, besides the sysadmins are actually really helpful. Having an external agent build fencees inside my own home is an entirely different matter. One worth a fight to the death.
Your understanding of patent law is flawed.
Since it seems that the possibility to accomplish what Microsoft has patented has existed for years prior to their disclosure isn't their patent a bit weak? Maybe it's more of a formality, a prelude to an OS dictatorship. After all, the 1st says nothing about the government making any laws regarding an establishment of an OS. Time to form a church of the homegrown OS. As of even date I consider Windows in all forms to be spy/subpoena-ware and I don't even trust Redhat anymore. Is it even safe to compile a TCP/IP stack without first obfuscating it? BTW - what is pedanty? Peasantry? Pedantry? I'm voting for 'peasantry' as the proper choice but yes, there was an analogy at the root of the original post. Mike
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Michael Motyka wrote:
dictatorship. After all, the 1st says nothing about the government making any laws regarding an establishment of an OS. Time to form a
The 9th & 10th do however... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
They do? Where? That's funny, I didn't think the dudes who wrote the Bill o'Rights knew anything about operating systems, much less computers. Wow! So were they time travelers? Or did they have crystal balls? (Huh huh, huh huh, he said 'balls'! Yeah, yeah, that was cool!) So in our universe/dimension/etc, our bill of rights says this for it's 9th and 10th ammendments... What do they say inChote'? Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Michael Motyka wrote:
dictatorship. After all, the 1st says nothing about the government making any laws regarding an establishment of an OS. Time to form a
The 9th & 10th do however...
Michael Motyka wrote:
Since it seems that the possibility to accomplish what Microsoft has patented has existed for years prior to their disclosure isn't their patent a bit weak?
While I must admit that the implementation of such an idea is intriguing from a purely technical point of view (and has probably been much discussed in various circles), the transition to patenting it with an eye to produce a working product makes its threat to consumer choice all the more real. This is the next, logical step following application/hardware-specific DRM that we are seeing now. After that, it's a small jump to global AOLness - an OS that will only accept content from specific sources, rather than a source that will only play on a specific OS... The patent was filed Jan 8th 1999, so they've obviously been keeping it in consideration for a while before that, I would assume. It also proves that MS haven't just filed this in light of the recent paranoia or the increasing tension amongst the music industry over the past year or so - according to the kids' FAQ at the USPTO it does take about 22 months to get a patent, so this would have happened in spite of the fearful state of the current music and film industries. This probably means MS have code written for it, a database set-up waiting for the INSERTs to come flooding in, a launch party planned and years of security patches waiting...
BTW - what is pedanty? Peasantry? Pedantry?
Definition in a previous mail, but it's an assembly of pedants... There's probably an amusing collective noun for it too :) .g -- "Sometimes I use google instead of pants."
My thought is that it is not novel in any way save that it witholds root access from the owner of the machine. Graham Lally wrote:
Michael Motyka wrote:
Since it seems that the possibility to accomplish what Microsoft has patented has existed for years prior to their disclosure isn't their patent a bit weak?
While I must admit that the implementation of such an idea is intriguing from a purely technical point of view (and has probably been much discussed in various circles), the transition to patenting it with an eye to produce a working product makes its threat to consumer choice all the more real. This is the next, logical step following application/hardware-specific DRM that we are seeing now. After that, it's a small jump to global AOLness - an OS that will only accept content from specific sources, rather than a source that will only play on a specific OS...
The patent was filed Jan 8th 1999, so they've obviously been keeping it in consideration for a while before that, I would assume. It also proves that MS haven't just filed this in light of the recent paranoia or the increasing tension amongst the music industry over the past year or so - according to the kids' FAQ at the USPTO it does take about 22 months to get a patent, so this would have happened in spite of the fearful state of the current music and film industries. This probably means MS have code written for it, a database set-up waiting for the INSERTs to come flooding in, a launch party planned and years of security patches waiting...
BTW - what is pedanty? Peasantry? Pedantry?
Definition in a previous mail, but it's an assembly of pedants... There's probably an amusing collective noun for it too :)
.g
-- "Sometimes I use google instead of pants."
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
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
participants (5)
-
georgemw＠speakeasy.net -
Graham Lally -
Jim Choate -
Michael Motyka -
Sunder