--> From http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040406/1349225.shtml
Microsoft Patents Saving The Name Of A Game
Contributed by Mike on Tuesday, April 6th, 2004 @ 01:49PM
from the yeah,-that's-non-obvious dept.
theodp writes "As if there weren't enough dodgy patents, here's an
excerpt from one granted to Microsoft Tuesday for a 'Method and
apparatus for displaying information regarding stored data in a gaming
system': 'When saving a game, the saved game data may include a
descriptive name of the saved game, a graphic representation of the
state of the game when the game was saved, a description of the game
state when the game was saved, and a date and time that the game was
saved.'" I'm trying to figure out if there's more to this patent, but
the more I read, the worse it seems. How is this possibly
"non-obvious"?
--> Link to Patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,716,102
--> Link to Patent File History (Shows Two Earlier Rejections) http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/...mber=6,716,102
Jul 20 '05
138  6613 
Mike <mi**@nospam.co m> writes: Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be.
Why limit Claim 1 to covering only half the computer systems in
existence? Wouldn't it be better if Claim 1 covered all computer
systems?
--
Rahul
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> writes: Barry Margolin wrote:
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
--
Rahul
Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> writes: Barry Margolin wrote:
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
--
Rahul
In article <c5**********@b lue.rahul.net>, c.*******@Micro softX.usenet.us .com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to
take special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the
patent's scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
In article <c5**********@b lue.rahul.net>, c.*******@Micro softX.usenet.us .com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: Bruce Hayden <no************ @ieee.org> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
I don't think Windows or Unix can easily implement a mechanism where a
normal user can create a file that can only be accessed when running a
specific game. I suppose on Unix you could do it by making each game
setuid or setgid to an game-specific user/group, but there wouldn't be
anything preventing the administrator from assigning the same user/group
ID to multiple games.
And if you have the professional version of Windows, such
as Windows 2000 that I am running here, you can do something
very similar. You could set up different groups for different
games, and restrict both execution of a given game and storage
into a specified subdirectory to a given group.
But technically speaking, I would suggest that this does differ
from restricting access to specific programs.
BSD UNIX games in the eighties usually ran setuid to the user 'games',
and saved their data in a private directory owned by the 'games' user,
so the person playing the game could not directly tamper with saved game
scores. The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
I'm not sure why Microsoft considers this an important feature of the
invention. Even if one game can access the saved game files of another,
they're not likely to make sense to it. It hardly seems necessary to
take special steps to prevent the access. Maybe this narrowing of the
patent's scope was necessary for them to get the patent approved.
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
In article <c5**********@b lue.rahul.net>, c.*******@Micro softX.usenet.us .com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: Mike <mi**@nospam.co m> writes:
Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be.
Why limit Claim 1 to covering only half the computer systems in
existence? Wouldn't it be better if Claim 1 covered all computer
systems?
Perhaps they weren't able to get the patent approved with such a broad
claim.
Although it doesn't seem to have a precise enough definition to satisfy
the folks in this thread, maybe the patent examiner took the phrase
"game console" more literally, to refer to a dedicated game-running
device rather than a general-purpose computer. If that's not the
intent, what's the point of saying "A game console, comprising..."
rather than "A computer, comprising..."?
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
In article <c5**********@b lue.rahul.net>, c.*******@Micro softX.usenet.us .com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote: Mike <mi**@nospam.co m> writes:
Rahul, reading a patent is more difficult than that. Claim 1 is an
independent claim; the following claims further specify the claim. Yes,
claim 1 is very general. That's the way it's supposed to be.
Why limit Claim 1 to covering only half the computer systems in
existence? Wouldn't it be better if Claim 1 covered all computer
systems?
Perhaps they weren't able to get the patent approved with such a broad
claim.
Although it doesn't seem to have a precise enough definition to satisfy
the folks in this thread, maybe the patent examiner took the phrase
"game console" more literally, to refer to a dedicated game-running
device rather than a general-purpose computer. If that's not the
intent, what's the point of saying "A game console, comprising..."
rather than "A computer, comprising..."?
--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: ...The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.
--
Rahul
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mi t.edu> writes: ...The idea of having programs save their data in a place not
accessible to the user is a very, very old one.
The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.
--
Rahul
Rahul Dhesi wrote: The patent says that one game shouldn't be able to read the files of
another game. So if all the games ran setuid to 'games', it's not the
same as the method in the patent.
The idea of different applications having their own data files, that
other applications cannot read, is quite ancient. That's one reason why
the setuid bit was invented.
First, I don't think that this concept was novel with UNIX,
but rather with at a minimum with the early timesharing
mainframes. You had to segregate access to data by user
or groups. It was clearly present with my first timesharing
system in the late 1960's. Remember, UNIX was essentially
a port of MULTICS from a mainframe to a minicomputer.
But there is a subtle distinction here that may have some
relevance. In those systems (including UNIX), access control
is/was by user or group of users. As noted, this is essential
for effective multiuser or timesharing systems. But in the
MSFT system, access control can be by application. It was not
clear from the patent why that was that overly useful, but there
it was, logically somewhat orthogonal to the typical practice.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona bh*****@copatla w.com This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
