Slashdot Mirror
Xybernaut Patents Collar Computer
igargoyle writes "Wearable Computer manufacturer, Xybernaut, has encouraged the kludge that is the patent office by patenting collar based wearable computers. Besides being extremely vague, the whole thing sounds likes the Slashdot article, 'A Linux Machine For Your Collar.' There are many references to this idea, and computer collars have been used as nomadic radios and animal tracking devices before. Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it."
...sounds awfully much like the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation to me. Need I say more ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
How can you patent something like a collar computor, thats like trying to patent shoes! Nike cant just go and say "Oh, we own shoes" so how can these clownboats get a patent on a collar computor... methinks its time for some peaple to bring out the toolkits and Redhats.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it.
This comes with a link to Xybernaut.
Now, I still do not understand how this company is evil and wasting public money if the submitter cannot even qualify their product better than "vague".
What is it ?
A wearable computer which is being patented.
We know that patents are evil but why is this one even more evil ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
How many times does this shit have to happen before the Patent Office is called to account for itself.
There have been so many stupid patents in the last few years that I have lost count - patents which have OBVIOUS prior art and are EASILY disputed. Silly patents are becoming the norm, and yet there isnt much news on the dispute of them - perhaps there should be a very serious penalty to companies which patent obvoius things (like one click shopping, etc)
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
What does this mean??? It can be summarized as 'We are good at doing jobs'.
-Kz-
What I'd like to know is exactly what these collar computers would be used, or useful, for. With traditional computers, you need two things to use them effectively. A way to input information, and a way to output information. Now, while advances have been made in the areas of display technology, I don't think we're to the point where you could have a practical, comfortable, usable display that can be worn. In the book "Digital FOrtress" by Dan Brown, an assassin uses a unique input system bases on the touching of contacts together in rapid succession, the contacts being worn on the fingertips. This might be an interesting concept. So far as the display goes, my idea would be to use the "smart window" technology to have a small screen embedded between two panels of glass or plastic. These could be worn as eyeglasses. The application of a small amount of voltage causes these panels to become opaque or clear, depending on the setting. This might prove to be a viable display technology in a few years.
"What I cary in this box is your utter subjugation."
or does this patent apply only to collars worn on humans, not dolphins :-)
Don't know why anybody would be surprised. The patent system is absurd and the concept of obviousness is a concept the USPTO doesn't seem to grasp.
Corporate counsels are recommending that their companies attempt to patent everything they can think of. Like it or not it makes good business sense if your company can afford to do it.
Note that 60% (or so) of granted patents don't withstand serious challenges. Of course, they can still be used to threaten competitors.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The U.S patent office just doesn't get it to do with hardware/software patents (i.e: allowing microsoft to patent sudo). The patent office needs a rethink of how they handle technology patents. Half the time, the patents are given out to companies/people who didn't come up with the idea, that just heared it somewhere else and got involved with it.
They need a rethink. A major one.
"With Microsoft, you get Windows. With Linux, you get the full house" - unknown
The patent office's dubious practices don't cost us anything now. They're actually profitable. It's just the long term consequences for innnovation that worrying.
-sd
To quote the article
involves a wearable computer having computer components movably located in a collar (such as that of a garment) that the user wears around his or her neck. The computer component(s) can be a display, monitor, a microphone or audio headset
Which is even more stupid than previously thought.
I, for one, welcome our new computer-collar wearing, cyborg-dog overlords!
Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
So, if I wear my laptop bag over my shoulder, am I almost infringing this "patent"?
These ridiculous patents not only make the patent offices look inane, but also somehow lessen the validity of genuine ones.
There actually was a patented thing in the 80's like this by IBM.
I am all in favor of this. The more absurd entries in the patent system, the sooner it is going to collapse.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
"Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it."
This is like asking corporations to pay their fair share of taxes without passing a law that requires it. If there's one lesson in the success of capitalism as an economic system, it's that people are basically greedy and that what's not forbidden will be done and genrally accepted, even if it's not right.
