Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft Programming Your Rights Online IT Technology

Microsoft Patents The Task List 730

theodp writes "'Better not get too fancy with your grocery list, now that Microsoft has patented a glorified form of the to-do list.' Issued Tuesday, the patent covers the use of a 'task list' generated from 'TODO' comments in source code."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Patents The Task List

Comments Filter:
  • Of course... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @07:59PM (#9372230)
    I haven't read the patent (it is Slashdot after all), but the Eclipse development environment does this.
  • by datastalker ( 775227 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @07:59PM (#9372232) Homepage
    ...unless you generate it from comments in your source code. ;)
    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:09PM (#9372356)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:28PM (#9373393)
      I wouldn't worry about your grocery list unless you generate it from comments in your source code. ;)

      It's so convenient to make notes in source code. Isn't that what our computers are for, to manage our data? Compare this
      need more jolt (emu.cpp line 2)
      pay electric bill (emu.cpp line 11)
      out of potato chips (emu.cpp line 24)
      with the verbose
      // start emulating a track
      // TODO: need more jolt
      assert( rom );

      // clear all memory
      cpu.low_mem.assign( 0 );
      sram.assign( 0 );
      eram.assign( 0 );
      unmapped_page.assign( 0 );

      // TODO: pay electric bill

      // set memory mapping

      // start out unmapped
      int i;
      for ( i = 0; i < page_count; ++i ) {
      cpu.data_reader [i] = read_unmapped;
      cpu.data_writer [i] = write_unmapped;
      cpu.code_map [i] = &unmapped_page [0];
      }

      // ROM
      // TODO: out of potato chips
      for ( i = 8; i < page_count; ++i ) {
      cpu.data_reader [i] = read_rom;
      int rom_bank = initial_banks [i - 8];
      cpu.code_map [i] = &rom [rom_bank * page_size];
      eram [0xFF0 + i] = rom_bank;
      }
      // ...
      Oh man, I need to pay my electric bill...
  • by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:00PM (#9372240) Journal
    // TODO: remove this line or face retribution

    I seem to remember using the TODO list feature in Eclipse before it showed up in Visual Studio. Am I wrong?
    • Eclipse wasn't released until 2001 at the very very earliest.

      This patent was filed in 2000.

      Microsoft wins.

      Actually this is a bloody good patent, one that actually makes sense and is worth patenting.
  • by ruckc ( 111190 ) * <(moc.oohay) (ta) (ckcur)> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:00PM (#9372241) Homepage
    This feature has been in Eclipse [eclipse.org] for I can recall 2.5 years (not sure on date). The program automatically notices TODO comments in the code and creates a list for you.

    What the hell is M$ thinking here?
    • by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:09PM (#9372345) Homepage Journal
      The @todo tag has been an unofficial part of Sun's javadoc utility since at least 1999, possibly earlier. However, I don't think javadoc generated a task list from them.
    • by zurab ( 188064 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:17PM (#9372427)
      This feature has been in Eclipse for I can recall 2.5 years (not sure on date).

      Well, Eclipse and its users are in trouble then, because the patent application in question has been filed over 4 years ago. Just a reminder to every developer next time you try to implement a feature in your program, don't forget to search all existing patents and patent applications for possible violations. And another reminder to all software users - you are not immune from patent lawsuits if the software you are using (whether closed or open source) is violating other(s') patent(s) and neither you or your software vendor have a license to use or distribute the patented "technology."
      • by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot&rzbx,org> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:50PM (#9373160) Homepage
        "Just a reminder to every developer next time you try to implement a feature in your program, don't forget to search all existing patents and patent applications for possible violations."

