Slashdot Mirror


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."

11 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Patenting the absence of something? by slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original CERN WWW browser didn't keep cookies, didn't maintain a history, and didn't cache pages. Is that therefore prior art?

    Then again, my coffee cup does none of those things either - it doesn't even browse Web pages. Now *that*'s privacy...

    How can you patent the absence of a feature (or more accurately, disabling a feature)?

  2. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    while your right, I would hardly consider Trademarks good too, especially when its often used to Trademark very common things like colors, common words, etc, which it is not supposed to be used for, and like Patents very hard to overturn.

    A good example would be the non-profit org who where sued by Miracle Grow for using GREEN and YELLOW on their package of fertilizer despite the package it's self looking NOTHING like a Miracle Grow package at all.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  3. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by Dancindan84 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeap. Nothing to see here. Why BBC would translate trademark->patent for no apparent reason is a good question though.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
  4. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Trademarks can be very valuable, not just to the company, but to the consumer - if I go to BestBuy to buy a television, I can only see the feature list and the picture quality. They tend to frown on me cracking it open and seeing what quality of components were used in the power supply, for instance.
    The trademark identifies the manufacturer, and their reputation gives me an indication of the quality of hidden components. If it's a Sony, it'll probably hold up for a while - if it's an apparently-identical Daewoo, it'll probably die the day after the warranty runs out.

    Your point about common words and colors is valid, but that just means there needs to be better inspection, auditing, and reexamination procedures - not that trademarks aren't good in general.

  5. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's not be so black and white: Patents AND trademarks can be very good; it's just that they've been abused to the point that they've gone way beyond their original purpose.

    When an organization can get a patent on a drug it developed that no one else could (and yes this happens a lot), a patent is good.

    When an organization can patent a long-known remedy or long-used functionality, that is very, very bad.

    When an organization can keep others from selling fake versions of its products as if they were the real thing, that is good.

    When that organization uses trademark law to keep ANYONE from making unapproved references to it (like when Ford sues to stop publication of the Black Mustang Club's calendar even if it has a disclaimer saying it's not an official Ford product) that is very, very bad.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  6. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by purpledinoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this is just a trademark, then what's the big deal? Everyone will just use another name.

  7. Re:PROXOMITRON did it first by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's new?

    The fact that you're using WinME???

    --

    Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  8. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why BBC would translate trademark->patent for no apparent reason is a good question though.

    A single government agency handles U.S. patents and U.S. trademarks. Might that have something to do with it?

  9. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by cjb658 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    Patents & Trademarks == Good

    Patent & Trademark Abuse == Bad

  10. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by uniquename72 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If companies can't recoup the often hundreds of millions of dollars that it costs to create and test a new drug, then there's no incentive to develop new drugs (drug patents, BTW, generally last 15-20 years). But in order to prevent large-scale deaths and piracy that inevitably result from over-priced drugs, they are generally happy to offer discounts to developing countries (this creates other problems, like corrupt governments selling those drugs back to wealthy countries at a discount instead of using them to help their own people).

    Of course, this doesn't help poor people in the countries where those drugs are made, but there are often government or private monies available to help those people.

    Where the system becomes crappy for U.S. taxpayers is that drugs are often designed using massive government subsidies and/or grant-funded research. So the government ends up being billed twice -- once for the research to help create the drug, and again in Medicare or other programs to help people afford it.

  11. Re:Trademarks, not patents! by JohnBailey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not they cannot. Certainly a watch can have a phone function. Yellow(tm) would sue the telephone maker into oblivion.

    And what if Yellow(tm) decided to come out with a line of hats with a built in watch? Or even just a "hat clip" for their watch?

    Ahh.. like apple (fruit) Apple (computers and music players and now phones) And Apple (Records).. One is a fruit, another sells consumer electronics,and the other publishes music, and so long as Apple consumer electronics don't get into the music business, everything is ok..

    Oops.....

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.