Microsoft Applies For Patent On Private Browsing 181
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."
First place I saw it was distrust (Score:4, Informative)
best firefox extension ever.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be interesting to see a detailed comparison of the various options.
Rank at the top of the list something like browsing with Firefox under Ubuntu run from a Live CD (not even VM swap on disk then), and down at the bottom options that remove or prevent only visible-in-browser stuff like the history....
It has been a while since I looked, but some time ago I noticed that Safari used with some sites had many JPEG images left in the JAVA cache files even in Private Browsing mode, and a surprising amount
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First place I saw it was distrust (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First place I saw it was distrust (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical .. (Score:5, Funny)
1. Search for useful features already in use by other products
2. Patent the unpatented
3. ???
4. PROFIT $$
Re:Typical .. (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
There are zillions of ways that having a supremacy in the browser market can provide you indirect profits. From the top of my head:
* You tie it to your search engine (and sell ads on result pages)
* You fsck up the way pages render -> some bad webmasters design to meet the way your browser displays everything, because it's what 9x% of the people use (luckily no longer the case) -> ssome people are forced to use your browser, which runs only on the OS that you sell
Microsoft: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft: (Score:5, Funny)
Nice to meat you
Given that you're talking about lawyers, I don't think that's a spelling mistake...
Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Informative)
They aren't patent applications, they're trademark applications. Check the source [istartedsomething.com]
BIG difference.
Patents==Bad and subject to prior art.
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Informative)
No, they cannot... (Score:5, Informative)
There already is a very similar software product called "TracksClear". I would imagine that "ClearTracks" will be sufficently confusing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, you DON'T RTFA
Karma-whore
Re: (Score:2)
There already is a very similar software product called "TracksClear". I would imagine that "ClearTracks" will be sufficently confusing.
There was already a product called OpenOffice, but that trademark didn't stop Microsoft using OfficeOpen
Re: (Score:2)
There was a product called Office, but that trademark didn't stop Sun using OpenOffice.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that Microsoft's ClearType makes your fonts more blurry, what will ClearTracks do?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think [wikipedia.org] that I do.
Re: (Score:2)
There already is a very similar software product called "TracksClear". I would imagine that "ClearTracks" will be sufficently confusing.
TracksClear? ClearTracks?
OK, I'm starting to fall behind in knowledge of Windows stuff since going Windows-free a while back, but I have to admit I'm surprised they have spent so much effort developing not one, but two technologies to help junkies hide the evidence of their addiction.
What's next? Patenting between-the-toes injections?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can blame that one on Microsoft. Regular users are just as confused if you tell them to switch to the Finder on a Mac even though it's the main interface for launching apps & dealing with the filesystem.
Except... There are problems (Score:2, Informative)
Neither one of those are super-enforceable. Unique names in sound and spelling are worthy of a truly enforceable trademark.
These trademarks are not unique in as much they ram two common words together. I know it's done "all of the time" but that doesn't mean they are perfectly defensible.
Trademarks like this are commonly used to drown your smaller competitors in legal bills by filing infringement claim after infringement claim. Nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's ok with you if MS comes along with a new browser product called FireFox? After all, that's just two common words rammed together, so you seem to be saying that it can't be a defensable trademark...
Trademark is always a little tricky, but the fact is it is intended to provide protection for marks that are distinct in a particular context, and there's no reason such marks cannot be made entirely of common elements. Creativity is not required for a trademark. To copyright something you (theoreticall
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla would have an easier time suing over 'Foxfire' if it is an internet browser than Microsoft had in suing someone for naming their product 'Lindows'. Neither fox nor fire has anything to do with internet browsing. As such, it is a defensible trademark in the internet browsing arena. It would not be defensible if the competing product actually involved setting flame to that breed of canid, as it would be generic then (in the same way that it was ruled that windows was a generic term in the US comput
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Trademarks are not okay when they are basic vocabulary words. That becomes quite stifling of freedom of speech.
Hows that mention of the phrase the olympics been ....$$#####&AT
LOST CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Trademarks are not okay when they are basic vocabulary words. That becomes quite stifling of freedom of speech.
Yes, but you notice my examples didn't use those. So... your point?
