undefined | Better HN

0 pointsarminiusreturns6y ago0 comments

How is it you are aware of this? Affiliation with MS or a project that ran into it?

Wouldn't the key part:

"and in response to completion of a task, modifying the task list during the interactive code development session to indicate that the task has been completed."

mean it doesn't apply?

Worst case, just put a US exclusionary clause in the release so US copyright law doesn't apply. At least Europe is ahead of the US in this and doesn't allow such trivial patents and considers them invalid by definition.

0 comments

2 comments · 2 top-level

chch6y ago

Someone discovered it years ago online, and it's done a couple rounds in the media[1] as an example of an "overreaching software patent", similar to the "pop-under" patent, which patents a pop-up ad that opens after a window is closed[3].

So no personal experience, but I definitely think it's pretty frivolous; I don't imagine its ever been tested in court. :)

[1] https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1040068/microsoft-... from 2004 [2] https://www.geek.com/news/microsoft-granted-patent-covering-... from 2010 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad#Patent_controversy

nojvek6y ago

I am an X-Microsoft employee. Pre-Nadella era, most teams had a patent budget. People would file patents for all sorts of reasons. The game was who can get away with vague-ish patents and collect the most cubes. There was a cube you got per patent.

Needless to say the number of cubes someone had, the more clout they had and it became a dick measuring contest.

There are VPs and distinguished engineers with 100s of cubes.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse