Apple among PC makers sued over OS permissions tech
Apple is among a dozen systems builders being sued this month for infringing on a pair of patents that cover system-wide software permissions for defining the range of operations that computer applications may or may not perform.
Texas-based Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT), the owner of the patents, and Florida-based Global Innovation Technology Holdings (GITH), their exclusive licensee, jointly filed the 12-page formal complaint last Thursday in a south Florida district court.
At issue is US patent No. 5,311,591, titled "Computer system security method and apparatus for creating and using program authorization information data structures," filed in 1992 and granted two years later, and US patent No. 5,412,717, its continuation granted in 1995.
Both filings detail an operating system design that includes a system monitor which limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources such as data files and disk writing capabilities. The system monitor builds a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to or precluded from doing.
Once defined, these sets of restrictions called program authorization information (or "PAIs"), are associated with each program to be executed to thereby delineate the types of resources and functions that the program is allowed to utilize. The PAI associated with a particular program may be assigned by a computer system owner/user or by someone who the computer system owner/user implicitly trusts.
"The program is permitted to access what has been authorized and nothing else. In this fashion, the program may be regarded as being placed in a program capability limiting 'safety box,'" the filings state. "This 'safety box' is thereafter associated with the program such that whenever the system monitor runs the program, the PAI for that program is likewise loaded and monitored. [...] If the program attempts to do anything outside the authorized limits, then the program execution is halted."
In its suit Thursday, IPAT and GITH broadly allege that Apple "has infringed or continues to infringe on one or more of the claims" of the two patents "by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling [...] hardware and/or software for protecting and/or authenticating information."
"Upon information and belief, Apple has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims" of the two patents "and/or actively induced others to infringe on one or more claims" of the two filings, the complaint adds.
The two firms repeat the accusations, in whole or in part, against 11 other PC makers, including Acer, Alienware, American Future Technology, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Motion Computing, and Panasonic.
They're seeking a trial by jury and asking the court to award an injunction, damages, and attorneys fees.
The latest suit arrives on the heels of a complaint lodged earlier this month by IPAT and GITH that made similar accusations against a group of software makers regarding the same patents. Named in that suit were Microsoft, Symantec, F-Secure, Novell, AVG Technologies and PC Tools.
Texas-based Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT), the owner of the patents, and Florida-based Global Innovation Technology Holdings (GITH), their exclusive licensee, jointly filed the 12-page formal complaint last Thursday in a south Florida district court.
At issue is US patent No. 5,311,591, titled "Computer system security method and apparatus for creating and using program authorization information data structures," filed in 1992 and granted two years later, and US patent No. 5,412,717, its continuation granted in 1995.
Both filings detail an operating system design that includes a system monitor which limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources such as data files and disk writing capabilities. The system monitor builds a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to or precluded from doing.
Once defined, these sets of restrictions called program authorization information (or "PAIs"), are associated with each program to be executed to thereby delineate the types of resources and functions that the program is allowed to utilize. The PAI associated with a particular program may be assigned by a computer system owner/user or by someone who the computer system owner/user implicitly trusts.
"The program is permitted to access what has been authorized and nothing else. In this fashion, the program may be regarded as being placed in a program capability limiting 'safety box,'" the filings state. "This 'safety box' is thereafter associated with the program such that whenever the system monitor runs the program, the PAI for that program is likewise loaded and monitored. [...] If the program attempts to do anything outside the authorized limits, then the program execution is halted."
In its suit Thursday, IPAT and GITH broadly allege that Apple "has infringed or continues to infringe on one or more of the claims" of the two patents "by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling [...] hardware and/or software for protecting and/or authenticating information."
"Upon information and belief, Apple has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims" of the two patents "and/or actively induced others to infringe on one or more claims" of the two filings, the complaint adds.
The two firms repeat the accusations, in whole or in part, against 11 other PC makers, including Acer, Alienware, American Future Technology, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Motion Computing, and Panasonic.
They're seeking a trial by jury and asking the court to award an injunction, damages, and attorneys fees.
The latest suit arrives on the heels of a complaint lodged earlier this month by IPAT and GITH that made similar accusations against a group of software makers regarding the same patents. Named in that suit were Microsoft, Symantec, F-Secure, Novell, AVG Technologies and PC Tools.
Comments
A person or company goes in, sits down, and explains their case, and asks for X number of dollars. Apple could fund this with the Cash they have on-hand and this would free up Apple and our courts for more trying issues.
Skip
PS Of course this WILL be a revolving door …
DaveGee has announced a lawsuit against every bar and hotel franchise as well as beverage companies of all kinds, for the blatant disregard of his patent that covers the use of transparent, semi-transparent and opaque cylindrical containers for the express use of containment, transportation, distribution and or consumption of liquids.
Major companies named include, Coke, Pepsi , Anheuser Bush & Coors.
Unix permissions? These are way older than this patent.
Access Control Lists? Again these aren't anything new.
Something else?
Just sounds like another overly generic software/system/concept patent. Like patenting the concept of an "engine" rather than a specific implementation. Ideas and concepts are worthless unless you can make something of it, something patentable.
It will knock the computing world arse over teakettle if Microsoft ever decided to sue the rest of the industry for using their zeros and ones. Apple avoided some heat by calling their operating system "OS X" instead of "OS 10", and Adobe avoided some entanglements by jumping to the "CS" train instead of going with Adobe Photoshop 10, etc.
Get ready for Base 8 programing.
Apple is among a dozen systems builders being sued this month for infringing on a pair of patents that cover system-wide software permissions for defining the range of operations that computer applications may or may not perform.
