Microsoft Applies For Patent On Private Browsing

PhilDEE writes "Microsoft is in the process of applying for two patents for a private browsing mode in their next version of Internet Explorer — a feature already present in Safari, among other browsers."

Comments

First place I saw it was distrust

[AvitarX]

best firefox extension ever.

Re:First place I saw it was distrust

[Scootin159]

I believe distrust predated this option. Distrust also allows you to mark specific time periods to remove from your browsing history - allowing you to keep the good, but hide the bad.

Re:First place I saw it was distrust

[robmv]

Clear Private Data is not as secure as not saving the data on the first place, remember that files are cached, and no matter if you do use that option, someone with the knowledge can find not overwritten data of deleted files. Private browsing is the next step of security after Clear Private Data

Trademarks, not patents!

[LO0G]

They aren't patent applications, they're trademark applications. Check the source

BIG difference.

Patents==Bad and subject to prior art.
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art.

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[gEvil (beta)]

Mod parent up. MS can have "cleartracks" and "inprivate" as trademarks if they want....

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you can argue that some trademarks are stupid. You have to remember that trademarks are context sensitive, though, so even if the trademark is a common word the question is it's use in the context of the product in question. This is how "Linux" can manage to be both a kernel and a laundry detergent.

In this case, the two words "ClearTracks" and "InPrivate" are not obvious common words. In fact, there are only two other live trademarks for "ClearTrack", one applied to golf putter training rails and the other applied to software to track packages in transit. A search on UPSTO for "InPrivate" only brings back the application from Microsoft, so it apparently has never been used before.

I would say that these are good and valid trademark applications. They don't imply invention, they don't attempt to hijack common parlance and they are quite narrow in scope.

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[jellomizer]

Patents==Bad and subject to prior art.
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art.

What a wonderfully 2 dimensional view of the world you have.
Both have their good points and both can be misused for bad stuff.
Patents are so the inventor can make money on their invention for a period of time before someone can copy it. While misused to keep competition down at its worse it can be used to improve competition at its best. Eg. Say a guy invents and patents a compression algorithm that is Faster, Lossless, Tighter then all other compression algorithms. So he is making money selling licenses to use the product. Now lets say Microsoft (as most people on slashdot sees them as the bad guy) wants to get in, however they don't want to pay the licensing fee. Without patents they could just copy this guys work (which could have taken years of R&D and costs the guys life savings) and he would be penniless for his invention.

Now for trademarks they are for protecting "idenity" of the company say a Logo or a Name. A company I use to work for has the Hourglass Nebula part of their logo which is trademarked. Although they have never enforced it they could have sued Perljam as they used that Nebula for one of their covers. Or they may have gone against say some small astronomy club who used a picture of it for their logo.

So saying Patents are Bad and Trademarks are Good is a very poor view of the world. Things rairly ever go so neatly into categories. Now a more correct view would be realizing that Patents may have gone past its origional intent and needs some major reform while trademarks less so. But saying it is bad and good is a huge understatement.

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[HUADPE]

Trademarks are limited in their scope, but can be used for common words. E.g. Apple is a trademark in reference to computers, but not in reference to fruit. You cannot trademark a word for it's dictionary definition usage. For example, if I were selling printer ink, I couldn't trademark "Ink" or "Printer Ink," but I could trademark "Bob's Printer Ink."

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[Tenrosei]

HUADPE thank you! People are idiots even if you trademark a word like yellow to a new watch. Your trademark is limited to the product you are calling yellow so someone else can still have a yellow trademark on a new type of telephone, or trademark yellow as a new type of hat.Also, "If a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[Pantero Blanco]

In this case, the two words "ClearTracks" and "InPrivate" are not obvious common words.

"InPrivate" is alright, as long as it's limited to the proper scope. "Clear tracks" is a fairly common phrase for people to use in reference to this.

http://clear-tracks.qarchive.org/
http://www.softplatz.com/software/clear-tracks/

I don't speak for the software in the links above, just pointing it out...

Amusingly, it looks like it's also the name of a piece of tracking software. So, you can clear your tracks, or you can leave them clearly.
http://www.claritytech.com/software/clarity/cleartracks/

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[DriedClexler]

How much affordable is a drug that hasn't been discovered?

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[GuyverDH]

Actually, if you're at Best Buy, and it's a Sony, then it's probably their Sony "Express" line for big retailers, high on features, low on quality.

If you go to a mom and pop, or custom shop and buy a Sony, then it's of the "We stand behind what we sell" product line and the quality is higher.

^^^^^^^^ Stuff I've learned being in a family with retail shop owners...

Summary and Article WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all wrong. Microsoft did not apply for patents, they applied for trademarks for the names they're giving the features, namely "ClearTracks" and "InPrivate". Unless you can find existing use for those names in privacy software you're not likely to find any objections to the trademark applications. Trademarks are not a claim of invention and in no way prevent others from implementing the exact same ideas or algorithms. They're simply a claim to a name in a specific context.

Even the original blogger got it right:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080820/microsoft-hints-private-browsing-feature-ie/

I don't expect Slashdot to actually fix the summary, though. The word "patent" will generate a lot traffic, whereas everyone will simply yawn over "trademark".

Trademark not patent

[zoobab]

While searching the patent numbers, it appears that this story is not even about patents:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080820/microsoft-hints-private-browsing-feature-ie/

"On July 30th, Microsoft filed two trademarks for:"

So please CmdrTaco, update your article.

Best,

Another Example

[ISoldat53]

The IOC suing businesses on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State for having "Olympic" in their names.

No, they cannot...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

MS can have "cleartracks" and "inprivate" as trademarks if they want....

There already is a very similar software product called "TracksClear". I would imagine that "ClearTracks" will be sufficently confusing.

Re:legitimization through familiarity

[Macthorpe]

Luckily for you and you obviously over-used Righteous Anger Gland, the BBC got it wrong.

As mentioned below, they're trademarks, not patents.