We need to curtail patents, not shame individual piecemeal patent holders. Get in touch with your legislators or spred the word through publicity stunts that patents are bad, but this sort of rear guard action helps no one.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
I saw this concept in Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex Season 1 ep 1.
Before you reply, please read the patent file.
Every single time there is a patent story we get the masses biching and complaining about the patent system, yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU are too farking lazy to write letters to your senators, represenatives, president, governor, etc.. explaining the problem and how it is something bad.
It's time, I'm calling all you asshat's out.
Shit or get off the pot. I.E. if you do not write those letters, and become a patent reform supporter then you need to shut the hell up and be happy.
If you are so lazy that you can not be bothered to get away from slashdot for 20 minutes towrite those letters or make those phone calls, then you are nothing but a waste of space and need to sut up.
IANAL, but wouldn't these jackets made by Levi's & Philips, from 2001, count as prior art?
> stop wasting taxpayer's money
Patent applications are not free. And neither are the patent maintenance fees (if the patent is issued).
The USPTO collects so much in fees that the government takes some of the money collected by the USPTO and spends it elsewhere.
Instead of complaining about companies voluntarily PAYING fees to our federal government, we should complain about HOW that money is spent--for example, complaining about the USPTO not being able to use all the collected fees to improve itself would be the smarter thing to do.
If you read the patent laws and policies, you'd see that innovation isn't hurt, but actually helped by "correct" patents. The problem is with patents being granted that do not meet the legal requirements in the first place. But then, those scenarios can play out in court later on and the patent will get killed if it was undeserving of a grant.
Is the collar computer obvious? If so, why has nobody thought of making one before? Just think, all of you guys who came up with this idea years ago could have made a million dollars producing one of these.
Jeez, these guys come up with an invention. Sure, it doesn't change the world, but it's a clever idea, and its original.
Depends on whether the usage of "wires built into the jacket" counts as a computer.
"What I cary in this box is your utter subjugation."
The patent review process is obviously hopelessly borked. What's needed now is an independent (outside) review of how bad things are. A bunch of people with PhDs in CS and SE need to start doing a random sample of recently granted patents to see how many are obvious to "experts in the field" (hence the PhD requirement for credibility reasons).
I have a feeling that the numbers will be very sad.
You can blame a company who obtained an asinine patent for doing what is perfectly legal. If it doesn't do it, some other company would, and than that Xybernaut would be screwed.
If you have a problem with what Xybernaut did then you should move to change the law. To expect corporations (and citizens) to follow laws which do not exist is as asinine as the patent that Xybernaut obtained.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
There are many slashdotters who think patents are needed because without them the little guy is screwed. However, there is a much more fundamental problem here. Patents basically prevents someone from using his own knowledge even if the knowledge came from someone else initally.
Tell me, if preventing someone from using his own knowledge (it is his knowledge since it is in his mind) by force is not slavery then what is it?
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
A useful Wiki would be for prior art, or for people to submit ideas they want publically documented but not patented.
Perhaps someone has already done this, anyone know? The useful part would be the Wiki though, so everyone can submit prior art.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
I just googled "wearable computer" and got over 200,000 hits. There are even university programs dedicated to wearable computers.
Within the last week an economist was complaining about the damage the patent system is doing either here or on groklaw (I did a quick search and couldn't find it.) The situation is becoming so scandalous that many 'respectible' voices are beginning to complain. Expect legislative action some time within the next fifty years.
Dear Corporation,
We've been watching you very closely and it seems that you won't be getting much for Christmas this year. We had a talk with Santa and he says you are out there filing frivolous patents on "wearable" computers - with evidence of prior art dating back to the 80's falling from the sky, ( Its not? Keep watching, I will personally see to it...).
Anyway, Good fucking luck man. God is gonna be pissed when you try to defend it in court.
Sincerely,
Jesus H. Christ
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
This opens new opportunities for Jean-Marie Pfaff !
