kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) (10/03/89)
I frequently read that UNIX's set-UID bit was one of the first software patents. What protection is claimed/provided under this patent? Operating systems such as MINIX (functionally equivalent to SYS 7, but not containing ONE line of actual AT&T code) provide the set-UID feature. Are they violating the patent? Should someone (Prentice-Hall in the case of MINIX) be paying a patent fee for distributing the operating system which uses this patented concept? If not, why not? -- Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc (404) 239-2347 gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (10/04/89)
In article <1144@msa3b.UUCP> kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >I frequently read that UNIX's set-UID bit was one of the first software >patents... Should someone (Prentice-Hall in the >case of MINIX) be paying a patent fee for distributing the operating system >which uses this patented concept? If not, why not? Some years ago, AT&T "dedicated" (I think that's the right buzzword) the patent, meaning that it is available for use by all without royalties. Before that, Unix-workalike vendors did indeed have to either negotiate a licence and pay fees, or use something different. -- Nature is blind; Man is merely | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology shortsighted (and improving). | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (10/04/89)
In article <1144@msa3b.UUCP> kevin@msa3b.UUCP (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: >I frequently read that UNIX's set-UID bit was one of the first software >patents. Not exactly; a hardware implementation was described since it wasn't clear that a software invention would be patentable. >Are they violating the patent? Nobody is violating the patent rights, because the patent was dedicated to the public many years ago.