The holder of the '717 patent has sued Microsoft, Symantec, CA, F-Secure, McAfee, Kaspersky, Sophos, Novell, and PC Tools for infringing this patent.

WHAT'S NEEDED: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Prior Art

PRIOR ART AND COMMENTS

May 19th, 2009

Prior art consists of documentary evidence related to the claimed invention which evidence existed at least a year prior to the priority date of the application. Below are listed four basic types of prior art that you may post. It is also helpful to identify individuals who are knowledgeable on the subject matter, as they may be able to help identify further prior art. Finally, you can also simply add a comment, if that is your preference. Publications Published Prior to May 15, 1991 This patent application claims priority to May 15, 1992, resulting in an earliest date of invention of May 15, 1991. While it is possible that the invention did not occur until after May 15, 1991, finding relevant prior art that published before that date assures it application. Publications can include any form of printed or electronic publication that discusses one or more elements of the claim of the patent. Products On Sale, Offered for Sale or Publicly Used Prior to May 15, 1991 This patent application claims priority to May 15, 1992, resulting in an earliest date of invention of May 15, 1991. While it is possible that the invention did not occur until after May 15, 1991, finding relevant prior art before that date assures it application. Such prior art may include products embodying the invention that were sold, offered for sale, or publicly used by the patent holder, an inventor, or any third party prior to May 15, 1991. Information that this Process was Public Knowledge or Publicy used Prior to May 15, 1991 This patent application claims priority to May 15, 1992, resulting in an earliest date of invention of May 15, 1991. While it is possible that the invention did not occur until after May 15, 1991, finding relevant prior art before that date assures it application. Such prior art may include processes embodying the invention that were in the public domain or publicly used by the patent holder, an inventor, or any third party prior to May 15, 1991. Patents and Published Patent Applications Filed in the U.S. Prior to May 15, 1991 This patent application claims priority to May 15, 1992, resulting in an earliest date of invention of May 15, 1991. While it is possible that the invention did not occur until after May 15, 1991, finding relevant prior art before that date assures it application. Such prior art may include patents issued before May 15, 1991, and/or published patent applications that were filed in the U.S. prior to May 15, 1991. Knowledgeable Persons Often times one of the best means of identifying prior art is to contact persons involved with the development of this invention or persons involved with the development of inventions cited as prior art in the patent application (click on Read the Patent, find the Citations section of patents and other prior art, click on one of those items, and find the named inventor or author). Comments If you do not have prior art or a knowledgeable person to add, but you want to comment, click on the View Comments button below. You will see all of the comments posted to date, and you can add your own comment by scrolling to the bottom of the Comments and entering the information in the boxes provided.
Submit Prior Art

COMMENTS

  1. Andrew Nobody,
    So, after an admittedly cursory reading, I suspect I may be an expert. (haha on the internet, who knew)

    The key point seems to be the association of the privileges with the program, and not the target data. So I'll give a brief list of possible pointers.

    Multics (1965) had 3 security mechanisms: Rings, MAC and DAC. A segment (piece of code) was associated with a ring and code could access only things in lower numbered rings. The multics model is actually beautiful, and was later forgotten, although it totally addresses things like "156. A method in accordance with claim 120, further including storing an indication of the method of combining the authority of said associated program with the programs it calls."

    Java's ProtectionDomains postdate the patent date, I think, although the sandbox model may count (it's only boolean state) and may not. In any case, it was simply a more powerful reimplementation of the Multics model.

    A suitable expert may well make an argument based on capability systems (e.g. KeyKos, 1970, etc) although in that, and all the fundamental study of access control (e.g. Harrison, Ruzzo, Ullman) it is clearly stated that the storage of permissions with the program or the object is indistinguishable. Many of the people doing access control research in the late '70s ended up at the NSA and didn't publish again.

    Largely this seems to be a tedious exercise of going through the features of existing systems, and the claims, and playing match.

    I don't want my email address or name published, and it isn't clear whether the form publishes them.

Post a Comment