software patents
Are trivial user interface concepts patentable and can they be used?
<p>A few years ago there were some news headlines about that Microsoft is getting royalty fee from Android phones manufactures, because of some Android user interface basic concepts, that were patented by Microsoft. Unfortunately, none of them explain exactly which specific UI elements or concepts was the reason:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Why Microsoft Makes $5 to $15 From Every Android Device Sold</a></p>
<p>Currently, I am developing my own UI library <em>for Windows</em>. My  library provides mechanisms for Windows-developers to create beautiful GUI programs, and I want to sell it in the future. The main advantage of my UI library is that it does not use any of the standard Windows controls, because I am rewriting it on my own.</p>
<p>Although most of UI controls are initially &quot;clean&quot; and need to be set up, customized, some controls already have predefined behavior and the way it displayed, for example - text input field. When developer creates it, it already has an ability to select text via mouse, move caret using keyboard.</p>
<p>The fact that is worrying me, is that logic, that experience exists in existing controls. Stuff like caret, selecting text using a mouse, scrollbars, etc. But in the other hand I am going to distribute it only for Windows.</p>
<p>Can those be patented by Microsoft or someone else? Can Microsoft suing me, if I will sell GUI library that imitating their patented conceptions only for Windows platform?</p>
<p><strong>Update</strong></p>
<p>I am asking specifically about text selection using mouse.</p>

<p>Trivial is hard to judge after the fact due to hindsight bias. Once you know the answer to a riddle it seems obvious but you couldn’t figure it out without already knowing it.</p>
<p>The criteria for get a patent in the US does not include the word or concept “trivial”. It does include non-obviousness. To reduce hindsight bias an examiner needs to follow a process of identifying all sub- components of an invention in the prior art and then making a good argument as to how someone of ordinary skill in the field would be motivated to put them together.</p>
<p>Also there is no measure of improvement over past technology required for a patent. A trivial  improvement in cost or performance is fine. Actually no objective improvement is required at all. An existing solution might work as well or better than your invention. That means probably no one will buy it but if it is novel and not obvious one can get a patent.</p>

<p>A concept that is &quot;trivial&quot; is almost always one that would be obvious to persons trained in the relevant art (in this case the relevant kind of coding) and thus would not be patentable. <em>See</em> 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding
that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth
in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and
the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would
have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the
claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the
manner in which the invention was made.</p>
</blockquote>
