Slashdot Mirror
Sony Patents Matrix-Like Game Technology
howman writes "Reuters is reporting that Sony has been granted 2 patents, both describing 'Method and system for generating sensory data onto the human neural cortex'. These are patents 6,729,337 and 6,536,440. The patents go on to 'describe a technique for aiming ultrasonic pulses at specific areas of the brain to induce sensory experiences such as smells, sounds and images'. The story was first broken by New Scientist magazine." Commentary also available via Ars Technica.
I'd keep an eye on Sony if I were you...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
So, any bets as to which pornographer Sony will be suing first? ;-)
Do you like German cars?
Looks like they are already working on the PS9, Hopefully they can reach the launch date of 2019.
I Can't wait to play that wipeout like game they had in the commercial!
moo.
Well first off, first post? Second, Isn't this a little far-fetched? Why patent something that probably won't be possible for a long time? How do they even know it will BE possible? Or is this already in beta? :D
Is this a belated april fools?
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
At least with sound they don't have to stick a heavily wired icepick into my brain.
:}
See technology is already passing Sci-Fi up.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
... finally.
.de).
Now let us just hope that we ourselves do not conflict with any (coming) patent so that we can take full advantage.
More seriously (?):
Sony hasn't yet built a device that works based on the ideas presented in the patent, so this is all theoretical. In fact, according to the New Scientist, Sony hasn't even conducted any experiments to see if this works. Nonetheless, most of the reporting on this patent (see the Times Online and the original New Scientist peice) claim that some independent experts have said that the idea is plausible. There's no word yet on whether or not tinfoil will stop the ultrasonic brain rays.
Strange. I bet there are some among the crowd here who have "theoretical ideas" that level up with SONY. IIRC, in ancient times it was necessary to present a working model (at least here in
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
...that Sony can patent something not only which they have not implemented, but which they do not even yet know how to implement?
English is easier said than done.
...to make The Matrix game seem fun to the user
-- lol pwned
You mean the first third is good, whilst the rest is shit?
Interesting patent idea.
What a strange coincidence that Sony also happens to own Everquest?
I wonder if they can do this, considering that the idea does come from the Matrix, and thus that it could be considered prior art.
Well, if/when any lawsuits come out about this, we'll see if it does then.
This signature was left intentionally blank.
Nope, was just a game, hope my medical insurance covers this barfight.
*DrugCheese rants*
Do they have this working or are they "patent-squatting"?
Don't patents last less than 10 years? Is this going to be a commercially viable technology within the patents lifetime? Are Sony just going to use it to sue the pants off of all the research institutions that will undoubtedly be implementing this technology first?
There is no spoo...
Ack! My neighbor is flashing me from across the street with images of his grandmother again... get this thing off of me!
And they said zombies weren't real!
I for one welcome our new Sony overloards and give myself up to them to become a battery for the new PS3 but only if they release their exclusive hold on Soul Calibur 3 and GTA
Can someone enlighten me please.
How detailed, exact and 'can be done with the current technology'a patent claim has to be in order to get granted? I mean they can't implement these patents now, can they?
Can I just take say the teleporter and describe it as a commuting device that works by transforming matter into energy, beaming it and retransforming it back to get a patent for it?
Insert random Slashdot-nerd-sex-life-joke.01
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
If sony can patent this, then I wanna patent say, the genetic code of clifford the big red dog.
Now Tank can just upload the experience of having played the game into my cortex; no longer will I have to waste hours of my life mastering some shitty game!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Unfortunatly nobody can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself.
...you're going to shoot what now? At my brain???!
I'll grant you, it's not really doing much else, so it could, in a pinch, substitute for a targetting dummy. However, as I am firmly attached to it, this seems like an idea who's time will never come.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I love how they've patented a method that is as of yet unimplementable. Regardless of who actually goes to the trouble of researching and spending the time prototyping an idea, patent holders usually get to skim off the cream, because, well.. we thought of it first.
Would some slashdotters please hurry up and patent AI, warp drive and/or superhuman genetic mutation please. Wait! better yet, patent methods for processing the new social security system on a computer! Then deny anyone the right to use it. That ought to make all the old trips on Capitol Hill wake up and notice!!
May the Maths Be with you!
This is a smart and bold move on Sony's part. I think the uses of something like this are more far-reaching than first glance.
For example, imagine you're scheduled for a minor surgery and instead of 'doping you up fairly good', they simply simulate a nice walk on the beach, a fishing trip or otherwise.
Depending on how broad the patent is (I didn't read so I'm really not sure), this could net sony A LOT of income in 10-15 years.
Can the new Sony Cybrator (tm) controller be far behind?
'Elizabeth Boukis, spokeswoman for Sony Electronics, says the work is speculative. "There were not any experiments done," she says. "This particular patent was a prophetic invention. It was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us." '
Hey - so it basically means that they do NOT have made an invention, but have a patent to get all the profit, when some real inventor makes it real 10 years later ?
This is ridiculous. Patents should be granted for novel implementations, not for ideas that someone might implement in future. The scientists that find a working solution should get the patent, not some lawyer who is just speculating on where technology might go.
The skull is well known for being a barrier almost impenetrable for ultrasound, it is only possible to use US imaging for certain areas accessible through foramen magnum (the big hole at the bottom) or more recently also through the thin bone at the sides.