(Belgian inside joke)
But if you guys show up wearing tinfoil body wrap and bouffant hairdos, I'm gonna hurl.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Look no further than Dr Theopolis and Twiki!
Well they were until Slashdot pointed out that you've patented something ridiculous... now there isn't a nerd in the world who accepts anything you do. Good luck fellas!
Get your Unix fortune now!
Is a "war fighter" what used to be called a "soldier"?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Collar Computers or computers in a collar you can wear? Just when we all joke about Cell Phone ear implants; suddenly it is becoming a true reality. Someone remind me when the cell phone ear implants come around for me to stay off the road.
:: Cyco(k) out
Check the nomadic radio link. It's not jsut vapourware - it was used in research for a couple years (not anymore, since the creator got his degree).
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
To quote the patent,
The preferred and optimumly preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described herein...
Does the use of "optimumly" invalidate the patent? Or is the invention of this word covered under the same patent?
I believe that this is exactly the same as James Dyson combining the large industrial vortexes which are used to get dust out of factories and a standard vaccum cleaner. He was given worldwide patents and you don't see many slashdotters complaining about this...
PS. I'm against patents being granted for both
The USPTO actually makes money by charging a substantial fee for every interface with it, and strictly monitoring the time spent on each task. I'm told that a USPTO examiner only has time to look at a patent for 8 hours during its entire examination, including prior art searches and the response to the patentee
The funds raised by the USPTO are used for things that have nothing to do with the USPTO, thus the poor results. This makes most of the IP community fairly angry, as pseudo-companies are getting patents on ridiculous things, which then waste real-companys' time fighting ridiculous lawsuits from "trolls".
I am used to the general uninformed ranting that goes on Slashdot regarding the patent system. i.e. "IM GOING TO PATENT TEH NUMBER "0"!!!! I OWNZZ J00 F007!!!!". But I'm surprised that this statement got onto the front page.
Don't get me wrong there are a lot of problems with the USPTO, but most could be solved by a simply allowing the USPTO to use the money it makes to do its job, rather then allowing congress to put that money into its coffers. If you are going to bitch, at least make it informed, or else you run the risk of misleading your audience and don't actually solve the problem.
The problem with waiting for a system to collapse in its own absurdity is that often it stubbornly stays up. Even worse when you try to hurry said collapse by adding absurdities, as you sometimes wind up having benefitted your opponent. It's like trying to shift into a throw in a fight to unbalance your opponent and finding that they're quite happy with you moving in that direction and would like to help you accelerate just a bit more on your way to the floor.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
How about the copper ruff heat sink?
Didn't the communicators in 'star trek: next generation' reside on the collars? I'm guessing that since the communicators relayed the wearer's position, digitized the voice, aided in routing the call, and interfaced with the ship's main computer, for all intents and purposes it was a computer.
While there are absurd patents on the rise, there is the other side of patenting too... Large corporations do not patent many worthwhile ideas because they do not bring in any revenue or because the ideas do not belong to the primary focus area of the company
Patenting is all about earning revenue. Can u really blame them for it??
Sounds to me like they are going to patten this and then wait for someone else to produce a product. If you look at their current products none of them are even close to being small enough to fit in a collar.
/. like sites that would owe me money.
I think I may patten the process of distributing technology news via an electronic medium where readers are abel to provide their opinions on said news bits. Imagine all the PHP Nuke and
Is it novel? Eh. I can't think of anything like what is described, but there are lots of things under the sun.
Is it useful? Probably to someone.
Is it non-obvious? Yeah, in the patent kind of way, because it specifically describes a method of developing a head mounted display that would have been developed by others multiple times over if it were obvious. Lots of people are working on head mounted displays, all of which specifically mount to the head. This mounts to a collar around the neck. I think it's a lame idea, but I also think it's a meaningful patent.
RTFP!
"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
collar computers? Waist belt shaped compuiters?
... or u can put a cpu there even .. heat dissapation may be a problem though?
