Programming A Computer Does Not Make A New Machine

Interesting argument that adding software to a machine (computer) does not create a new machine. It's a Groklaw page so there is significant discussion following.

"Most computer professionals would say the technical explanations given in Noll, Prater, Bernhart and WMS Gaming are incorrect from a computer science perspective. From the point of view of physical machine structure, no new machine is made when a computer is programmed.

"I am aware of the legal theory that a new machine is made because a new machine function is implemented. This is not the same explanation as the one found in the cases cited above but competent lawyers are telling me this explanation is legally correct. From the point of view of computer science, this explanation doesn't work any better than the other one. The technical evidence shows that programming a computer doesn't impart the computer with capabilities it doesn't already have absent the programming. "

Groklaw

Microsoft Patents Sudo? Groklaw

Groklaw reports.

Here it is, patent number7617530. Thanks, USPTO, for giving Microsoft, which is already a monopoly, a monopoly on something that's been in use since 1980 and wasn't invented by Microsoft. Here's Wikipedia's description of sudo, which you can meaningfully compare to Microsoft's description of its "invention".

Groklaw - Microsoft Patents Sudo?

The article contains a reprint of Wikipedia's summary of the history of the Unix (Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X) Sudo utility and claims that Microsoft's patent is bogus because of this prior art and that Microsoft must have known about Sudo.

NB: From 2009, but I only found it in January 2012. I've adjusted the post date appropriately.