I wonder how they manage to get it in and focus it.
Sounds very exciting though, I'll be glad to see it put to some sensible use. Focused neurostimulation to treat tremor associated with Parkinson's could be one (done by implanting electrodes today). Or treatment od epilepsy could be also one application.
First of all, the idea itself is decades if not centuries old. Second of all, by the time anything is built, they just limited the amount of time they can collect royalties or whatever it's called when someone has to pay for using someone else's patent. What in the world are they thinking?
There have been several patents granted for perpetual motion machines, which violate several laws of physics. (that means they don't exist and never will - but don't let that stop the US patent office)
It only works on people without skulls.
Remember all the old "smell-o-vision" jokes? Insert your favorite one here.
The thing that scares me is how any new technology is used *badly* for the first three to five years. Force feedback was around for a good long time before anyone did anything sensible with it, and even stereo sound was heinously abused in the early days. I can just imagine the hideous misfeatures that will pop up with this.
And for the conspiracy theorists among us, Drs. Chaffee and Light in the UK supposedly had some limited success controlling the human brain with radio waves in the 30s. If either of those are cited in the patent application, we might want to steer clear of any game using this technology...
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
Sony's gotten burned by patents in the past. Now's there chance to be on the offensive and nab up any future innovations they may or may not choose to develop some day.
Now that I think of it, I'd better go patent time travel and warp drive. If they're ever invented, I'll be stinking rich!
Since they already have this invented can we expect to see this as an add-on to the PS3?
I can see it now.. walking past a McDonalds advertising sign and suddenly hearing that stupid jingle in my head and smelling and tasking Mickey D's Fries.. gonne be great to be bombarded with advertising like this.
IT is Dead. The industry is Shot Join Others Who Feel Your Pain http://www.internalstrife.com/
As it is, you couldn't use this invention to recreate it (remember, the point of a patent is to allow someone sufficient 'skilled in the art' to understand the invention so they could build one). So why was this patented?
IANAL, so please someone explain:
They read some research papers and then patented the technology. But what have they contributed to this field that enables them to get exclusive rights to anything?
Can I patent "teleportation" right now?
Raisinettes are my raison d'etre
Does it bother anybody that they are suggesting that they "poke your brain" with ultrasonics to elicit a response? Sounds like a psychiatric treatment from the 1950's.
1) Anyone ever read A.C. Clarke's "The Hammer of G-d" or "3001" - looks like Sony is working to make the "BrainMan" a reality! 2) From the discussion it seems like these patents may be subject to a (very rare) challenge on "usability" grounds. If the idea is only theoretical, how can they be said to have "reduced it to practice" in patent parlance?
I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
More like "Strange Days", IMO. (hmmmm Angela Bassett)
Because if you can beam stuff in, you can probably record stuff out.
I'd rather have that sci-fi come true than the Matrix any day.
Very stylish but doesn't stand up to much thinking.
isn't the validity of a patent limited for a certain period? if yes, shouldnt the countdown start now, many years before a actual working prototype is made?
What sort of implications does this have for the medical world, who may be able to use this (should it ever actually be implemented) to help those who are blind and/or deaf? Will they have to go through Sony?
Who doesn't like free music?
IIRC, in ancient times it was necessary to present a working model (at least here in .de).
Are you sure? The original purpose of patents were to protect lone inventors so that they could secure funding to build their invention without having their idea ripped off. Kinda defeats the object if they have to build one first.
Seeing goatse and tubgirl are bad enough. But, Smells??!
You'll need to be brainwashed just to feel clean after that.
i'm a gamer and all for new technology, but i am scared.
Is that you have to take a blue pill first, otherwise you wake up in a bathtub with millions of others, wired to the national grid.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Not at all! I'm about to go and patent intersteller travel and quantum computing. I did physics in high school, so I figure I'm expert enough to get a patent. I'll get it eventually, or at least someone will.
Don't worry, it's America. Get a few billion dollars behind you and you can get away with anything.
Sony's legal division announced plans to initiate legal action against infringors. "We're planning to target the end-user of infringing systems," said one Sony lawyer. "We're particularly interested in locating infringors using systems such as eyes and ears. We believe these techologies are included in the patent, and we are prepared to move agressively to protect our investments." Sony has also contacted Rome and Mecca in an effort to identify the source of the illegal sensory-input devises and curtail their world-wide distribution.
In short, while Sony may have patented the technology, it will be a long time before we have UT2k4 on a neural link.
I for one welcome our new Sony Overlords
They can patent an idea thats only been thought of, and that many many have mentioned before. It seems to me this is screaming eventual lawsuit. Plus this _sorta_ discourages any research being done into the topic by any outside influences aside sony. This is a stifle on innovation, no company is going to want to touch the idea, especially with the legal weight sony has.
Heres the patent for those who dont RTFA
"A non-invasive system and process for projecting sensory data onto the human neural cortex is provided. The system includes a primary transducer array and a secondary transducer array. The primary transducer array acts as a coherent signal source, and the secondary transducer array acts as a controllable diffraction pattern that focuses energy onto the neural cortex in a desired pattern. In addition, the pattern of energy is constructed such that each portion projected into the neural cortex may be individually pulsed at low frequency. This low frequency pulsing is formed by controlling the phase differences between the emitted energy of the elements of primary and secondary transducer arrays."
