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