        This is NOT what one should do when implementing a feature in a program. First of all, developers should not be wasting time with the legal side of software. Most developers do not care for patents. Second, the moment a developer starts sifting through patent portfolios, they are both seeing a solution from the point of view of another developer(s) (or lawyers) and may have a hard time getting past this "better" option and sticking with their own, and they now can not legally say they had no idea the patent existed. I have heard before that even patent lawyers suggest that an inventor/developer not search through patents. What is a developer, a lawyer? No, they are interested in solving problems. Engineers are not interested in making things more complex (and you can not argue that law is about making things simple). Although the process itself may be complex, it is not in the interest of developers and such to complicate things. Fear is what I see in your entire post. Scare tactics. FUD, whatever you want to call it. Let me repeat, DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, etc. ARE NOT INTERESTED IN COMPLICATING THINGS. They seek the truth and/or they build machines/software/ideas to solve problems or understand a problem(or event). How many great scientists/developers/engineers do you know that support the patent system? Yes, some will say that we need it, but that it is currently flawed. Yet, even they will admit that they don't have the solution. There have been economists and various other social science professionals on the other hand that are against the idea of the patent system. First you must understand the reasons the patent system was created and why it still exists. You can spout the old myths about progress due to the patent system, but I dare you to show me scientifically (or any other possible, but convincing way) that patents are directly related to progress and I'll give my apologies. I'm very sorry for the rant, but I'm tired of the ignorance behind this patent issue. It is bad enough that people support the system, but to recommend that developers go spend their time sifting through patent files? If the patent system was unenforced though, it would be a great system for sharing knowledge related to inventing/engineering/etc.
  • eclipse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vinnythenose ( 214595 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:00PM (#9372244)
    So when did eclipse do it?
    We just need to beat 2000 (when the patent was filed)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:04PM (#9372291)
    This is only going to get worse for developers.

    A beuracracy of legalities to work through before your project can ever be put in the public domain and Microsoft sueing people who bring us OSS.

    Navigating all this will disuade a lot of potential help, and will only stifile Microsoft's competitors.

    I can't be the only one seeing this coming.

    ~ Jon

    • And that, my names friend, is the entire point. Since they can't compete with OSS on price or quality, they are going to bury it a legal quagmire.

      The one thing that people must remember about Bill Gates is that he absolutely can not stand competition. Period.
  • by SilentChris ( 452960 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:05PM (#9372301) Homepage
    They've actually had this in Visual Studio for a while: you can easily set any source or error (during the compile) as a "to do", which attaches itself to the project. In .NET, you can have "to dos" over different languages in the same project (which I haven't seen in too many IDEs).

    Others may have it, but it's one of those quiet innovations MS has they don't make too much noise about. Like Autocomplete (can't run across a single browser nowadays that doesn't have this).
    • A nifty feature it is, thanks for the M$ product info! It also happens to be obvious, well known and implemented by everyone. Give me a break and keep M$ advertising off Slashdot unless you pay for it.

      Your attempt at making it seem like an innovation is dissappointing even for Microsoft standards. Where's the jargoned up spiel about M$'s new paradigms and methods? That .NET reference and the mention of different languages, as if other compiler collections did not exist is a start. Oh wait, a new metho

  • by CHaN_316 ( 696929 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:05PM (#9372307)
    It feels like Microsoft just comes up with a list of things that have been implemented, and try to patent them. It's hit and miss, but boy, if you score one of the patents, great! If not, try try again... they've got the money to blow. All you have to do is inundate the patent office, and sooner or later, you'll hit the jackpot.

    Microsoft's latest patents:
    • Writing Code on a computer (rejected)
    • Coding on a computer (rejected)
    • Coding on an electronic medium (approved)
    • Uhh...the Internet? (rejected, Al Gore invented that)
    • The Internet (rejected)
    • Inter.Net (approved)
    • ...


    It's a lot like submitting a story for slashdot, but easier, and way more double posts :D j/k.
    • Uhh...the Internet? (rejected, Al Gore invented that)
      I hate this false urban legend [snopes.com] because I believe it cost Gore a few votes. He never said it, and this was spread as a rumor to make Gore sound like a pompous jerk. (His personality did leave something to be desired, but get a guy for stuff he's done, not made up shit).

      Yeah, he said he "creat[ed] the internet", and that's a stretch (outside forces helped a lot), but the Invented thing makes him sound like he pretended he was at Berkeley, sharing missiv
      • by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:40PM (#9372642) Homepage
        Snopes has it wrong this time. They even quote him:

        "I took the initiative in creating the internet".

        There is no other way to interpret this. He was just trying to sound cool and it backfired on him. Note he did *not* say "I took the initiaive in allowing the internet to flourish", as snopes would have you believe, nor did he say "I created the environment in which the internet was allowed to grow". He said "I took the initiative in creating the internet".
        • Let's say I build a car from scratch. I created that car. No one in their right mind would say I invented the car or ever quote me as such.

