Microsoft Patents Interactive Entertainment

An anonymous reader writes "Embedded-Watch is carrying a story regarding the award of patent number 6,571,390 to Microsoft. The patent would seem to cover pretty much any implementation of a video-on-demand system that you (or at least I) can think of. Read for yourself to decide whether this patent either is not original work or is blatantly obvious to the most casual observer. The patent could certainly be invalidated by the courts on either point, but that'd take a fight in court that won't be cheap."

Comments

big surprise...

[double_plus_ungod]

... from the people who wanted exclusive rights for the common word "windows"

What this patent is.

[hackwrench]

So they patented a directory of videos in thumbnail view?

I fully expect that MS will be sued

[rock_climbing_guy]

I fully expect that MS will be sued for infringing on Amazon's patent on patenting obvious things with tons of prior art.

Re:Adult Content Industry?

[spinlocked]

I wonder what Bill's name would be if he appeared in one of Flynt's works?

Billy Longhorn.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

the patentable feature in this patent is not VOD. check out class 725/87 for a number of VOD systems.

Read claim 1, the patentable feature is dealing with scroll rates and adding/removingfor a number of listings in a VOD environment. This is not a patent for VOD itself there are several hundred existing patents for that.

VOD by the way is streaming to a user on demmand imediatly after a program is selected, this is not a patent for just that function rather it builds on it to deal with entries/scrolling.

Re:WRONG

[sql*kitten]

Read claim 1, the patentable feature is dealing with scroll rates and adding/removingfor a number of listings in a VOD environment. This is not a patent for VOD itself there are several hundred existing patents for that.

I'm guessing you're new around here. Slashbots don't bother to read articles; they just see the words "Microsoft" and "patent" on the same page and start frothing at the keyboard.

I've said it a hundred times on here, you can't patent an idea, only the specific implementation of an idea. Patents are all about what seem like minor details, but are actually things that are important, and they've all got very vague, general names. S'why you have to read 'em before commenting.

And in related news . . .

[CaptainStormfield]

The popular geek-news site Slashdot has applied for a patent on alarmist patent stories. One anonymous editor was quoted as saying: "What can we say -- overstating the scope of a patent makes for good news -- it keeps the nerds coming back!"

Re:Blatantly obvious? Grammar nitpick

[Motherfucking Shit]

Something cannot be "blatantly obvious." "Blatant," by definition, is "Offensively obvious." Thus, saying something is "blatantly obvious" is the equivalent of saying it is "offensively obvious obvious." It's like saying "PIN number," or "UPC code."

I take it you'd prefer "patently obvious" instead? :)

Re:Adult Content Industry?

[maxpublic]

We already know that one: Microsoft!

Max

Did anybody RTFA?!

[shroudedmoon]

The patent isn't for Video on demand, in fact they stipulate the fact that vide on demand is common. The patent is for their system of categorizing and selecting items. I know it's fun to bash MS off the cuff, but cmon...

Re:It's been done before...

[BillyJoJimBob]

If you bother to actually read the patent, I have not come across any examples of prior art. Not that prior art may not exist, but I've never seen or heard of it.

The patent is for the storage of your preferences and selections from a database of available digital and/or broadband content, which you may or may not decide to order at some point. If/when you do order the content is delivered on-demand. The point being that subsequent "visits" do not require you to start from scratch indicating what types of content you want to browse/select from, and previously marked items of interest are immediately available to order without the user having to "search" for them again.

Has anyone read the patent yet?

[angle_slam]

People here are apopleptic because Microsoft patented video on demand. But look at the claims. They are patenting a program guide with an adjustable scroll rate. That's it. The parent patent is a lot more broad, but has been out there since 1999. Has MS tried to assert it?

Here are the claims to the patent:

1. A user interface unit for use in an individual home, the user interface unit being connected to an interactive entertainment network system having a content provider, the content provider providing video content programs to the user interface unit, the user interface unit comprising:

a processor;

a user interface which executes on the processor to display at least one list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

the processor causing the list to visually scroll at a selected rate while being displayed whereby one entry is removed as another entry is added;

the user interface enabling a viewer to adjust the selected rate according to personal preference; and

the processor being programmable, in response to the viewer's inputs to adjust the selected rate at which the list is scrolled.

2. A method for operating a user interface used in interactive entertainment network system, the interactive entertainment network system having a content provider which is connected to provide video content programs to a plurality of user interface units in individual homes, the user interface being executed on a processor provided at each user interface unit, the method comprising the following steps:

generating a list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

displaying a number of entries on the list;

scrolling through the list by continually updating the displayed entries, whereby one entry on the list is removed as another entry on the list is added; and

enabling a viewer to adjust a rate at which entries are removed and added to thereby modify a rate at which the list visually appears to be scrolling.

3. In an interactive entertainment network system having a content provider that is connected to provide video content programs to a plurality of user interface units in individual homes, a computer-readable medium having computer-readable instructions for performing the steps comprising:

generating a list of entries pertaining to the video content programs;

displaying a number of entries on the list;

scrolling through the list by continually updating the displayed entries, whereby one entry on the list is removed as another entry on the list is added; and

enabling a viewer to adjust a rate at which entries are removed and added to thereby modify a rate at which the list visually appears to be scrolling.

Easy to implement around.

[ivan256]

This patent is and interface patent on an interface that allows you to scroll through a list of videos one item at a time. You could make a system that didn't violate it by only displaying one video item at a time in a page style instead of list style, or by displaying a multiple item list but change the entire list on a button press instead of scrolling one at a time, which is arguably more useful anyway. This patent is pretty narrow as to the type of interface it covers. Congratualtions Microsoft, you have exclusive rights to an annoying interface.

Somebody should patent exactly this, but add a claim for a "page down" feature. Microsoft will be forced to cross license that patent in order to implement this one in a user-pleasing fashion.

Prior "Art"

[bobdehnhardt]

Hell, I was ordering porn^H^H^H^H"art films" in motels back in the 80's....

Submitted story is incorrect

[gwernol]

I just read the patent and although I am not a patent lawyer, I have written patent applications and hold two so I know something about reading them.

This patent does not cover video on demand systems. Read the claims of the patent, which describe the novel features covered. These boil down to:

A user interface widget that allows you to see a list of available items, where the UI widget is scrollable and the user can control the scroll rate via a preference and the widget shows videos available on a back-end VOD system.

This is so far from a "patent [that] would seem to cover pretty much any implementation of a video-on-demand system" that its laughable. It covers a very specific feature that is used in a proscribed and specific way. Most VOD system's probably don't have this UI and even if they did it would be easy to work around it.

The short story: don't over-react, this is not a patent on VODs.

OK, this is getting rediculous...

[Doobian Coedifier]

Posters: READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLE! You look like an idiot is you reply based on just the summary. It's pretty ovious a good number of posters haven't read it.

Editors: Stop posting stories with misleading summaries! It confuses the Slashdot community, who likes to post their knee-jerk reactions.

I'm gonna lose my karma for this, so be it. Slashdot sucks more and more every day, with duplicates, misleading summaries, and Ask Slashdots that could be solved by Googling, eopinions.com (Color laser printer), or reading your manual ("broken" V-chip is actually CC text mode). Check out "Not Slashdot", kuro5hin.org