Does anyone find this patent a bit disturbing? It claims that user customization of a web site, where the information is stored at the server, is now patented.

"The customization information is stored at the server with reference to user identifying information that uniquely identifies the user, and the server returns the user identifying information to the user (i.e., the browser on the user computer or client). In one embodiment, the user identifying information is customization persistent client state information, sometimes referred to as a "cookie." The customization persistent client state information is or includes, for example, 128-bit globally unique identifiers ("GUID") that are capable of uniquely identifying each and every user. "

IANAL, but it seems this patent is quite broad, and that this bbs would be in violation. (Insert usual Bill Gates/Microsoft bashing here.) I hope this one gets invalidated soon.

-jk

Do patent lawyers not bother expending any effort to find prior art?? This has got to be nonsense - so I can't see any major online service standing for it.

God I hate software patents.

Keep in mind that the patent is meaningless until Microsoft tries to enforce it. Microsoft's attorneys clearly scored a winner by getting this through the patent office, but that doesn't mean much.

When and if Microsoft tried to enforce this thing, it will be quickly ruled invalid by prior art. Consider: Microsoft's filing date is December 6, 1996. According to a Yahoo press release, they had my.yahoo.com running on July 15, 1996. If I could find that in five minutes, imagine what you could dig up with a little extra work.

Consider: Microsoft's filing date is December 6, 1996. According to a Yahoo press release, they had my.yahoo.com running on July 15, 1996

Isn't it the case that you get a year's grace between coming up with something and filing the patent?

In which case, you'll have to find art prior to December 1995.

Isn't it the case that you get a year's grace between coming up with something and filing the patent?

Microsoft would have to document that they had the invention the full year before they filed the patent. Also, this was the middle of the dot-com boom. It's easy to find prior art from the filing date. It would take some effort to find prior art from earlier than that, but I'll bet it's out there, somewhere. Of course, cookies were part of the original Netscape 1.0 in 1994. The design clearly anticipated shopping sites (you see it mentioned all over the place in early documentation, to help track your shopping cart, etc.), which might partially invalidate the patents all by itself.

Also, I seem to recall that the one year grace period only applies in U.S. patent law (everywhere else it's "first to file"). Microsoft probably filed this internationally, so they may well have rushed the patent out the door.