.. swallowable computers thnink odf the medical uses .. i remember reading about that somewhere ... hmm.
any body part is game. waist belt sounds like a good place to put a battery too. Like maybe n the belt buckle
surgically implanted or swallowable computers
I read the patent, and to me it's a wide-ranging catch-all. A neck computer that's also a cellphone, or maybe it's a radio, possibly has a display, maybe you can listen to music on it.
Hey! I know! Let's work all conceivable notions into the patent for what a neck computer could be, so if anybody else wants to make one, they gotta pay us.
Patents like this make patenting seem like a racket.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Patents are bad?
Why is China stepping up their IP laws and enforcement policies as we speak?
Is it because they know that they have the world's best priced engineering talent pool and realize that it will never lead to a viable, self standing technology industry unless their weak IP protection is buttressed?
The people that think patents are bad are not the same people that bootstrap innovation by putting the rubber to the road and funding a research based concern.
This is no surprise.
I interviewed Xybernaut's CEO several years ago at COMDEX. The interview was set up for the purpose of talking about his company's use of Linux on its gear, but he only half-heartedly showed me a few models, then launched into his spiel about Xybernaut's patent attorneys, which he had all over the world. I think he claimed over 60 countries.
He told me Xybernaut could see the downturn coming and that it had decided licensing and royalties were where it's at. To demonstrate the company's "innovative" strides in patent gamesmanship, he pulled out a unit that a hinged and retractable slot cover for a PCMCIA slot. It was a slot cover: It closed when the card was in place, and opening it caused the card to eject.
He said no one had patented anything like it, and that his crack team of attorneys were now vigilantly monitoring dozens of countries to make sure that if anyone did anything like it, they'd be on hand demanding royalties and a cut of the action.
When Xybernaut announces patents like this, I suppose we can take comfort in its consistency: It's going on four years of taking out patents and then watching for someone to run afoul of them so it can get down to its real business, which is making sure the only "useful art or science" left is patent litigation.
Michael Hall
mph.puddingbowl.org
Boy, this sounds like something out of a comic book to me.
Even though it's a clear reference to a Star Trek ep where computerised collars were worn by gladiator-like slaves.
Ya know what, mods, if you don't get the reference, walk away and go mod something up instead.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Innovation is great for helping a whole group of entities share the "wealth by-products" of technology. Patents, on the other hand, help single entities, by taking advantage of the primary factor of economics, the "maximum productive output of limited resources." Patents help companies limit the resource in question so that the marketplace has to maximize through them.
Is one of the more innovative companies out there. They have a good solid history of wearable computing designs, so I support them in protecting their assets. This is NOT another IBM or MS. This is NOT an evil company doing evil things. Shit, back in 1994 all I wanted was one of their devices. I still want one, they're badass.
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees
I work as a patent examiner, and if that was the case my quota would be so easy.
I personally allow less than 6% of the cases that go accross my desk.
The office doesnt have enough funds to hire more examiners as the funds are being diverted.
If you read the patent laws and policies, you'd see that innovation isn't hurt, but actually helped by "correct" patents. The problem is with patents being granted that do not meet the legal requirements in the first place.
Which, of course, brings up the question of whether it's feasible to make the patent system have an acceptably low level of bullshit patents being granted.
Just because the problem is "with individual patents" doesn't mean that a flaw with the system has not been raised.
May we never see th
Guess you missed the OJ trial ;). Seriously, snowing over a dimwitted jury with technical evidence is a great way to get a "not guilty" by default because they couldn't understand the case.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
As I mail out a Response to Final Office Action today. Whoever the patent lawyer this guy talked to is full of crap. I have NEVER had ANY application go through without at least one Office Action. Sorry /.folks, it isn't as easy to get a patent as everyone thinks it is.
How many times does this shit have to happen before the Patent Office is called to account for itself.
As I read this Slashdot story, I see a number of people doing one of the following:
(a) Blaming the USPTO and saying that they need to get their act together.