Hows that mention of the phrase the olympics been ....$$#####&AT
LOST CARRIER
And I see you're making a joke here, but it's pretty damn obscure due to your poor grammar. Could you try again?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't heard about the olympic committee going ballistic on anyone who uses the phrases or shows the rings?
It has the same problems as the DMCA: it's easier to stifle someone's freedom/speech [techdirt.com] than it is to fight back such situations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's no different than the NFL going people who don't license their use of "Super Bowl" - douchey, but very typical of sporting organizations. I expect that "March Madness" incurs the same wrath, among others.
Of course that doesn't make it OK, but neither is the assumption that the organizer owns the copyright on players' actions and thus ban the use of "professional" cameras from the games by non-press.
FWIW, I wouldn't be at all surprised for there to be some sort of revolt against copyright in its curr
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, 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.....
Re: (Score:2)
Its funny you should mention Apple...because, while your basic point is correct, many corporations these days just competing in one event, but trying to compete in as many events as they are able to.
This makes the whole issue of Trademarks much more complex, and blurring markets and international exposure increase conflict exponentially. Just take a look at DNS.
Etoys vs Etoy http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/12/29/1538212/ [slashdot.org]
Nissan Motors vs Nissan Computers http://www.ncchelp.org/The_Story/the_story [ncchelp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What's AT&T got to do with anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, MS does have a bad habit of trademarking words they find in a See Dick Run story-book, but if they want to trademark crap like Cleartracks and Inprivate, I suppose we can let them have those. Now, if they had tried to trademark Microsoft Browser, that would have been a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Common on now lets not call Microsoft out on this alone.
When you were learning the alphabet and they had the picture next to the letter. What picture did they use for the first letter A-a (apple). I agree with the original parent grand parents etc. Trademarks aren't bad in my book by and large, granted they do have some problems. It's nice that I can buy a product at the store that claims to be LG and it's actually LG or my AMD chip is actually AMD.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? I hear people speak in nonsense terms like "Microsoft Google" all the time. Almost nobody can remember the difference between the same *thing* with two different *brands*, especially when the brands covers more than one product.
I agree that "The only XXX with YYY" is stupid and wrong if ZZZ has WWW, and WWW is exactly the same as YYY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, 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...
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (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.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Informative)
"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/ [qarchive.org]
http://www.softplatz.com/software/clear-tracks/ [softplatz.com]
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/ [claritytech.com]
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I agree with this, but will take it one step further.
The origin of federal trademark law is in fair trade law (no use of similar marks to confuse customers). When a trademark is used to protect consumers from harm, it is fulfilling its purpose; when it is used to provide an undue and/or unfair business advantage to the holder, it harms consumers and is operating counter to its intended nature.
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Informative)
How much affordable is a drug that hasn't been discovered?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Interesting)
While there are always cases of people/co's being ridiculous, I think there's a very good argument for trademarks.
I don't want to pick up a Coke and get a Pepsi, an eee PC and find out it's not made by Asus, or buy an iPhone online and find out it's not the Apple iPhone.
Ok... that last one is a bad example. ;)
Another Example (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would hardly consider Trademarks good too, especially when its often used to Trademark very common things like colors, common words, etc
Microsoft is one of the guilty companies in this case (ie. Word, Windows, Works, etc.). However, when the "Windows" trademark was tested in court in Microsoft vs. Lindows (now Linspire), Microsoft almost lost it because of how general a word "windows" is. To avoid losing it, Microsoft ended up settling with Linspire, paying Linspire $24 million dollars [wikipedia.org]. That's a pretty happy ending :-).
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a mistake. The blog they cite (istartedsomething.com) has it as trademark too.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently BBC reporters are like us, and don't necessarily feel the need to RTFA before writing and publishing some reporting or opinion about it.
Glad to see the mainstream media is finally getting with it and learning how to properly make use of the Interweb!
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure myself, but I've sent an email telling them so.
Hopefully it'll get corrected.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Score:3, Insightful)
Why BBC would translate trademark->patent for no apparent reason is a good question though.
A single government agency [uspto.gov] handles U.S. patents and U.S. trademarks. Might that have something to do with it?
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trademarks, not patents! (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
There are more limits on trademarks than you seem to think. The company would have no case, especially against t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents==Bad and subject to prior art.