          Create is not a synonym for invent, plain and simple. This rumor, even though he is guilty of misspeaking, was deliberately put out to make him look stupid/snobish/(insert negative quality). And the saddest thing is that it worked.
        • by Chilltowner ( 647305 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:05PM (#9372824) Homepage Journal
          The full quote from the Blitzer interview is:

          "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

          He's referring to his support for the Internet and the Web in it's early days. He made sure projects got funding and encouraged the use of the 'Net in government. Here's a quote from Peter Hallam-Baker:

          "In the early days of the Web, he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful. He also personally saw to it that the entire federal government set up Web sites. Before the White House site went online, he would show the prototype to each agency director who came into his office. At the end he would click on the link to their agency site. If it returned 'Not Found' the said director got a powerful message that he better have a Web site before he next saw the veep."

          More links about this lovely little mind virus are here:
          http://www.sethf.com/gore/

          Hell, I had grave doubts about Gore in the last election--so much so that I voted for Nader. But give the man his due.
        • by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <{slashdot} {at} {monkelectric.com}> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:20PM (#9372918)
          Gore wrote and sponsored the legislation that payed for the development for the internet. Thats what that quote means.
        • by borwells ( 566148 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:10PM (#9373291) Homepage
          Without Al Gore's hard work to turn the ARPANET of the 80's into the Internet of the 90's none of you closet perv Republicans would be fapping to Paris Hilton. Al Gore did take the initiative to create the Internet, and a lot of us on Slashdot have him to thank for our jobs because of it. Get over it.

          Gore Speech before the Senate in 1989
          "But I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network and the broader installation of lower capacity fiber optic cables to all parts of this country, will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses with access to supercomputing capability being very, very widespread. It's sort of like, once the interstate highway system existed, then a college student in California who lived in North Carolina would be more likely to buy a car, drive back and forth instead of taking the bus. Once that network for supercomputing is in place, you're going to have a lot more people gaining access to the capability, developing an interest in it. That will lead to more people getting training and more purchases of machines."

          September 1, 2000, Newt Gingrich, during a CSPAN broadcast
          "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is--and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a 'futures group'--the fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cell phone."
      • by jeffy124 ( 453342 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:20PM (#9372920) Homepage Journal
        you naysayer. Of course Al Gore invented the internet. It is, after all, based on Al-Gore-ithms.
  • Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chaffed ( 672859 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:05PM (#9372309) Homepage
    I'm too young for punch cards however my folks aren't. My father just let me know he has prior art. I'm sitting here with a very dusty item processing program on punch cards. On the cards themselves comments are written about things to be added and depricated. So where do I mail this 10lb stack of yellow cards?
  • by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:06PM (#9372316) Homepage Journal
    There you have it folks. Patent infringment in one line.

    GJC
  • by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:06PM (#9372318)
    Since Microsoft is going around patenting everything they can possibly think of, as long as Bush and his pro-monopoly group doesn't stay in office forever, they may help everyone else out.

    If they patent enough simple and obvious ideas, that will make great fodder for the argument for abolishing software patents. They're going so far out of their way to stiffle competition that, at some point, the government will have to realize that software patents don't help competition, but hurt it.

    (Yeah, I know it's the guv'ment we're talking about, but at some point congress will get enough complaints from everyone else that even they might wake up.)
  • WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:07PM (#9372323)
    Will it ever end? Funny that they get a patent on something I've been doing for 20+ years... I've always made it habit to use #TODO: in my comments for my code for pending things or things that need to be redone, then have a shell script parse my code for the comments and email them to me weekly prior to status meetings, etc. I wonder if any of these will count as "prior art" or its counterpart to fighting this atrocity?
  • grep (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lubricated ( 49106 ) <michalp@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:08PM (#9372341)
    Microsoft just patented the use of grep.

    grep -r TODO * > tasklist

    hopefully they won't catch me, this post infringes.
  • Have fun Novell (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:09PM (#9372355) Homepage Journal
    Its going to be a joy when something important implementing Mono gets patented. Do you really doubt they are going to do it? Heck, they probably already bought a patent Sun got while doing Java.

    It will be even more interesting when all of Gnome is implemented with Mono. Maybe I'm the only one who finds it ironic that a desktop environment founded because the KDE license wasn't free enough is falling over themselves to implement Microsoft technology.

    • Re:Have fun Novell (Score:3, Interesting)

      by steveha ( 103154 )
      It will be even more interesting when all of Gnome is implemented with Mono.

      When will that be? References, please?

      The GNOME project is not Miguel de Icaza, and Miguel isn't the GNOME project, and there are no current plans to junk the C code base and replace it with Mono.

      Miguel thinks there is so much prior art that Microsoft cannot shut down Mono. At worst MS can wall off the .NET compatible libraries, and Miguel doesn't really care about those.