(b) Blaming Xybernaut for filing a bullshit patent.
Now, before you start writing, consider what you intend to accomplish.
Let's take a look. First, the people criticizing the USPTO for doing a poor job reviewing patents. The USPTO can't simply review patents "better". To some degree, this is a matter of money. You are dealing with documents (and often not very clear ones) that are often describing bleeding edge research, stuff that perhaps one or two people in the world fully understand. Even if it were possible to hire the PhDs and spend the desired time on each patent, it would be incredibly expensive, requiring vast amounts of funding to be channeled to the USPTO. Or, perhaps patent fees could be significantly increased -- which would make it difficult for the little independent inventors to obtain patents.
Then, the people criticizing Xybernaut.
Usually, we have a gut reaction, learned in childhood, to blame and criticize people that do something that hurts us. The problem is that corporations are very carefully designed to make it as easy as possible to be as exploitative as possible and to ignore this sort of complaining -- if they *aren't*, they get quashed by someone else who *is* nastier. Many of the structures we have -- isolating upper management and decision makers from direct contact with the outside, making executives legally responsible to the shareholders of a company, paying executives based on what share prices and profits do -- are designed to prevent typical learned human reactions from coming into play. An executive is encouraged *not* to have his business donate $5,000 to the local school for sports equipment (unless, of course, the advertising value of the donation is greater than the cost). So, there isn't a lot of point in complaining about Xybernaut's behavior. They're doing exactly what the system is designed to encourage them to do. The CEO who thought he was so clever to keep patenting silly things really *is* clever, if he can use the patents to pull money away from someone else.
So, all I can say is that complaining about poor review practices or "evil" behavior on the part of Xybernaut is not going to accomplish anything. Such actions just have no impact on the system as it stands. It's like politely asking a boulder that's in your way to move -- it's not an effective solution to the problem.
I, personally, think that the only effective way to solve the problem is the change the patent *system*, which is where the flaw is. Make patent challenges (especially prior art challenges) extremely simple and inexpensive, as idiot-proof as possible, so that they can be done without a lawyer. Make the *loser* of a patent challenge case, not the *challenger*, pay the patent challenge fees. Require the holder of a patent to have an opportunity to, before each challenge is examined, release their patent to the public domain. Include an "obviousness" restriction on patents (in the common sense, not in the current sense of obviousness consisting of differences from an existing patent). If a typical engineer in a field will come up with the patent given the problem the patent is intended to solve within five minutes, then the patent does not warrant the Constitutional granting of a monopoly -- the patent filer is not advancing the state of knowledge. This changes the system to have the characteristics that we want -- it is no longer in the interest of a company to file bullshit lawsuits, if such a bullshit patent does slip through it can be easily removed by anyone (instead of adding more garbage to the USPTO database until some court case comes along involving it). In addition, cap the number of claims per patent at a much smaller number (perhaps ten).
May we never see th
because you are spreading useful information that takes away from the daily PTO bashing and thus not contributing to the discussion
Doesn't anybody remember the dog from the old animated Inspector Gadget series? I think his name was 'Brain'. Sounds like his collar.
TenXsys has been putting tracking collars on large animals and birds of prey.
(http://www.tenxsys.com/animal_telemetry.htm)
It's not quite a computer in a collar, but with this sort of prior work, I'm a bit surprised the Patent office would give it a patent. If MS put an xbox in a collar, will they give that a patent?
I don't see where this passes the "novel" concept, but then stranger things have been patented...
Politicus
As usual, nobody knows what the fock they are talking about. It is a patent in the *field of* wearable computers, *related to* collar computers. It is not a patent on a collar computer per se, it's not even about the electronics. All the *claims* are about a particular physical structure of the thing, where parts like the mike or display are housed in it and move or extend out of the collar (in front of the user's face I guess). It's pretty much a mechanical patent on a physical configuration of a collar computer. All the old stuff has zero relevance unless it is about physically extending a microphone or display or something out of the collar. Whether you love or hate patents, that's what this is about. I repeatr, Asshats.
