Katie MarsalTexas-based Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT), the owner of the patents, and Florida-based Global Innovation Technology Holdings (GITH), their exclusive licensee, jointly filed the 12-page formal complaint last Thursday in a south Florida district court.
At issue is US patent No. 5,311,591, titled "Computer system security method and apparatus for creating and using program authorization information data structures," filed in 1992 and granted two years later, and US patent No. 5,412,717, its continuation granted in 1995.
Both filings detail an operating system design that includes a system monitor which limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources such as data files and disk writing capabilities. The system monitor builds a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to or precluded from doing.
Once defined, these sets of restrictions called program authorization information (or "PAIs"), are associated with each program to be executed to thereby delineate the types of resources and functions that the program is allowed to utilize. The PAI associated with a particular program may be assigned by a computer system owner/user or by someone who the computer system owner/user implicitly trusts.
"The program is permitted to access what has been authorized and nothing else. In this fashion, the program may be regarded as being placed in a program capability limiting 'safety box,'" the filings state. "This 'safety box' is thereafter associated with the program such that whenever the system monitor runs the program, the PAI for that program is likewise loaded and monitored. [...] If the program attempts to do anything outside the authorized limits, then the program execution is halted."
In its suit Thursday, IPAT and GITH broadly allege that Apple "has infringed or continues to infringe on one or more of the claims" of the two patents "by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling [...] hardware and/or software for protecting and/or authenticating information."
"Upon information and belief, Apple has also contributed to the infringement of one or more claims" of the two patents "and/or actively induced others to infringe on one or more claims" of the two filings, the complaint adds.
The two firms repeat the accusations, in whole or in part, against 11 other PC makers, including Acer, Alienware, American Future Technology, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Lenovo, Motion Computing, and Panasonic.
They're seeking a trial by jury and asking the court to award an injunction, damages, and attorneys fees.
The latest suit arrives on the heels of a complaint lodged earlier this month by IPAT and GITH that made similar accusations against a group of software makers regarding the same patents. Named in that suit were Microsoft, Symantec, F-Secure, Novell, AVG Technologies and PC Tools.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
39 Comments
Why doesn't Apple just have an office, where folks can go in, and ask for a bunch of money, and avoid all of these lawsuits.
A person or company goes in, sits down, and explains their case, and asks for X number of dollars. Apple could fund this with the Cash they have on-hand and this would free up Apple and our courts for more trying issues.
Skip
PS Of course this WILL be a revolving door …
And in other news:
DaveGee has announced a lawsuit against every bar and hotel franchise as well as beverage companies of all kinds, for the blatant disregard of his patent that covers the use of transparent, semi-transparent and opaque cylindrical containers for the express use of containment, transportation, distribution and or consumption of liquids.
Major companies named include, Coke, Pepsi , Anheuser Bush & Coors.
So what is this referring to?
Unix permissions? These are way older than this patent.
Access Control Lists? Again these aren't anything new.
Something else?
Just sounds like another overly generic software/system/concept patent. Like patenting the concept of an "engine" rather than a specific implementation. Ideas and concepts are worthless unless you can make something of it, something patentable.
This reminds me of the Onion article about Microsoft patenting zeros and ones.
It will knock the computing world arse over teakettle if Microsoft ever decided to sue the rest of the industry for using their zeros and ones. Apple avoided some heat by calling their operating system "OS X" instead of "OS 10", and Adobe avoided some entanglements by jumping to the "CS" train instead of going with Adobe Photoshop 10, etc.
Get ready for Base 8 programing.