I'm no patent lawyer, but this sounds like another case of "I patented something vague,
and now I'm looking to cash in."
The US Patent System is clearly broken.
When will a lawsuit surface that claims someone patented "a method for processing
ones and zeroes", and they want to sue every software and hardware maker that
has ever existed?
Why doesn't Apple just have an office, where folks can go in, and ask for a bunch of money, and avoid all of these lawsuits.
A person or company goes in, sits down, and explains their case, and asks for X number of dollars. Apple could fund this with the Cash they have on-hand and this would free up Apple and our courts for more trying issues.
Skip
PS Of course this WILL be a revolving door ?
But then how would the lawyers get paid?
So what is this referring to?
Unix permissions? These are way older than this patent.
Access Control Lists? Again these aren't anything new.
Something else?
Just sounds like another overly generic software/system/concept patent. Like patenting the concept of an "engine" rather than a specific implementation. Ideas and concepts are worthless unless you can make something of it, something patentable.
I haven't read the patent, and only skimmed the article (there's too many of these to read them all), but it sort of sounded like the technique of "sandboxing" applications to only allow them to play in their memory space.
I haven't read the patent, and only skimmed the article (there's too many of these to read them all), but it sort of sounded like the technique of "sandboxing" applications to only allow them to play in their memory space.
You can't patent an idea... only a specific implementation of that idea.
Besides, sounds like patent squatting... the "exclusive licensee" sounds like a holding company to me. I can't find any official web site for them, and the only references to them outside this story is that GITH appears on penny-stock spam.
On one side you have all the well-known computer hardware/software companies, on the other side, a couple of names we've NEVER heard about in the computer industry. Yep, sounds like couple of patent squatting companies.
And each of the two companies is from the two most corrupt states in the union, each one a veritable fountain of patent abuse and shady activity.
Just sounds like another overly generic software/system/concept patent. Like patenting the concept of an "engine" rather than a specific implementation.
agreed. I couldn't figure out how what was described was the same as Apple's system prefs at all.
and while once upon a time you could patent an idea without implementation, these days in the computer world you can't. because there are only so many ways you can achieve the same goals so HOW you do it is what is unique. And that's what they will give the patent for.
my bigger question is this. wouldn't Apple and these other companies have applied for patents themselves. and when they did wouldn't theirs be reviewed before approval to make sure there was no possibly infringement.
or at the least isn't that review what legal departments are for.
On one side you have all the well-known computer hardware/software companies, on the other side, a couple of names we've NEVER heard about in the computer industry. Yep, sounds like couple of patent squatting companies.
Exactly my thoughts when I heard about this!
________________
I haven't read the patent, and only skimmed the article (there's too many of these to read them all), but it sort of sounded like the technique of "sandboxing" applications to only allow them to play in their memory space.
But the concept of each program in a multitasking microcomputer running in its own distinct memory space, with each program's memory space invisible and untouchable by each other program, is an idea that dates back at least as far as the design of the i386 microprocessor in 1986. Certainly it was common practise in minicomputers and mainframes even before that.
wouldn't Apple and these other companies have applied for patents themselves.
For any operating system that makes use of memory protection in an i386-derived processor, it doesn't matter how you shuffle the cards, it all distills back to the same mechanism.
This patent is WAY too generic. Unix permissions have been around for over 30 years. Give me a break.
Unless they have specific code that was copyrighted and used by these companies this sounds pretty meaningless. Hopefully this company will be forced to pay any court costs and value of time lost by all of these companies attributed to what seems to be such a petty case.
Wouldn't the world be great where Lawyears could ONLY charge money if they win? How many frivilous lawsuits would never be started in the first place if that was the case?
Wouldn't the world be great if certain people forced their governments to fix broken patent systems?
Don't blame the lawyers. Well, don't only blame the lawyers. They're only acting because someone wants to cash in on a broken patent system.
Isn't this just another term for sandboxing your apps, something the OS should do anyways?
Unless they have specific code that was copyrighted and used by these companies this sounds pretty meaningless.
Ah, but if it was a case of verbatim copying of an implementation in source code, then it would be litigated as a copyright violation. This is being litigated as patent infringement.
So what is this referring to?
Unix permissions? These are way older than this patent.
Access Control Lists? Again these aren't anything new.
Something else?
Just sounds like another overly generic software/system/concept patent. Like patenting the concept of an "engine" rather than a specific implementation. Ideas and concepts are worthless unless you can make something of it, something patentable.
Reading the patent claims, it sounds more like Keychain than anything else.
1. [...] means for storing a plurality of digital authorization entries in said memory means, wherein said entries qualify operations which an associated program is permitted to perform when executed by said processing means; and
means for storing in at least one segment, digital data for associating said authorization entries with at least one program.
There are also tons of individual claims about various things that can be protected. (Bank accounts, transaction limits, etc.) It looks like a shotgun patent where they hope some number of claims will stick. Other claims seem like there's pretty obvious prior art. I'm not sure how patent applications were handled in 1992, but when my previous company filed patents on things I'd done, I had to sign a form stating that, as far as I was aware, my invention was original.
Wouldn't the world be great if certain people forced their governments to fix broken patent systems?
Don't blame the lawyers. Well, don't only blame the lawyers. They're only acting because someone wants to cash in on a broken patent system.
Yah the gov should fix this too. But I wasn't just talking about ONLY patent cases... I was talking about ALL cases. Frivolous civil lawsuits are very common... and they need to be stopped. I don't see the Gov fixing that one. You know a lawyer would think twice about picking up a case if he didn't think it could be won. Only the real cases would be brought up in court. It would save tax payers money and keep lawyers honest.