      Maybe I'm the only one who finds it ironic that a desk
  • Okay... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:11PM (#9372383) Journal
    So as we have all been reading Eclipse has been doing this since November 2001. Well, sorry! The Microsfot patent was filed on March 6, 2000. Does this mean we will see a lawsuit from Microsoft against Eclipse? Or perhaps forcing Eclipse to license that "feature"?
  • Huzzah! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:13PM (#9372399) Homepage
    I cheer every time one of these insane patents is granted. There is a breaking point for all this, and every dumb patent brings us an inch closer to the mainstream calling it all into question. The dumber the better.

    I just hope we don't destroy the economy beforehand.

    Cheers.
  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:17PM (#9372428)
    I created this sort of system in Hypercard for a massive stack development project. With abotu 50,000 lines of script in hundreds of stakc object, finding "TODO"s was a real pain so I made my own search & task list tool. A search tool on a card for developers found todo tokens in the stack's scripts and listed them for me. Double clicking a list item took me to the item. The thing also had a visitation counter so I could see which items I'd done.

    The little tool was actually more versatile than the Microsoft system because I could search, list, and visit on any token (it search scripts for a string) - great for finding all the places that used a certain variable or accessed a particular stack feature. It also had a pull-down list for sorting the "task list" in several different ways. Other tools let me quickly visit "Next" and "Previous" or cull the list by deleting task list items that met different criteria.

    The only thing different from my stack search tool and the patent is that my little tool did not change the script code in response to anything. But I suspect that someone with "ordinary skill in the art" could easily have do that.
  • by torinth ( 216077 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:20PM (#9372464) Homepage
    Good grief. I think we need to institute some kind of reasonable editorial policy here. As is so often the case in articles about Microsoft or patents, the lead is patently misleading.

    The patent is on a relatively complex system that I've never seen or heard of before. It's about an IDE tool that dynamically identifies syntax errors and TODO comments throughout your code, associates them with named tasks and gives them priorities.

    It is not about the little notebook you keep next to your computer, nor about running "grep //TODO *.c". It's about a smart IDE offering a useful and creative way of managing tasks. Should software processes be patentable? Maybe not. Are they? Yes. Does this infringe on prior art? Not really. So might this be a patentable software process? Sure looks like it.

    If anyone of you out there have been working on this kind of thing for emacs or Eclipse 5 years ago, I suggest you speak up now...

    I don't think we'll be hearing much.
    • by bwy ( 726112 )
      This is the second or third story on /. this week that was basically a misrepresentation of the facts. Surprise, surpise- skewed against Microsoft. It is really getting old.
  • More Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)

    by Revvy ( 617529 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:25PM (#9372516) Homepage
    In 1998-9 I created a system that would automatically update the company's bug database (arguably a TODO list) whenever a developer checked in code with the proper comments inserted. It was obvious to me, and it's been obvious to thousands of developers for many years.

    Sigh.

    Just waiting for someone to patent the concept of Prior Art itself.
  • by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:26PM (#9372523) Homepage

    A patent is a description of an invention. It covers the WHOLE invention, and the
    requirement of the patent office is that the description of the invention is very
    very specific.

    Microsoft's "double click" patent you all keep going on about does NOT patent
    the double click. It patents differentiating between different lengths of time
    holding a button on a PDA, in order to start different applications or
    application methods - for the sole purpose of reducing the need for 100 buttons
    on devices with crap input and no screen estate.

    That they mentioned the double click does not mean they patented it. They may
    have patented the use of the double click when combined with time-based
    selection of the application to be launched, but that is FAR from the same
    thing. And as far as I know - hasn't been done on any system anyway. Personally
    I think it'd be rather unwieldy which probably explains why nobody did it :)

    What THIS new patent covers is, and if you go PAST the f**king summary and
    actually read the PATENT:

    In an IDE (interactive!), adding /* TODO */ comments or suchlike are
    automatically, and in real-time, added to a task list. When comments are removed
    or the task is clicked off on the GUI (and possibly in combination with revision
    control) you can see what stuff has been done and has not been done. In real
    time. From an IDE.

    Note that manually running "grep" does not act in real time as you type, display
    it in an IDE or generally do anything listed in the patent.

    It does not patent TODO comments merely because of their mention. Nor is it
    patenting any other COMPONENT of the patented methods. Just the methods themselves
    when brought to a whole.