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art.
Patents & Trademarks == Good
Patent & Trademark Abuse == Bad
Many eyes - all of them closed (Score:2)
.
The Slashdot editor publishes whatever falls into his hands.
The quick-on-the-jump Slashdot poster responds instantly to the hot buttons pressed in the summary --- and can't hold back his fire even when a story has been exposed as utter nonsense.
Pavlov's dogs couldn't be better trained.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. The THIRD SENTENCE in the original blog post said "On July 30th, Microsoft filed two trademarks..." and the BBC reported that as "Australian blogger Long Zheng has found two patent applications made by Microsoft on 30 July..."
So: first we had Slashdot visitors not reading the articles. Then we had Slashdot editors and summary-writers evidently not reading the articles, and I thought that was pretty bad. Now Slashdot is linking to a story on the BBC, and the BBC evidently didn't read the original blog p
Trademarks==Good, and not subject to prior art. (Score:2)
Trademarks can't be revoked because of prior art? That's bad not good. If I create a brand but don't trademark the label then someone else can come long and trademark it denying me the use of what I created. That's bad not good.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm. I linked to Long Zheng's post where he clearly says that they are trademark applications. He in turn linked to the patent and TRADEMARK office filings.
The BBC (and the slashdot contributor) got it totally wrong.
Patenting the absence of something? (Score:5, 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)?
Re: (Score:2)
Offline coffee cup (Score:2)
Your coffee cup is offline? Not even bluetooth? How do your temp and level sensors function? Is it a maintenance issue or is this one of those retro 'china' cups?
A word of warning ... (Score:4, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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."
I already found a way around it: A specific process and procedure for patenting existing technology in order to build a patent portfolio which can be leveraged using the court system to gain substantive competitive advantage.
Ha ha! You have a patent for PRE-existing technology whereas, I have a patent for EXISTING technology. Which means your patent patents mine ..Oh Shit!
ignoring the patent isssue (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case, any patent that Microsoft could take out on this concept would be totally irrelevant. After all, how many vendors would want to create a web browser that cannot make HTTP connections?
(Yes, I read the trademark bit).
Summary and Article WRONG (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/ [istartedsomething.com]
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".
Why haven't the patented... (Score:3, Funny)
For uhm... medical conditions (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right...
It's true. Most commonly this mode is used to research remedies for conditions of the corpora cavernosa.
Trademark not patent (Score:5, 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,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. The "Random Blog" is the source for the BBC article.
The BBC got it wrong.
I don't see the problem... (Score:2)
Standard post about patenting patents (Score:3, Funny)
This is the standard post mentioning the apparently humorous idea of patenting the idea of patenting obvious ideas, thus being able to sue companies like Microsoft who do so (a joke that is often described as "ironic," even though it isn't). This joke occurs in each article pertaining to obvious patents that appears in Slashdot's Patents section, though from this point forward I will be taking personal responsibility for including it, freeing others to focus on making more original and insightful criticisms of the USPTO.
Thank you for visiting the Slashdot Patents section.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a Reminder... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? (Score:2)
just lock the door and turn out the lights (Score:2)
and don't forget to draw the blinds closed.
It's good that microsoft wants to help people get a little private time with their browser.
Or "other" surfing (Score:2)
Why record at all (Score:2)
I would so much rather have a browser that has the option of not recording or logging anything at all instead of one that "clears" or "erases" my tracks after that. If anything is ever stored that is a vector for someone to somehow capture that data. I would like something that only uses that data for precisely as long as it needs to to do the job and keeps no history or metadata in any way, shape, or form.
Re: (Score:2)
**cough** porn **cough**
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's new?
The fact that you're using WinME???
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's leave aside the fact that they were not applying for patents. This point is raised a lot around slashdot. The answer would be you assume a news story to have some relationship to the day the patent was filed. There is a 12-24 month period (I think it is more tightly defined, but I don't know) after a patent is filed before it is publicized. This period is to give the company time to refine the lega
Re:legitimization through familiarity (Score:4, Informative)
Luckily for you and you obviously over-used Righteous Anger Gland, the BBC got it wrong.
As mentioned below, they're trademarks, not patents.