A new Microsoft patent has the Internet abuzz with tinfoil-hat-like conspiracy theories. The patent, which covers biometric feedback that can trigger certain features in software, has triggered adverse reactions by bloggers who are convinced that this is all part of a sinister plot by corporations and governments to closely monitor their citizens. But is it? The answer lies in the patent itself, and like all patent documents, it's long and tedious reading. Fortunately, you have Ars Technica to do it for you.

The patent document starts out by describing the relationship that typical computer users have with their applications, documents, and daily tasks. The "application-centric" model dates back to the days of mainframes and was pretty much the only way command-line users could interact with their computers: you typed in the name of the application, then selected the file you wanted to work with (if you were really advanced, you could do both on one command line input).

The "document-centric" model, introduced by Xerox and popularized by Apple, let users interact with documents directly: double-clicking on the document icon would load said document using the application it was created with. Most GUIs today allow the user to choose between the two approaches, and I've noticed that most users tend to stick with one or the other, depending on which one they feel most comfortable with. A third model, which has arisen with the popularity of PDAs, MP3 players, and other gadgets, is "device-centric," where users manage documents based on the device they are copying them to or from.

The trouble with all these models is that the user is required to keep a mental map of where all the documents they need are stored and also keep track of how these documents are related to their daily tasks. There have been many proposed solutions for this problem—most notably the increased use of "smart searching" tools like Windows Desktop Search or Apple's Spotlight—but Microsoft's patent proposes a quite unusual approach to solving this problem.



Doc, it looks like you're trying to write a letter!

Test subjects—and I think it's fair to assume that they would be voluntary—join a program that monitors their computer activities (both online and offline) and identifies other users who are currently involved in similar activity. The software then presents a way that these other users can answer questions for the first user.

For example, a user might be trying to copy new programs to a PDA without success (I helped a friend of mine do this exact task last weekend,and the software would prompt other users who have had success at the task to answer that user's questions.

But how could the system tell that the initial user was not successful? Here's where the biometrics come in: if the system monitors certain behaviors tied to frustration (such as elevated heart rate), then it triggers the routine that asks other users for help. Physical responses aren't the only things that could trigger this event—taking an abnormally long time to complete a task would do so also—but the biometric aspect is certainly the most unusual.

Is this patent a harbinger of a dystopian future where computer users' biorhythms will be monitored to increase efficiency? Unlikely. The idea, which was birthed at Microsoft Research, is simply a more advanced version of user focus group testing that Microsoft (and most other software companies) have been doing for years now. Still, if your employer asks you to patch on a pair of electrodes before sitting down to work in the morning, my advice is to find another company to work for.