    It was also filed in 2000. People are whining that Eclipse is prior art. Sorry,
    but Eclipse came about 18 months after the patent was filed.

    The next time I read a "Microsoft patents wiping ass with soft paper" story on
    Slashdot, remind me to explain this again. I'm sure I'll have to, because the
    amount of goddamned idiots here who can't or don't read past the headline (and
    that includes you, story submitter and mr. moderator) and jump to conclusions
    is incredible.

    Before we get started on this whole patent argument: yeah I think Amazon's
    one-click shopping thing is a bit rich. But that's different, it's a feature we
    can all remember using since the dark ages when cookies first arrived, the
    current batch of MS patents are actually quite original thinking from people,
    and generally well thought-out well-defendable inventions.

    Neko
    • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:16PM (#9372890) Homepage
      It patents differentiating between different lengths of time
      holding a button on a PDA, in order to start different applications or
      application methods - for the sole purpose of reducing the need for 100 buttons
      on devices with crap input and no screen estate.


      Kind of like the digital watch I had in 1979? Or the bike computer I had ten years ago?

      I really don't understand how they got that patent. It flunks both the prior art and "obvious" requirements.

      steveha
    • by gewalker ( 57809 ) <Gary.Walker@Astr a D i g i tal.com> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:17PM (#9372899)
      A couple of people have mentioned Delphi. Maybe you did not notice, but Delphi 5 released in 1999 Takes comments typed in source code, of the form:

      // todo 1: blah


      And converts this to a todo list idea subject=blah, with priority of 1.

      It does this in real time, as you type in the todo comment. This is prior to when the patent was filed by MS. So yeah, I think this is patent law abuse. I think it is primarily the government's fault (to date, MS is apparently playing the defensive patent game -- though I may have missed news where they attempt to enforce patents -- if so, shame on MS again).

      Now, maybe you can argue that MS has a better, more complete implementation that Delphi did/does. But that is the purpose behind copyright law, not patent law. Surely MS is protected adequately in such a case by copyright law. I can't pirate/steal their product legally when protected by copyright instead of patent.

      U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
      Congress shall have the power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      Congress has the right (not the requirement) to grant patents with the intent to promoting science and the useful arts. Please, explain to me how granting MS excludsive use of automated todo lists advances science or the useful arts. If that's not good enough, give a single example of a software patent that advances science or the useful arts. Specifically in ways that are better than copyright protection.

      Software patents are the result of a revisionist judge deciding that he (not Congress) had the right to grant software patents.

      Patents must also display "more ingenuity" than the work of a mechanic skilled in the arts. Usually this is referred to legally as novelty again, I ask what is really novel in this patent.

      The patent system, as applied to software does not serve the purpose to which constitutional authority grants Congress the priviledge of patents. State of the art in software advances in spite of software, not because of patents. Only real advantage that I can see in the U.S. patent system is lining the pockets of patent attorney's and giving large corp with a patent portfolio a bigger stick with which to beat up the competition.

      I feel better now at least.

  • by jayslambast ( 519228 ) <slambast&yahoo,com> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:27PM (#9372529)
    The topic seems a little alarmist concerning patenting #TODOs in source code. After reading the article, it doesn't seem that outrageous of a patent. Putting code/greps in to find TODO's and saving them off is trivia. Going the extra mile and cataloging them, managing them and "removing after the task has been completed" is complex and a little ingenious . While I appreciate the article, who ever posted this to slashdot should have summarized it without all this chicken little tactics.
  • by deniea ( 257313 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:27PM (#9372531)
    In this build-up of patents lately, to me it looks more and more the way they will be going is the way SCO has been going for a while now. And as by now everyone knows the lawsuit against IBM is payed by MS in the end, it's of use to keep things so indirect, just get down it directly is more easy.

    We all know development at microsoft has stopped for IE, Longhorn is not comming along, we know MS market-share is falling, and recent ./ articles have hinted that it's not the way for the future.

    With all that cash lying around, and 'doing business' gets you problems in the EU, it might be better to change from a 'software' business to a 'investment'-business...
    Less hassle, less employees, less lawsuits..

    To keep it in a ./ fashion
    1. Make lots of cash
    2. Use cash to patent everything that exists
    3. Fire all programmers, and become a legal firm
    4. Sue anyone that has cash or can loan money to pay settlements
    5. Result: Even a better profit/ROI, to make even more cash !
  • by burnsy ( 563104 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:29PM (#9372542)
    The TODO, UNDONE, and HACK tokens have been in Visual Studio since at least 1998.