Well I guess i'll be using sony brand brain plugs to surf slashdot.
...the idea was that if you came up with a brilliant idea, but lacked the funds to invest in R&D, materials, production equipment, distribution model etc. etc., you could patent it and then get investors. Otherwise your "investors" could just run off with your idea and cash in.
That works quite well for items that are "non-intuitive". Where it does not work well are for items that are "intuitive" (yet probably not obvious), the technology is "coming", but there's no implementation yet.
For example, say I went out and patented creating CPUs with nanotechnology. Obviously, if it could be done it would be a hit. You expect the product to appear, so you patent it and wait for someone else to actually do it.
The real question is what part is there that is innovative, the idea or the implementation? Or maybe it is both? Patents have been made to protect ideas. But there's a whole chunk of "innovation" that it doesn't cover, or is directly in opposition to.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If this ever gets implemented, this will obviously change how we "see" entertainment forever. But even more important, as the article hints, think about the blind and deaf! Could this technology be used to send the data directly to their brains and allow them to see and hear again? I personally have lost more than 50% of my hearing in one ear because of a childhood infection to the ear drum and I can tell you that I would really much like to hear how the world sounds at full stereo again. Exciting technology.
[alk]
The Architect is being sued for patent infringement, and Neo, Morpheus, and the Oracle for violations of the DMCA.
Tristan Yates
What happened to the times when you had to actually invent something before you could patent it?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
No, it was to give them a temporary monopoly since they (theoretically) spent all that time/money developing it - since it should not have been something that is plainly obvious from existing knowledge/technologies.
In fact, originally (in the US, from 1790) a model was required to demonstrate how it functioned, but that requirement was removed in 1870.
I would argue that maybe you don't have to actually build one, but you need to throw down a lot of proof that you know it could work, and if things don't work out that way then you haven't yet patented whatever you've just created, and you need to patent the proper method.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but this is a perfect example of why the current patent system needs to be reworked, or tightened up at the very least. If SONY's patent on this technology is actually upheld and valid, then this absolutely discourages innovation.
Why should some engineer or company try to actually make the proposed design work? As soon as they do, they lose the invention to SONY, who didn't do anything. By owning a patent on something that doesn't yet exist, they make it unlikely that the thing will ever be invented. Only SONY would have any incentive to develop this technology.
The only possible upshot is that if silly companies patent far-fetched ideas too early, then the patent might be running out exactly at the time when it is becoming technically feasible to build the damn thing. Then again, this would probably prompt court fights for extension of the patent (but your honour, we are only now starting to be able to make money off of the mistake we made years ago...).
Neurobiology and neuropsychology research have used these techniques for decades. Does this mean Sony is going to start sueing the researchers who pioneered the techniques? Prior art can be proven hundreds of times over, not to mention Sony hasn't created a damn thing. The article states '[The] patent "was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us."' 'Patented inspiration'? This is nothing more than abusing the patent system.
It's just a short hop to the tasp - the device used by the puppeteer in Niven's Ringworld books designed to remotely stimulate the pleasure center of the brain.
What a wonderful world it would be if you could "make someone's day" on the metro, or in the middle of a traffic-jam, or in the midst of a mob scene.
Think of how valuable a device like the tasp would be for subduing violent criminals - one second, a rampaging hoodlum, the next second a vegetable-like mass, drooling with uncontrollable pleasure that is pure and unadulterated. Better than sex, better than heroin, better than speed, and no hangover.
Of course, knowing humanity, our first use will be to produce agony and pain, not pleasure, as is the case with many new technologies with such potential. We'll see!
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
What about inducing puree?
Sony patents brain controller
of this technology will be direct stimulation of the pleasure center. No ifs, ands, or buts. It will.
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
Sony hasn't yet built a device that works based on the ideas presented in the patent, so this is all theoretical. In fact, according to the New Scientist, Sony hasn't even conducted any experiments to see if this works.
So, they've got a patent on something that they not only haven't built, but that they have no particular evidence could even work at all?
I'm starting to wonder what you'd have to throw together to get rejected by the patent office at this point. "Um, yeah, I think that, like, maybe you could make someone remember something by, you know, setting up a magnetic field around a specific part of their brain. Sounds like it could work, right? Can I have a patent?"
In that case, the estate of Philip K. Dick should get real busy turning the contents of his books into patents.
And does this now exclude medical researchers from exploring this technology?
In some brain surgeries, for example, it is sometimes necessary for the patient to be experiencing stimulii (such as looking at pictures) so that brain activity can be used as a guide. Couldnt ultrasonic stimulation be applied in an instance such as that?
Would these now be limited by the royalties of a opportunistic patent?
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want"
Obviously I'm wrong but however...
if someone patents an idea he cannot realize but is based on some form of fiction (i.e. Matrix), couldn't that fiction be considered "prior art" and make that patent invalid?
The typical business modle of the day was:
1. Build untill broke
2. Secure funding (Protected by non-disclosure agreements)
3. Patent
4. Build.
Patents were intended to protect you from having your device stolen AFTER you go into full production.
When your entering into an agreement with individuals a non-disclosure agreement is more binding, more effective and easier to get.
With shrinkwrap liccensing I'm supprised people haven't attempted a shrinkwrap non-disclosure.
I don't actually exist.
