I've been caught out a couple of times by describing something as trivial (or non-trivial) to people not versed in software-speak. They can either think you are dismissing the whole discussion in some way or just have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.
I don't think you'll find 'easy' as a definition of trivial in a mainstream dictionary (rather things like 'of little value or importance'). It probably is just computing jargon, though I recall it being used when studying mathematics and meaning 'self-evident' (e.g. a trivial solution).
Some mathematicians do have a definite over-fondness for handwaving away statements they can't be bothered to prove with the "it follows trivially that ...". It's all well and good when such a proof would be 20 minutes of basic algebra, but that's frequently not the case.
One of our lecturers at university was so renowned for this, everyone taking that module organised to write "the answer to this question is trivial, and is left as an exercise to the marker" for any question they couldn't figure out in the exam.
And they got it wrong too. Trivial in the software sense merely means there is a known solution, you just have to implement it. Non-trivial means you need to generate some novel IP first.
As far as I can tell, he's borrowing the mathematics sentiment, where "the proof is trivial" doesn't necessarily mean you'll find it easy - it just means that the interesting aspects of the problem have been dealt with and what's left is a simpler or more general case.
That said... I've never encountered "novel IP" as the actual standard for 'trivial' in mathematics or CS. It would take a very strong source to convince me that's a formal or most-common-use meaning. (The Wiki page on 'trivial (mathematics)' certainly doesn't offer that meaning.)