4 ms·
I think it's more likely Microsoft knew and didn't care. These "obvious" patents have been profitable for quite some time and once you are awarded the patent th
by naner 15y ago
I think it's more likely Microsoft knew and didn't care. These "obvious" patents have been profitable for quite some time and once you are awarded the patent the burden of proof (and legal costs) falls to the alleged infringer.
Also, take this with a grain of salt, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that using prior art in court to invalidate a patent is much more difficult than we assume.
- WalterGR 15y agoI think it's more likely Microsoft knew and didn't care. The parent to your comment - by mhw - is pretty darned close. At Microsoft, legal and engineering are in different silos and don't talk to each other, except through senior management with limited bandwidth and legal/engineering understanding and also - in my experience, and to some extent - program managers. Developers (at least) are told not to look at patents or patent applications. I'd be surprised if PMs were told differently. Does MS Legal have engineers on staff to determine if something is worthy of a patent and to look for prior art? That's a possibility. But your "more likely" (granted - it's your opinion) doesn't seem incredibly likely (in my opinion.)