You watch -- it'll be used for porn and spam injected directly into your brain -- and I barely have room left for the voices.
Ian Ameline
Could somebody patent the act of patenting and put an end to this? Or patent the act of suing people for all possible future patents? I am sure that if things like the one in the story can be patented you should be able to work out a paradox and halt the system.
Building a prototype is a lot cheaper than building a factory.
I am trolling
do you die in real life? The brain is the most powerful force in the body (aside from THE force). Studies have shown that your brain cannot distinguish from what is real and what is imagined.
Maybe it's just me overreacting, but I see some real fatalities coming from this.
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
You seem to have a poor understanding of what prior art is. Don't feel bad; most people do. Prior art is a previously existing technology which has been publicly available at the time that an invention was made (either through published papers or through being sold in the marketplace). Prior art (much like patents) inherently involves a description of how to do something, not just the idea of doing it. The Matrix details nothing about exactly how it works, and the idea is nowhere near original to the Matrix anyway (with plenty of precedent in the sci-fi subgenre known as cyberpunk).
Furthermore, even if it did matter, the version in the Matrix uses direct insertion of a probe into the brain, presumably to directly electrically stimulate it. This method uses sonic pulses (and probably can't actually be made to work with the necessary precision). There is more than enough difference in the design to matter for separate patentability.
Remember the story about Sony losing the lawsuit over the DualShock controller to Immersion? If you read the comments, you might've come across the fact that Nintendo doesn't have to worry about Immersion's patents. While Immersion patented attaching an unbalanced weight to a spinning motor for creating vibration in a controller, Nintendo patented building an unbalanced weight into a spinning motor to create vibration in a controller. This subtle difference is all that was needed to make these separate inventions.
No, if sonic stimulation could ever work, this is a good enough patent to place a land grab on it. It's a novel method of neural stimulation with no precedent that I'm aware, and even if there is, it's unlikely that anyone has tried to use it to enhance a game yet. This sounds pretty solid to me. It does open up the field for other patents about how to actually get sonic neural stimulation to work, but if it ever does, Sony has a claim to using it in a game.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...their patent on "sensory deprevation technology." After all, we all know how well that works with the PS1...
Uh. Was I saying something?
You buil(d)t your model just for yourself and the patent office; third parties have to sign non-disclosure agreements.
A little research told me that nowadays a model still helps (obviously in real-world engineering scenarios) if licensing is the goal as those who might be willing to buy want some proof that things work (economically).
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Some Sony engineer saw that episode, "The Human Factor" where Sally Kellerman switches minds with Harry Guardino using just this sort of kit, and decided to patent it.
Imagine what that guy will patent when the original Star Trek is shown in Japan!
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
....a pretty obvious time-lagged April Fool?
:
I'm guessing that New Scientist published it as a joke, Reuters picked it up a few days later and now Slashdot has as usual swallowed it like a cheap whore.
Firing ultrasound pulses into the brain to achieve sensory stimulation? Right.
Sneak preview of the next Slashdot story
Slashcrap has written to inform us that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. What a staggering omission! Just goes to show that open projects like the Wikipedia aren't the only ones providing potentially dubious information!!
So, how long before I can take that virtual vacation to Thurien that I've been dreaming of? :-)
Suddenly every soldier collapsed as the smell of 1000 skunks overwhelmed them. The ones with gas masks on vomited inside their masks and had to remove them so as not to choke to death.
UBIK?
Post SCO door locks? Quote: "Joe Chip, in Ubik, is threatened with a lawsuit by his own front door, to whom he owes money".
YES.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I thought for a patent to be granted, you had to be able to demonstrate it also?
From TFA, "was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us".
No wonder the patent offices are all screwed up, with all of these patents that "someday" might work.
That's not quite right. The original purpose of patents was for greedy monarchs to enrich themselves by granting monopolies in return for bribes. This was eventually getting out of hand and had a negative impact on economies in Europe. In 1610 King James I of Britain abandoned the system of favourist patents and introduced a new law by which patents were only to be granted for inventions deemed to be in the public interest, only to the first inventor and strictly limited to 14 years. This was the birth of the modern patent system.
The duration was eventually extended to 20 years as it remains today, but there was never any requirement to provide a prototype nor was the idea to aid fund raising for a prototype.
Instead, the patent system is based on the concept of a bargain between the public interest and an inventor. The bargain is for the inventor to receive a time limited monopoly in return for not keeping his invention secret and have it published. In fact, when the patent expires after 20 years, the invention become public domain.
It does not matter whether the invention actually works or not. The public interest is served by the disclosure of the invention. Any such disclosure will enrich the public domain, which is the only reason why a patent is granted in the first place.
If the invention is flawed and doesn't work, in most cases, there is still something to be learned from its disclosure for others to fix the flaw or not make the same mistake and instead come up with a better idea. This is what enrichment of the public domain is all about.
Consequently, it doesn't matter if an invention works or not. If there was any such requirement as to produce a working prototype, it would actually limit the enrichment of the public domain.
What is far more important is that the rules of patentability, ie novelty and non-obviousness are strictly enforced. Too many patent applications for inventions which are not novel or which are obvious get rubberstamped these days. That is where the problem of the patent system lies today.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
"Dr Penfield did you pour cold water on my hands..."
