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

Typical ..

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Search for useful features already in use by other products
2. Patent the unpatented
3. ???
4. PROFIT $$

Re:Typical ..

[DittoBox]

Technically:

1. Search for useful features (history, cache, saved entries)
2. Patent the removal of said features
3. ???
4. Profit!

I see the point of removing or disabling histories in a browserâ"it makes senseâ"but these are just added features that some very old or very basic browsers don't have.

How can you patent the removal of features? It's not "making" anything, it's just tearing down something that already exists and only putting some parts back when you build it again. Obviously not everyone wants those parts, hence "privacy-aware" browsers exist, but you can't patent that!

Microsoft:

[Inglix the Mad]

We didn't make it first, but that won't stop us from trying to patent it!

Re:Microsoft:

[V!NCENT]

Mister Ballmer, this is our lawyer. Our Lawyer, this is mister Ballmer. (Nice to meat you). Uhhhhh we have this little piece of paper that shows evidence that we made it first. It is called prior art. Something you are probably familiar with. Uhhhhm... err... it basically come down to this -"Hey can I just like... interrupt for a bit? Heh. Can't we make a settlement?" - sure what's on your mind -"Well we, ofcourse, have a lot of money, so if you can keep this, you know... quiet than we are uhm... sort of 'willing' to give you a, what we like to caaaall, compensation of some sort?" - yeah, sure.

Re:Microsoft:

[Godji]

Nice to meat you

Given that you're talking about lawyers, I don't think that's a spelling mistake...

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!

[falcon5768]

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.

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[Dancindan84]

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

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[Theaetetus]

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.

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!

[DriedClexler]

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.

Re:Trademarks, not patents!

[AK Marc]

Trademarks can be very valuable, not just to the company, but to the consumer

Go read up on the nut trademarking "stealth" and tell me whether you think they are so good. He's trying to own the word, performing a DOS on the word itself. Trademarking a company name makes sense. Trademarking every single feature with a different name is a useless practice. It's easy to realize that "word processor" means different things if made by Microsoft vs IBM. If there was a shelf in a store with "Microsoft Word" next to "IBM Word" I do not think that a significant number of people would be confused, yet trademark law protects "word" from being used by anyone else. That's where it loses its usefulness.

The trademark identifies the manufacturer, and their reputation gives me an indication of the quality of hidden components.

And everyone tries to trademark every little feature. I've even seen marketing material with "The only Car/TV/chair/whatever with XXX" when XXX is nothing more than a trademarked name for a feature everyone else had. That's deceptive and works to harm the consumer's choice and knowledge, not add to it. Like copyrights, trademarks are a good idea that manages to fail in implementation. Yet no one seems the least bit interested in fixing it.

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!

[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...

Patenting the absence of something?

[slim]

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 word of warning ...

[bwthomas]

I've got a business process patent that I think Microsoft should be aware of: "A specific process and procedure for patenting pre-existing technology in order to build a patent portfolio which can be leveraged using the court system to gain substantive competitive advantage."

ignoring the patent isssue

[larry bagina]

putting a private browser mode on IE is like putting a shit filter on your ass. Or a lameness filter oin slashdot.

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".

For uhm... medical conditions

[mrvan]

FTFA:

Users may wish to turn on the privacy mode if they are planning a surprise party, buying presents or researching a medical condition and do not want others users of the same computer to find out.

Yeah, right...

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,

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.