h a l f b a k e r yYour journey of inspiration and perplexement provides a certain dark frisson.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
If cookies, themed GUIs, and hidden URLs can be patented, so can the use of popups in the onClose message as a business process.
All infringing parties must henceforth license the right to construct popups. Enforcement is achieved through popup-detection toolbar (ala Google) to be installed by users
who may then receive a bounty on detected non-compliant websites. Patent holder pays this as a finder's fee on collected damages.
This falls into the general category of socially conscious patents that eliminate undesirable behavior in the world, especially when they leverage the potential of invisbly fulfilled greed.
prior art explained
http://www.ipmall.f...rner/bp98/welch.htm
excellent overview of prior art in software patents [Urog, Feb 26 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
evil freedom foundation
http://www.halfbake...reedom_20foundation
A little more generalized. [egnor, Feb 26 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
No New Windows
http://www.halfbake.../No_20New_20Windows
A somewhat more plausible (and Baked) approach to the problem. [egnor, Feb 26 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Unfortunately, I recently obtained a patent on the process of posting patent-existing-technology ideas to this site, and have applied for another one on the act of hoping to profit or improve the world with same. |
|
| |
"In determining if an invention is novel there must be a single prior art source which discloses every aspect of the invention. Only one patent or publication or catalog entry can be used to reject an invention as not novel and that one source must describe every feature of the invention." -- from link |
|
| |
JavaScript isn't prior art and neither is the present use of popups. Remember that a software-based business process is subtle enough to evade most prior-art inquisitions. |
|
| |
It's a business process patent not a software patent which means there has to be a documentation of the application of a specific behavior for a specific business context. Far less novelty has already been succesfully patented. |
|
| |
And the uses you are specifically trying to stamp out wouldn't qualify? Surely -- and my grasp of patent law is unfortunately rather uncertain -- surely for any reasonably specific patent you apply for in order to stop practice x, practice x will itself be prior art? |
|
| |
If you did obtain a patent of this kind, and there have been enough baffling decisions in recent months and years that you might be in with a chance, what makes you think it would be any more enforceable than the ones allegedly granted on cookies and hidden URLs? |
|
| |
There are many ways to get rid of pop-up windows. These include using web filtering software, disabling JavaScript, and avoiding sites that use them. Most of these are practical. |
|
| |
What about the idea of patenting undesired behavior itself? Doesn't it have any merit? While we may not be able to remove existing undesired behaviors, we can certainly anticipate future ones and patent those now. The use of specific profile information in particular combination to target an individual consumer would be almost trivial to patent because it could be made specific enough. Why not apply for a patent on it and refuse to license it? Donate the patent to the EFF and let them enforce it. |
|
| |
That statement is obviously false. Otherwise, how does anyone ever come up with anything evil? |
|
| |
The contradiction in your statement doesn't depend on our subject.
If undesirable behavior only "comes to your attention when someone else practices it", how did that someone ever conceive of it? They obviously thought of it before anyone else did, so why can't we? |
|
| |
I think you assume that Perpetrators of Evil only notice that something is forbidden when they try to patent it. This isn't the business model for this idea -- its business model is to give people a way of going after the PoEs other than based on the legality of their actual actions.| — | jutta,
Mar 17 2001, last modified Mar 19 2001 |
|
|
| |
Please, I beg of you Vernon, don't answer that. |
|
| |
hoo boy. I'm trying to stay laregly out of the way of that one, Peter, but let me just say that the answer to your question depends on where your frame of reference is. |
|
| |
Evil is Malice Aforethought. That said, on topic...Some popups are a necessarry evil, i.e. Forms, etc., which allow someone to not lose their frame of reference on the page they were on to begin with, though it would be best to have a summary and invitation to have a new popup appear first.
It is obvious that some examples which have already been cited and/or are common knowledge, i.e. popups that just won't die are Malice Aforethought. Example: Before I finally convinced a 17 year old [4th warning] to not visit porn sites and their ilk, I had to manually remove data from Home Page Settings on Browser Configurations, etc. and Defrag weekly as it would take hours to simply sign on if he'd managed to find himself snagged in the infernal web of pinup popups. By the very nature of the design of the popups to appear when you try to close any of the windows, and have its address show up in your HomePage Setting, it is Malice Aforethought. No problems since then.
In terms of patenting this, while you're at it, patent cheeseburgers, pizza, spaghetti, steak and chocolate chip cookies. You'll make a killing on these prior [f]arts. |
|
| |
...It's getting, it's getting, it's getting kinda hectic... |
|
| |
You can do INTERNAL windows (popups) that dont open a new window. This is what should be done. |
|
| |
thumbwax: What are especially annoying are endless-popup porn sites that appear when you misspell certain web addresses. |
|
| |
What makes those particularly ironic is that in many cases the "sponsoring" sites would probably very much prefer that their ads not be shown. Instead, what happens is that a company masquerading as a legitimate advertising company convinces porno sites that they should pay some fraction of a cent for every time their ad is displayed. The "advertising company" then gets to scam money from the porn site for all the "ad views" from which the porn site received no benefit whatsoever. |
|
| |
Meanwhile everyone wants to lynch the owners of the porno site for ads which they were probably told would only appear on "other quality adult-oriented sites". |
|
| |
If no one ever bought anything from popup ads or spam, they would not exist. So why dont we all just never ever buy anythng from them? Wouldnt that be simpler? While we are cooperating, me might just cooperate to force our legislatures to make all of it illegal which would be even more satisfying. |
|
| |