Canadian heritage joke..sorry
In a slightly different implementation this was done in "Realtime Interrupt" by James P Hogan. But in the book getting to the olfactory area of the brain was very difficult since it's much higher in the brain and harder to focus the incoming signal.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy and go well with ketchup.
What if the system crashes and sends your brain to /dev/null.
Thanks, but no thanks
It appears Sony is trying to patent sensory input from the nerve while having done zero research into the field.
Yet there is a large amount of existing research into the field. Right now most of the practical application is in the area of receaving signals from the brain but the cochlear implants that restore hearing an the cybernetic eye that restores vision are practical examples of sending sensory data back to the brain.
I'm not sure how far we are on the other sensory inputs but I guess that dosen't matter anymore becouse all research will have to be scraped leaving Sony to start pritty much from scrap to redo the decades of research already done.
All becouse Sony got the patent.
Good luck Sony.. None of the researchers working on this field for over 20 years now will ever speak with you let alone share notes.
To Sony it's just theoretical ideas to many reseachers in the medical industry it's science and to some degree a pratical reality.
This is a grand example of abusing the patent office and an ideal example of a patent that should have never been issued.
I don't actually exist.
First Microsoft patents bio-eletric powered/recharging devices.
Now Sony has patented neuroeletrical stimulation of the nervous system to generate false data
Both of which are technologies that are being researched by dozens of people, except by the patent holders, and may come to fruition before the patents expire.
This is not what was intended when the patent system was developed. You needed a working model/plans. You needed less vaugue information. You needed proof. And only so you would have a short monopoly on that particular product, until the patent runs its course, and industrial espionage leaks your final secrets. It was a beutiful cycle. It would allow innovation without large bodies crushing you by putting out the same product at a lesser price. But now, those companies are filing patent in every general field, so that one essentually has to pay every large corperation large amounts of money to make their product anyway.
And when I turn on the television, I see people clammoring about terrorism, instead about the collapse of free enteprise, instead about the horrible malpractice laws infecting our country, instead about the degrading privacy rights. I see people carrying guns, praising the fourth amendment, as children shoot themselves, as thieves shoot their victims, as missundersandings escollate to bloodshed. This was not the America that my ancestors fought to establish, to protect.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Scarier than the fact that Sony just patented something that they did not in fact create or even prove was possible, is what happens if they DO manage to create it? Is this the fabled "closing of the analog hole" that will make DRM into a reality instead of the laughable snake oil it is today? Digital media never needs to be converted into analog data since it will be beamed into some patented sony device that feeds it directly into your head, bypassing those DRM unfriendly organs like eyes and ears.
Kind of a dumb, far off idea but you know someone out there is salivating just thinking about it.
Finkployd
If this doesn't prove the need for patent reform, nothing does.
Forget The Matrix as prior art--the very research papers this "idea" is based on are prior art.
Following the precedent established by granting this patent and others like it, every research paper produced, whether it contains an original idea or not, should be granted at least one patent.
If this catches on in the scientific and engineering communities, it might spread in academia. Then literary criticism will be patented. It's a short leap from that to patented movie reviews.
Of course, movies and songs themselves will then be patented. RIAA will then not have to worry about fair use rights. This is not so absurd once you recognize that this ridiculous scenario has already happened with software code.
Consumers will, of course, have to sign a licensing agreement to listen to the radio. Being inspired by the music will, of course, be prohibited. Perhaps I should patent the idea of patenting things which should only be copyrighted as a business method... Then I could demand licensing fees or better yet sue to stop this insanity.
Any silly matrix references aside, I'll be damned if anyone is going to be aiming pulses of anything at my brain just to make a game more realistic!!! I don't care how many studies they can present saying that it is perfectly safe and should not cause injuries, they better keep that thing the hell away from my skull!
So, patent legislation is so weird that I can patent faster than light travel and my heirs will get rich when somebody finally discover how to make it work?
I don't think Sony would go to the trouble of getting the patents if they didn't have something that was at least in the early design stages. Remember, Sony makes more than just the Playstation and its home market of Japan is full of competitors selling all sorts of fanciful electronics, many of which never see U.S. shores. For example, in east Asia you'll find all sorts of items with magnets in them for purported therapeutic benefits, shoes, mattresses, etc.. So why shouldn't Sony market an ultrasonic pillow that helps you relax after a hard day of work or dealmaking at the bar after work ;-). The pillow would have different settings that could stimulate various relaxing smells or sensations. This is just one possibility that really doesn't require a lot of R&D to take to market depending on the laws governing such claims in that market which appear to be somewhat more lax than those in the U.S.. Yes, the R&D is not insignificant, but engineering an ultrasonic pillow should be easier than something like a game controller which needs to respond to in game situations in a consistent fashion.
Eventually the technology may make its way into game controllers, but I doubt that is where it will be seen first. I'll be watching for Sony branded pillows, mattresses, and rave caps for the hip crowd. Mmmmmm, I can smell those colors now!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I've patented random no-sex-life jokes pay up.
I don't actually exist.
this sort of thing reminds me of the movie strange days
The preceding subject was brought to you by the Magic 8-ball :o)
More specifically:
will this ever be profitable?
Possibly - see below.
Don't patents last less than 10 years?
No. In the US, patents last 17 years from the date the patent is granted.
Is this going to be a commercially viable technology within the patents lifetime?
I'd guess not.