    See here...

    Task List Window [microsoft.com]

  • by TastyWords ( 640141 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:34PM (#9372583)
    ...and I'll say it again:

    "Someday, Microsoft will patent the alphabet. And when that happens, we'll find ourselves paying royalties every time we sit down at the keyboard."
  • by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:47PM (#9372679)
    Thankfully they didn't patent the "FIXME" list.

  • by stox ( 131684 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:47PM (#9372680) Homepage
    Microsoft patents the exchange of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide via breathing. A spokesman was heard saying that with this innovation, the competition will be smothered.
  • Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:53PM (#9372726)
    A lot of the comments thus far are attacking the wrong issue. Microsoft is not claiming that they are the first to consider embedding comments and keywords in source code to identify needed actions. What they are claiming is that they are the first to use the information for maintaining task lists in real time.

    I am unsure if their claim is correct but, even if it is, it should have been thrown out as a totally obvious extension to routine, long standing software development methodologies.

  • by argoff ( 142580 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @08:54PM (#9372734)

    FYI - you are now beginning to get a tase of the new Microsoft Linux strategy.

    That is - patent the daylights out of everything, hopeing to catch, snag, and delay Linux somewhere along the way. (Well you didn't actually expect them to innovate did you?)

    The next frontier in liberty - Project Libertopia [inetsoda.com]

  • by gregbaker ( 22648 ) * on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:02PM (#9372796) Homepage
    I've been doing this for years:
    grep "TODO" *.tex
    It's probably in my history right now.

    Seriously, how is this different? Check off the task and the source code changes. Wouldn't it be easier to just delete the comment since you're already editing the source code?

  • by PatHMV ( 701344 ) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:14PM (#9372878) Homepage
    Not on political, pro-Linux grounds, but because the company is starting to look a little desparate. First was this article [slashdot.org] where MS announced they were significantly lengthening support periods for older software versions. This was a dramatic reversal of its previous practice of using strong-arm tactics to force corporate customers into frequent and regular upgrades.

    Then there was this article [slashdot.org], discussing how Microsoft has begun making changes to its previously onerous licensing terms in favor of its customers.

    Now we've seen two patents in recent weeks which seem to be the overly-broad type normally associated with companies who are desparate to produce licensing revenue, and not real products.

    Combine this with the fact they have been forced to delay much new product development because they must finally start focusing on security, and it all adds up to clear indications of bad times coming for them. (Of course, they have plenty of cash to tide them over for quite a long period.)
  • Easy to overcome (Score:4, Informative)

    by Maljin Jolt ( 746064 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:46PM (#9373133) Journal
    The patent is titled "Task list window for use in an integrated development environment" at the patent office. So, run your grep on other machine. Then, you will have a DISTRIBUTED, not INTEGRATED development environment. Do not show results in "window", but call it "virtual screen". Patent showing results in window, especially if you have a 30 years old prior art.

    Or, use emacs. That's a platform, not IDE....

  • Allow me. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OneIsNotPrime ( 609963 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @09:48PM (#9373142)
    To the poster: I agree that many of the MS patents that have been popping up as front page news on Slashdot are ridiculous at face value. Whether that is because they are really so ludicrous, or because the details of a 100+ page patent can't be bioled down to a 1 paragraph summary by one of Microsoft's opponents, I can't say (because I am too lazy to read the stinkin' article). Perhaps it is a 50/50 split. Anyway, this patent doesn't look ludicrous to me from the summary. MS didn't patent a grocery list. They patented the autogeneration of coding task lists based on 'TODO:' comments in the code. This doesn't seem like a glaringly obvious idea to me, and I'm not aware of any prior art. If you are, or it seems glaringly obvious to you, speak up. But don't overgeneralize the patent just to make it sound overly ridiculous - that delegitamizes your argument.
  • by auzy ( 680819 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:05PM (#9373253)
    Last time I checked, http://www.nat.org/dashboard/ has been doing this for a very long time.. So this patent probably isn't legal.. http://www.nat.org/dashboard/fixme.php3 thats their automatically generated todo list.. So, I guess this patent wont last long...
  • PRIOR ART!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Y Ddraig Goch ( 596795 ) on Wednesday June 09, 2004 @08:04AM (#9375624)
    Borland has had this feature in Delphi since at least version 5. I don't use C++ Builder but I'm sure that it has a similar feature. This whole patent thing is out of control.

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...