Obfuscation is a vastly underappreciated artform.

I don't really have an opinion, as I was neither the prosecuting attorney nor the examiner in this application. Taking a quick look at the prosecution history, (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/17945472) adding the claim requirements "receive calls from the spreadsheet application that identify external functions named in non-native statements inside arguments of at least one native function named in cells of the spreadsheet, wherein the external functions comprise Python functions and are executable by the secure runtime environment and not by the spreadsheet application, and a name of the least one native function immediately follows an equal sign and comprises PY" were what got an allowance from the examiner. Prior to that, the examiner rejected the claims over Application No. 2020/0285694 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200285694A1/en?oq=US20200285694) in view of 2020/0278850 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200278850A1/en?oq=US20200278850). Again, I haven't evaluated the merits of the rejection or whether the amendment to add the limitations that resulted in allowance. I will say that, in order to make a rejection, an examiner must be able to point to publicly available documents (most typically published patent applications and patents, but can include so-called "non-patent literature" as frequently happens in software and the biological arts) that were public prior to the filing of the application to make the rejection. While I do not contest what you say as the "only thing that is unique" is python, the evidentiary burden for examiners is greater than conclusory statements, and it is frequently harder to find public documents disclosing what you think was publicly known than you might realize.

Agreed on all counts.

Patent attorney here. The title of a patent can be used for providing the general gestalt of the invention a patent is directed to, but does NOT describe what is actually protected by the patent. There are three independent (base) claims (legally enforceable part of a patent) of the patent referenced in the article, as follows: 1. A computing apparatus comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least: instantiate a secure runtime environment for a duration that a spreadsheet is open in a context of a spreadsheet application, wherein the secure runtime environment comprises a Python runtime environment and is external with respect to the context of the spreadsheet application; for the duration that the spreadsheet is open: receive calls from the spreadsheet application that identify external functions named in non-native statements inside arguments of at least one native function named in cells of the spreadsheet, wherein the external functions comprise Python functions and are executable by the secure runtime environment and not by the spreadsheet application, and a name of the least one native function immediately follows an equal sign and comprises PY; and execute the external functions in the secure runtime environment; and shutdown the secure runtime environment when the spreadsheet closes. 8. One or more computer readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, direct the computing device to at least: instantiate a secure runtime environment for a duration that a spreadsheet is open in a context of a spreadsheet application, wherein the secure runtime environment comprises a Python runtime environment and is external with respect to the context of the spreadsheet application; for the duration that the spreadsheet is open: receive calls from the spreadsheet application that identify external functions named in non-native statements inside arguments of at least one native function named in cells of the spreadsheet, wherein the external functions comprise Python functions and are executable by the secure runtime environment and not by the spreadsheet application, and a name of the least one native function immediately follows an equal sign and comprises PY; and shutdown the secure runtime environment when the spreadsheet closes. 15. A method of operating a computing system, the method comprising: instantiating a secure runtime environment for a duration that a spreadsheet is open in a context of a spreadsheet application, wherein the secure runtime environment comprises a Python runtime environment and is external with respect to the context of the spreadsheet application; for the duration that the spreadsheet is open: receiving calls from the spreadsheet application that identify external functions named in non-native statements inside arguments of at least one native function named in cells of the spreadsheet, wherein the external functions comprise Python functions and are executable by the secure runtime environment and not by the spreadsheet application, and a name of the least one native function immediately follows an equal sign and comprises PY; and executing the external functions in the secure runtime environment; and shutting down the secure runtime environment when the spreadsheet closes. Now, is what's described in these claims truly novel and non-obvious? I cannot say, but everyone should understand it is the claims that are evaluated for patentability, not the title.

Came here to say this. I hope the new Matter/Threads protocol lessens instances of what's happening with Hue. Then again... https://xkcd.com/927

A pretty great excerpt from the first footnote: "I have spent an inordinate amount of time deciphering the record as the parties presented it in their dueling statements of material fact. Statements of material fact, responses and replies are supposed to focus the record so that the judge can tell what is truly disputed and what is not. Here, the dueling statements are so argumentative, lengthy, and full of qualifications, objections, and requests to strike that they are basically unusable. For the most part I have bypassed them..."

I'm an attorney, but am not a specialist in this area. I wonder if this is an example of a contract of adhesion, that could be found unconscionable. Of course, that takes either a consumer or an Attorney General stepping up to bat on that theory.

I wonder if radiation pressure from the solar panels supply the power would alternatively augment or inhibit the effectiveness of this drive.

Does this sound like a convenient way for Police to have unfettered access to your phone, in light of Riley v. California?

Gotta love when Ginsbur, Kagan, and Sotomayor agree with Scalia

Clean room development is a good way to defend against copyright infringement, because you are able to demonstrate you did not have actual knowledge of the copyrighted material, and hence could not have copied it. With patents, it does not matter whether you copied it or not. If your product performs the same invention as described in the claims of a patent, you infringe, regardless of the absence of copying.

Sounds a lot like support materia in FF7.

To me, this just shows that Google, or one of its agents, was quite aware that Sun/Oracle held the copyright to the code. Copying is not limited to copy and paste.

No, de minimis copying wouldn't give rise to copyright infringement. One may argue that what Google copied here is de minimis. However, if a plaintiff can show substantial similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original work, then yes, the defendant in that case could be on the hook. I don't think a plaintiff in the suit you described would be very successful.

But that isn't the point! Clean rooming code is a perfectly legitimate way to keep yourself from committing copyright infringement. By all appearances Google opted not to do that, and instead opted to copy code. If that is in fact the decision they made, then they infringed whatever copyright protection there was on that code. I'm not clear on which phase of the trial this is in, but if this is the copyright infringement claim, it makes not one bit of difference if a teenager, tween, or toddler could independently write the code. If Google copied it, they infringed.