Replies

“I just read the patent. It’s not new. “

You graduated from Stanford Law, right?

Seriously, leave patent claim analysis for professionals. Typically patents, like this one, try to capture some very detailed scenarios, not just basic scenario such as “sudo”. The claim 1 is long and includes many limitations that are presumed novel.

The scope of protection provided by a patent is defined by the claims, not the description of the drawings. I could file a 100-page patent application describing every aspect of a 1960 Ford Mustang and include 2 pages describing a new invention (lets say a cruise control that automatically adjusts its speed based on neighboring cars). If my claims all describe a car with this type of cruise control, I can get a patent even though most of the patent describes a known car.

Here, claim 1 says:

1. One or more computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions therein that, when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to present a user interface in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task, the user interface comprising: information indicating the task and an entity that attempted the task; a selectable help graphic wherein responsive to receiving selection of the selectable help graphic, the computer-readable instructions further cause the computing device to present the information; identifiers, each of the identifiers identifying other accounts having a right to permit the task, wherein the identifiers presented are based on criteria comprising: frequency of use; association with the user; and indication of sufficient but not unlimited rights; one of the identifiers identifies a higher-rights account having a right to permit the task, wherein the one of the identifiers comprises: a graphic identifying the higher-rights accounts associated with the user; and a name of the higher-rights account; an authenticator region capable of receiving, from the user, an authenticator usable to authenticate the higher-rights account having the right to permit the task, wherein: the authenticator comprises a password, and the authenticator region comprises a data-entry field configured to receive the password.

To invalidate this claim, you would need to show that every single part of this claim was known or suggested by what's been done before.

Typically patents, like this one, try to capture some very detailed scenarios, not just basic scenario such as “sudo”. The claim 1 is long and includes many limitations that are presumed novel.

I have to agree. This isn't the first time Microsoft has been awarded a patent that people fly off the handle and yell "They're patenting sudo! They're patenting sudo!", when in fact, they are not.