I think you need re-learn basic economics.
Rule #1. Income must meet or exceed expenses or business will die.
(This rule is true for any business or organization, big or small, profit or non-profit, democrap or publican, wig or labir, male or female, greedy or generous, captialist or Communist -- when Mao Zhi Dong tried to break it, he killed 30-80 million people and almost pushed China back to the stone age.)
When governments tax businesses, they MUST pass the additional cost on to the customers. (See rule#1)
Therefore, businesses DO NOT pay taxes. The customers pay taxes for for the business.
If you still believe businesses pay taxes, you should get one of those credit cards that pays you cash each time you use it ... and a wheelbarrow to hold all the cash you get.
I found prior art pretty easily...
2 23 5&tid=222&tid=133&tid=1
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/29/011
They should take all the extra revenue from the USPTO and spend it on court cases involving patent infringement. Maybe then the USPTO will have an incentive to get it right the first time.
The invention of the internet has enabled a great many people to communicate, many of whom can easily identify prior art.
So why aren't they listening?
Isn't the whole point of the
Sure, such a patent would (maybe) be invalidated, after a lengthy and expensive process, but they'd still be screwed.
Many of you talk a good game of prior art, providing oodles of weblinks that supposedly prove your searching brilliance and the Patent Office's ineptitude. However, after looking over the "prior art" references cited in this thread, I fail to see any that would actually fully read on Xybernaut's claimed subject matter.
For instance, both the Nomadic Radio and Smart Cow Collar lack a display controller, and from all appearances also lack any computer components enclosed in the collar that can movably extend outside the collar adjacent to the user's face.
Simply mentioning that the Gumstix computer is small enough to fit under a collar doesn't remotely cover the myriad of claimed limitations in Xybernaut's patent.
This Hewlett-Packard paper merely states, "A collar mounted near-field transceiver allows connection to head-mounted peripherals." Again, nothing about a display controller (or any other computer components) movably extending from inside to outside the collar.
The Invisible Computer talks optimistically about a future when, "Computers will be in your collar, so you can whisper when you talk with them and hear without bothering others." The specific operational structure of Xybernaut's claimed invention is not here either.
Levi's Industrial Clothing apparently comes, "Armed with a remote, [so] you can switch between [an MP3] player and [a mobile] phone, while earphones and microphones are concealed in the jacket collar." No mention of display control. No mention of collar component extension.
This 'Enter the Cyborg' article further describes Levi's Industrial Clothing as having, "a microphone hidden in the collar, and retractable earphones [that] extend out from the shoulders for listening to both music and phone calls." So we have computer component extension -- but from the shoulders, not from the collar. And still, mind you, no display controller enclosed in the collar.
This Carnegie Mellon University paper reveals, "The general areas we have found to be the most unobtrusive for wearable objects are: (a) collar area..." Okay, great. But yet again, no display controller and no collar extension.
The closest prior art comes from Accenture's Personal Awareness Assistant. However, the earliest mention of the Personal Awareness Assistant on Accenture's website appears to be January 2002. And Xybernaut's invention was filed on January 2, 2001. Besides that, saying Accenture's mini digital camera constitutes a "display controller" would be a bit of a stretch. Regardless, Accenture also fails to say anything about "input/output connectors" or "peripheral ports" -- as claimed by Xybernaut. So another dead end here.
Now you may well make the argument that Xybernaut's invention is an obvious variant (where "obviousness" is completely subjective and easily disputable) of the above prior art. But that position is dramatically different from declaring Xybernaut's invention not to be novel. For Xybernaut's invention not to be novel, you would have to find a piece of prior art dated before 2001 that contains each and every limitation recited in claims 1, 11, 20, or 22 (a
Hanging things to the neck must have been first done some, say, 20.000 years ago? Any anthropologist in the room?
I guess they're a little late to patent this...