Are Sony just going to use it to sue the pants off of all the research institutions that will undoubtedly be implementing this technology first?
That would be my guess. So much for "promoting the useful arts and sciences".
Maybe I'm being too trusting, but does anyone think that this may be a good thing? Think about it: this technology is almost certainly not going to be invented by the time that the patent expires. So in reality, Sony has just made it possible so that once the technology DOES become possible, it's already been patented . . . and the patent has expired. By that logic this could actualy protect such technology from the patent grabbers. Just a thought.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Well, what if someone has the idea while you're still in development, but have not yet acquired the patent? then, despite all your secret work, you end up having to pay royalties to someone else. and before you say 'prior art' remember that only works if the 'art' is out in the viewable domain. If you keep it a secret, it doesn't count.
This way you can at least prevent anyone else from getting the drop on you. if you are fortunate to get your product out with a couple of years left on the patent gives you a couple of years to recoup your R&D loss before the rest of the crowd move in.
As a side note, there's a story in one of Feynman's books about someone coming to him while at Los Alamos about patenting various atomic products, (planes, submarines, spaceships etc.) It seems relevant to the discussion, but I don't remember it very well.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
...but the catatonic state is free.
I've always wondered what Sony smells like. I'm guessing it's something like the Osaka Seafood Concern. Or, for that matter, what does the inside of a motorman's glove smell like? Do chicks like it? There must be some pheromones in there somewhere.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Why always the matrix?
Welcome our new sony overlords
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
That's the smell of your neural cortex, ... fried !!!
Sony hasn't yet built a device that works based on the ideas presented in the patent, so this is all theoretical. In fact, according to the New Scientist, Sony hasn't even conducted any experiments to see if this works.
This is why people used to be required to submit a working model with their patent application at some point. Think about it: some guy at Sony has a weird idea while sitting on the toilet and patents it. This removes the incentive of anybody other than Sony to invest the billions of dollars necessary to figure out how to actually make this work. That's not the way the patent system is supposed to work.
From a purely practical point of view, this is not a good idea: you do not want to stimulate brain cells using ultrasound. It's OK to jiggle the whole brain around and even squeeze it a little, but generating shear forces on a tiny length scale is a prescription for disaster.
(Finally, this has nothing to do with the Matrix--the Matrix clearly used invasive technology--unless you consider sticking a 6 inch spike into the brain "non-invasive".)
... and may be a hyperspace transportation!
Or am I late already?
At the end of the NewScientist piece you can read that this is just speculative and no experiment have been done...
Can you just patent anything that goes in your mind? I thought you had to present a prototype or plans or some form of research...
I don't have a source on this, but I read somewhere that in the 70s, some university researchers in the States tried something similar. Basically, they hooked up a brain wave receiver to some kind of brain wave "transmitter". One guy would sit with the receiver on his head, trying to project his thoughts onto the guy with the transmitter on his head.
The guy on the receiving end apparently received some mad static/snow images in his vision which left him with a headache. Not sure how it went from there.
Anyway, it'd be neat to see what results Sony has come up with - if it's anything better than that.
The requirements for patentability are simple ...
1) the invention has to be novel
2) the invention must not be ovious, there has to be an inventive step
3) the specification has to be detailed enough for persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention, that is to say, build the apparatus
These requirements are perfectly sufficient if they are properly enforced.
requirement 1 means, no patent is to be granted if there is prior art
requirement 2 means, no patent is to be granted for something that is obvious
requirement 3 means, no patent is to be granted for concepts or ideas, nor for applications that are too fuzzy to be pinned down to an actual implementation
The problem with the patent system today is that the patent offices are hopelessly understaffed to ensure that these requirements are actually enforced and consequently there are too many patents which are not novel, obvious or fuzzy or any combination thereof.
If a requirement to produce a working prototype was introduced, it would make things even worse because the already overworked patent examiners would now also have to examine the prototype and there would likely follow a tendency to grant any application as long as the prototype appears to do what the specification says it does. The result would be even more non-novel and obvious patents.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
...another shining example of your (US) tax dollars at work. If you think its BS that things like this can be patented without a shred of actual invention, CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON. While you have them on the line, ask them why copyrights on movies and music ought to last 90 years when a patented cure for cancer would expire and become public-domain in 20...
I am have not get laid before and since I am a Slashdot regular, I'll never will. So please Sony please make these ideas of yours a reality. If I never to get laid in real life, at the very least I hope to experience it as realistic as possible. Thanks.
Your sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
Wonder how long it'll be before commercial products start showing up.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Somebody should patent the process of applying for a patent of an idea that is not founded in real empirical data.
It's slightly recursive too. Geeks should love it! Heck, it's probably already been done, or at least tried. In fact, I'm surprised some geek hasn't hacked the patent office.
-FlynnMP3
Of course, by doing this, they are seriously putting off anyone who would actually want to do legitimate research into this, as they'll have to pay Sony a whole heap of licensing costs to even start researching it. Are they stopping innovation/invention in this field entirely?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
I thought it was supposed to eliminate excessive reliance on trade secrets and move information into the public domain.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
From the article:
If the method described by Sony really does work, it could have all sorts of uses in research and medicine, even if it is not capable of evoking sensory experiences detailed enough for the entertainment purposes envisaged in the patent.
