MS Palladium Patent 409
Concerned Citizen writes "cryptome has Microsoft's patent for Palladium. Including such gems as: 2. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein protecting the rights-managed data comprises:
refusing to load the untrusted program into memory. 14. The computerized method of claim 1, further comprising:
restricting a user to a subset of available functions for manipulating the rights-managed data.
And I'm sure we'll all be coerced to agree to Palliadium during a future security patch agreement."
Security Patches (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how 'bout apple (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft quietly sold their stock (for a profit) some time afterward.
Doesn't Java do this? (Score:2, Informative)
Follow-up to Cringely's Column (Score:5, Informative)
Most of you will remember a last week's
It's probably worth noting that Cringely responds in this week's column [pbs.org] to the reaction that followed that original panicked (and, knowing MS, probably justified) outburst.
Re:Doesn't Java do this? (Score:4, Informative)
-jhp
Palladium / TCPA FAQ (Score:4, Informative)
C'mon, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, make me proud. :)
You folks don't no sh*t about patent law (Score:2, Informative)
So while all you dorks think the scope of the invention is very broad, it's really very narrow because it further limts claim 1. The real issue is this: did claim 1 meet the requirements of patentability. For those that don't know there are two requirements - 1) is it novel and 2) is it not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To show that it fails to meet requirement 1 you have to show that the invention was published or displayed in public one year prior to the filing of the patent applications. It's very difficult to prove that it doesn't meet the second requirement because what is "obivous to one of ordinary skill in the art" can be subjective. What's obvious to programmer without a degree may not be obvious to one with a Ph.D. or visa versa.
Re:Coercion. (Score:1, Informative)
None of the AMDs have ever had it I believe.
You Moron. (Score:1, Informative)
The patented invention is not just the claim you highlighted. It's claim 1 + what you highlighted. So to be good prior art you need to find a single invention that contains all the elements in claim 1 and 14 or whatever dependent claim you're looking at.