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."

11 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh... the patent office stuffs up again by MrRTFM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Sigh... the patent office stuffs up again by Mirk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What I really can't understand is why it's supposedly so expensive for "infringers" to defeat these things in court. Suppose Microsoft decided to sue me for infringement of, oh I don't know, their patent on using four or more colours in a single application. Why do I need to spend money on lawyers? Why can't I defend myself, and have it all done in about twenty seconds flat?
      Microsoft Lawyer: Your honour, the accused
      has infringed our patent on using four or more
      colours in a single application.

      Me: M'lud, the patent is bollocks. Here is a
      file of prior art that I assembled in about
      ten minutes using google, showing that people
      have been doing this for decades before
      the patent was issued.

      Judge: [flicks through folder] Yes, you're
      clearly right. Case dismissed, and Microsoft
      must pay the accused $1M in compensation for
      wasting his and my valuable time.

      Seriously. Why wouldn't this work?

      --

      --
      What short sigs we have -
      One hundred and twenty chars!
      Too short for haiku.
    2. Re:Sigh... the patent office stuffs up again by Mirk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Because Microsoft has very good lawyers.

      Won't do. The legal process is supposed to find in favour of the person who's right, not the person who's hired the best lawyers. Granted that it ain't always so, nevertheless it should surely be so in a clearly black-and-white case. However many lawyers MS hire, they will not be able to persuade a judge or jury that 2+2 = 5, and neither should they or anyone else be able to make the obviously invalid patents stick.

      I am not talking about those that are invalidated by a subtle technical point. I am talking about patents that are for something that everyone knew about a decade before they were issued.

      --

      --
      What short sigs we have -
      One hundred and twenty chars!
      Too short for haiku.
  2. Collar Computers by Kumorigoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
  3. obligatory comment by cribb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I, for one, welcome our new computer-collar wearing, cyborg-dog overlords!

    --
    Hostes alienigieni me abduxerunt. Qui annus est?
  4. Good for them! by StripedCow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  5. Waste of Taxpayer money? by ReadbackMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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.

  6. Making Good on Threats by MichaelH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  7. Re:Text of Patent by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We do, mostly. Tell me which bit of this is 'novel';

    This invention involves a wearable computer having computer components movably located in a collar that the user wears around his or her neck. The computer components can be a display or monitor, or a microphone or any other computer component.

    Apart from the weight of the 'wearable' computer impacting _extremely_ negatively on the collarbones, this patent is so overbroad and loaded with prior art that you have to question why the USPTO is bothering looking. So it would be quite interesting to see if we can get an over-unity patent.

    --
    Oddly Draconis
    Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  8. xybernaut by The+Unabageler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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; print'
  9. Fault and patents by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).