[Emphasis mine]
What a long if. A VEEERY LOOOONG if.
"Woah."
I am a Neuroscientist.
There is no way in God's Green Earth that you can transnsmit a meaningful signal to the brain wirelessly through the skull. They even say it themselves in the article that you can't even target *groups* of neurons.
It's about the laws of physics. The fields just spread too much to allow you to target neurons.
Maybe with vast (!!!!) improvements in technology, we could selectively activate a region of the brain, making someone feel a particular way (happy, sad, horny, religious), but it would be sloppy, dangerous and need to be tuned to a particular individual.
Under NO conceivable circumstances within the universe that we currently live could you uninvasively transmit any detailed information, through the skull as the article (and presumably the patent) implies.
As soon as I finish my boiled eggs, cabbage and beer, I'll send some ultrasonic signals their way...complete with Sensurround(TM) technology.
1. patent some idea
2. wait for someone to build some device implementing this idea
3. nobody appears
4. suckers!
1) the invention has to be novel ...
2) the invention must not be ovious, there has to be an inventive step
3) the specification has to be detailed enough for persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention, that is to say, build the apparatus
The problem with the patent system today is that the patent offices are hopelessly understaffed...
I don't think that failing to notice that 1/3 of the required elements is entirely missing can be brushed off as understaffing. Not finding some obscure prior art -- okay, it happens, though I don't think they're really trying all that hard. Questions of the invention being inobvious are often open to argument, especially after you've already seen the invention and had a chance to say "oh, yeah, I coulda done that." But failing to notice that there's not anything that even pretends to be an actual physical apparatus or any idea how to design one? Sorry -- that's incompetence.
Which is very sweet and all, but I am finding it hard to accept that the patent office didn't tell them to go away and come back with a little more than a hunch.
take on a whole new meaning when the software is altering the currents in your brain circuitry
======
Belief is beyond reason. I believe because it is absurd.
What is the proposed mechanism by which an ultrasonic sound wave can transmit data to cortex? I guess high frequency sound waves could interfere with synaptic transmission, but I seriously doubt that this would be controllable in the way the Sony patent suggests.
In short, I am very doubtful that Sony's mechanism would work at all, and at the very least, it would definitely be impossible to read data back out from the brain using sound waves.
Prior art (much like patents) inherently involves a description of how to do something, not just the idea of doing it.
.
:)
Which makes it a great shame that Sony don't actually seem to have had much more than an 'inspiration' on which to base the patent.
Here's the patent, by the way: USPTO. At least, I think it's the right one: Scanning method for applying ultrasonic acoustic data to the human neural cortex
It looks to me like it's about on the level of plausible scifi, in that it's clearly written by someone who knew what they were talking about well enough to make the right noises, but you couldn't actually go out and make one based on that description alone. OTOH, I'm not a brain surgeon
I work with ultrasound imaging systems. There is a reason the brain is currently one of the organs that is not typically imaged with ultrasound. Bone significantly attenuates ultrasound and messes with the phase relationship between elements in the transducer array, so a) its tough to get enough signal in and out of the brain (while still staying withing FDA limits of what's acceptable), and b) its difficult to focus the beam to the area of the brain we are interested in. There are several research efforts to image the brain with ultrasound, and the approach taken is usually through the temple because the bone is thin there but the above problems still limit imaging ability. There are no easy fixes to these problems.
I am pretty sure I have a hardcopy sitting in a stack of papers in a box somewhere. I will try to find it and post back here if I do.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Scuse me for replying to myself, just wanted to note that it appears my degree or two of fever has caused me to forget where I got the patent link from in the first place :-)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but any invention can only be patented once.
We should set up a charity to patent these sorts of "prophetic" inventions, so that when the day comes that they can actually be implemented the patents will have expired and the technology will be free of any restrictive licensing.
I suggest these as starters:
Cold Fusion
Teleporters
Personal laser weapons
Warp drives
Jump gates
Nanobot based immune systems
because if Sony, or anyone can patent the methods of interaction with the human body in anyway, it could become illegal for people to eat patented grains without a license? Perhaps the litigation crazed patent lawyers might find a way to patent how we watch TV, or listen to the radio.
Those might seem extreme or bad examples, but the act of patenting the process and method of interacting with the human brain is very dangerous territory IMHO.
It might seem that they are trying to patent a machine that can interact, but in doing so they patent the process of the interaction. While it seems novel, simply discovering how to interact with the brain does not merit patent rights. That is like trying to patent the act of flying in an airplane. You can patent a type of airplane, but not the act of flying in one. You can patent a particular method of creating light shows, but not the process of watching them (movies tv etc.)
Then again, perhaps I missed the point and am talking out of my @ ?
Danger Will Robinson, Danger!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
This sounds more like the S.C.U.I.D. device from Strange Days than from anything from The Matrix
imdb linkage: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/
Tasp
What if you die in the matrix? You die in the real life?
I've seen this before many times on TV where it's actually been done in a lab. So they've patented experiments other people have already done?
The History Channel had a show on UFOs where they used techniques excatly like this to show that various magnetic fields on the brain can induce strange hallucinations.
Wheres my "Woman in the red dress"???
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
patents. safe when used as directed.
Ubik has to be one of the funkiest books I ever read. The computer game was about as weird, tbqh.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
As far as feeding my neural cortex with sensory information, my body parts do a good job of that.
