Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Browser Cookie Patent

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the fun-never-ends dept.

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.

5 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It DOES make sense! by Occam's+Hammer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the story

    --
    (sig on loan to Smithsonian)
  2. FSC-0056 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here it is, FSC-0056 EMSI/IEMSI.

  3. Patents not adversarial like other courts... by aquarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the main differences between patent courts and the rest of the court system is that patent court is not adversarial by design. When you go for a patent, you're not under such a heavy burden to prove you're worthy of it. And it's not the government's job to prove you're not, or even to put up a challenge. Other courts are adversarial by design. Each side does whatever it can to prove they're right and the other is wrong. Out of this emerges a winner and a loser. The patent system is not like that. Instead of a right and a wrong, we're left with two maybes, and potentially some new barriers to free commerce.

  4. RTFA by PhuCknuT · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't a patent on cookies, this is a patent on load balancers detecting cookies and using them to keep a session associated with a specific server in the load ballanced pool.

  5. Not all fields benefit from patents by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Informative
    Patents are a critical part of the foundation of successful free markets. Why would anyone want to innovate if not to profit from his innovations?

    Some people forget that computing is one industry that did not always have to deal with patents as it does now. Computing was moving along perfectly well without them, so patents don't come off as necessary to spur innovation, but weapons to needlessly hobble competitors. Patents are being awarded for ridiculous and obvious ideas that stifle the development of software and hardware for all but the richest participants. The consumer does not benefit from this reduction in competition. Furthermore, your point suggests you think that if one industry has patents they all should have them. I suggest you examine the details on how patenting works in each field and you throw out such broad sweeping conclusions.

    For a far more prescient, detailed, and learned view of patents specifically talking about patenting algorithms used in the production of computer software (sometimes inaccurately called "software patents"), listen to or read RMS' talk on patents.

    --
    Digital Citizen