That's Not Obvious? 

Granted I'm not expert in patent law (read this as a general disclaimer about me not being a lawyer), but this recently awarded patent to Microsoft regarding email addresses as objects seems to be not enforceable on its face (H/T to /.):

The present invention is directed at a system and process for allowing a user to treat email addresses as objects. This allows easy manipulation of the email addresses, such as allowing them to be added to a contact list, copied to the computer's clipboard, or double-clicked to open the related contact information for that email address sender. Email addresses are treated as objects in the message preview pane and full message windows of both incoming and outgoing email messages. A small icon is added to the text of each address. In a preferred embodiment, the icons will vary depending on the pedigree of the address. The invention is not limited to single addresses. Rather, an entry denoting a mailing list could also be treated as an object and a unique icon could be employed to indicate the nature of the entry. For outgoing messages, the pedigree of the address or list is determined by monitoring where the user obtained the address. For incoming messages, the message header is parsed and searched to find addresses that match the receiving user's address book. If no match is found, a generic address icon is added before the text of the address, while the system checks the email header against other address sources such as server lists. Once the address is marked with an appropriate icon the user can manipulate the address in various ways allowing the user to readily edit or add email addresses to their contact list. Additionally, the invention may include contextual menus to assist the user in this manipulation.

I say this because a patent must cover something that is not obvious. What is described above ought to be obvious to anyone who knows anything about object oriented programming. The first thing a person would do when designing an email software system using object oriented techniques is to do exactly what is described above. Any kid in college who has a software design assignment would do this. Come on... give me a break. You guys have made some great software over the years... but not because you invented some grand wheel nobody could have thought of. You've just been very good at making and selling a wheel.

I wonder what kind of people work at the USPTO that this made it through. Obviously not someone who knows the first thing about software. And if they aren't employing anyone there who knows anything about software, should they really be granting patents in that field?