Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Applies For Patent On Private Browsing

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the mine-mine-mine dept.

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."

11 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. First place I saw it was distrust by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Informative

    best firefox extension ever.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:First place I saw it was distrust by Scootin159 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:First place I saw it was distrust by robmv · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

  2. Trademarks, not patents! by LO0G · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by Tenrosei · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by GuyverDH · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  3. Summary and Article WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

  4. Trademark not patent by zoobab · · Score: 4, Informative

    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,

  5. No, they cannot... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!