Slashdot Mirror
Browser Cookie Patent
resistant writes "Here's more patent madness, this time on cookies used in browsers. (By now, even Forbes has a commendable attitude about this rampant greed)." This is actually a pretty interesting article for folks not so familiar with why patents are such a big deal in this day and age.
And I patent it!
I think Nabisco has prior art on this one.
Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
whoever does it, will make lot of money.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
What next? Pies, pasteries, fudge brownies? Where will this madness stop?
I'm going to patten the act of sex. I will be rich beyond all dreams. I will only collect on the act of sex at the birth of a child, but I will charge retroactivlly for all "pratice acts"
Better idea: Patent spam. :)
I claim this patent in the name of MARS!
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
Sesame Street's Cookie Monster was unavailable for comment.
Why didn't ID software patent the 1st person shooter? It would've saved humanity from loads of crappy doom-clones.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law
You know, I don't think Keebler's and Nabisco should be forced into licensing cookie technology. There's gotta be some prior art here somewhere!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I recall a Goon Show where the word 'Help' was copyrighted by Grytpype-Thynne who made a killing by pushing Moriarty (?) into the water and charging him royalties every time he Help!
Nothing changes :-(
If someone patented popups, and enforced it, then I'll be cheering :)
Prior Art
it used to be that you had to present a working model of an invention to the PTO before being granted a patent. This had the effect of both crystalizing the definition of the claims and restricting these to those specifically demonstrated w/ the implementation. Patent drawings have a similar effect though they allow for a more liberal interpretation of the implementation.
IF these hucksters had to actually show the PTO examiner the implementation of their claims alot of these patents would be either thrown out for obviousness or prior art , or forced to drastically restrict their claims.
examiner : this looks like a hyperlink ?!?
huckster : no it's a user joy eliciting interaction actuator.
examiner : wha ?
huckster : our claim is on all interactions that make people happy , or result in greater happiness.
examiner : so if I click this link and it leads to a picture of a cute baby and that makes my smile , you want to own that interaction ?
huckster : right , that baby would be infinging on our patent.
examiner : ok then here's your patent for hyperlinking to pictures of smiling babies that make me happy. Good Day