The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I am not asking for legal advice. Ok, now that everyone's butt has been covered....
I've gotten very curious about why some of my articles have gotten a very high amount of traffic, so I started poking around. It turns out that one of my articles[^] is referenced in U. S. Patent #8296730[^], held by Microsoft. Presumably, Microsoft would not have filed this patent if they did not expect to see some kind of commercial return on it.
Question 1: Does the Code Project use license permit for-profit use of the articles that people post here?
Question 2: Would I be entitled to any financial gain that Microsoft might see from this patent, seeing as my work is a reference to the patent? (Ignore, for the moment, the issues involved in trying to initiate a patent dispute with M$.)
The CodeProject Open License is summarized here and detailed here. I'd say go review those and make your own conclusions, but from what I can tell there aren't the sort of restrictions you seem to be implying for that license.
You can patent a derivative work, as long as it is unique enough. When you file a patent, you have to list any citations you know of. The patent examiner may add more, though if the citation were to fully describe the new invention, the patent wouldn't be granted. The question is whether the citations are complete and enough to fully describe the invention or make it obvious. This list can get both long and extremely obscure. Being cited generally increases the value of a patent and perhaps other sources as well, however that's as far as it goes. If being cited in a patent implied a monetary relationship, the entire system would become untenable.
It looks like your article is about how to use the extension methods that Microsoft themselves have implemented for Visual Basic. From the footnote in the patent application, it would appear that the patent writer was simply using your article as a reference for how these methods might be used. I think you should just sit back and be happy that Microsoft's attorney included a reference to your article.
As far as getting any money from Microsoft, I think even if you could afford to bring some kind of action, you'd be hard pressed to show that anything in your article would entitle you to compensation. I mean, if there were an innovation there that Microsoft was leveraging in their invention, then you might be able to claim that there was prior art (i.e. you thought of it first) and so the patent is invalid. But really, your article is all about Microsoft's extension methods. So the sequence was: 1) They invented it (perhaps up for dispute, but that's a separate matter) 2) They commercialized it, then 3) You wrote an article about how to use it. Nice, but not different than any other article about how to leverage any technology.
The citation in the patent application is no different than any other citation unless they're making claims about an invention of yours (which would be weird and unlikely). We really can't go around and sue everyone who cites our articles .
True, but the patent involved was not for a particular way of using extension methods, it was for the idea itself. And Gregory's article was a useful, but not particularly novel, sharing of what he had learned about how to use it.