I'll volunteer my sexual organs as prior art.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
the human body is nowhere near close to a good source of energy due to its high energy usage just to stay alive
first of all - we have yet to find a "source" for energy
second - the human body is one of the most efficient CONVERTERS of energy available to us.
its really hard to power anything of a 98.6 F thermal power source
don't confuse heat loss with potential energy. the temperature of this universe is a "brisk" 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
What happens when you are induced to feel pain? Or are surrounded by images of painful or horrible events? Sounds like a pretty good interrogation/torture tool to me.
"Sgt. Williams, did you harm that prisoner in any way?"
"No your honor, I did not. The doctors can even check him out."
We better hope there are long term effects of using such a device, in the case of evidence. Heck, rape could be taken to all new levels.
"Whoa."
> Time to patent my own stuff:
> Description: generic device that makes people happy, feel good, have a good sex life,
> be smarter, stronger and have any benefit anyone could ever have hoped for.
> Prior art: none
Correction:
Prior art: Aldos Huxley's Brave New World
Nice try anyway.
There's something wrong here. Just reading the patent specifications for this technology leads me to believe this would become very addicting. Especially if someone doesn't have a life.
I wouldn't want to alter realit for anything.
:)
does this mean the real cyber sex is possible?
Am I the only one who finds "...describe a technique for aiming ultrasonic pulses at specific areas of the brain." a bit disturbing?
What does this button do...
I told all my friends i saw the letters S O N Y written in one of the DEUS EX MACHINA spikes ... and they didn't believe me... go check it's on the DVD if you enhance the image you'll see... the brothers knew it all the time, the movie is a warning!!
.. cya!
i'm going to get a life now
I fuse with Mercer every single day...
You are absolutely correct. This concept is called "constructive reduction to practice". There are several ways of satisfying this concept, most preferably being a US patent application that complies with 35 U.S.C. 112. Other examples that would typically be accepted as constructive reduction to practice would be blue prints for a machine, source code for a software related invention, or the lab procedure to make a chemical compound.
Many people who don't work around patents get caught up in whether or not "a person of ordinary skill in the art" actually could make and use the invention as disclosed in a patent application. Unfortunately for their arguments, this is an almost trivial condition to meet. If a person of ordinary skill in the art swears in an affidavit that he could reasonably make and use the invention, that's pretty much where this inquiry ends. Neither the courts nor the USPTO are interested in "Nuh-uh, Uh-huh" arguments about whether or not the patent application is fubared.
The patent holder, on the other hand, does. If you try to litigate with a patent for insanity, the defense will tear you apart. You might be able to GET a patent with a silly affidavit, but you won't be able to ENFORCE it very well.
In this case, it appears that Sony has disclosed an apparatus and claimed the method of using it. NOWHERE is it guaranteed to work well, which is one of the safest patents to issue. If it doesn't work well, the chances are REALLY slim that anybody is going to infringe it. This isn't legal analysis, but it looks to me like Sony has paid the USPTO to provide them with some really expensive wallpaper.
...the patent is only based on an inspiration for a new product. It would be nice if some testing had been done. Maybe I should patent "a device that interacts with the human brain to stimulate and/or read neural signals"
if they had a real product behind this I'd be a little excited...at least until they stimulated the wrong part of my brain.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
Couldn't the guy who wrote the screenplay to "Brainstorm" (the movie from 1983) claim prior art?
I know we are only supposed to be agains IP patents and not mechanical patents (although I'm not sure which one this is), but call me crazy, I feel any patent without a working prototype should be denied.
P.S. For more info on Brainstorm: http://imdb.com/title/tt0085271/
Patents last 20 years from the date they were filed unless the patent term is adjusted by a terminal disclaimer. They used to be 17 years from the date they issued, but that changed sometime in the last couple of years.
That would be my guess. So much for "promoting the useful arts and sciences".
Care to elaborate? If it's a dumb idea that doesn't work, what's the harm? If it's a great idea that does work, apparently Sony's R&D team came up with it first and they have a Constitutional right to a temporary monopoly on their work.
I agree that this is a pretty screw-ball field of science, but I don't see any evidence that the USPTO did anything wrong. It's not their job to issue patents for good ideas - it's their job to issue patents for new ideas. Check out 35 USC 101, 102, and 103. There's nothing in there whatsoever about screening out the crazies.
Amazing isn't it. A patent only lasts for 20 years, and copyright can be extended for over a hundrend many instances. IMHO, they should both be granted for 20 years. The current copyright laws are just plain crazy. I'm actually amazed that patent lengths haven't been extended as far as copyright lengths have been.
Keep up the good work and continue to spread the wisdom.
The most horrendous thing is that the patent on 'wireless delivery of content to the brain' is not based on anything! No product, prototype or even research! The patent-office has effectively granted a patent on a work of science fiction: the patent was granted on something which some guy at Sony thought would be a likely development in the future, but Sony has done no research or experimenting in that direction!
If this doesn't show how broken the patent office is, I don't know what will.
PS: I'm off to patent 'a method of high speed travel which uses the distortiuon of space time'; that'll be a great money maker for my grand-children (if they keep up the payments)!
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The old school video games could cause seizure!!! Hah.
I like how the humanitarian possibilities of this technology come second to the entertainment aspects.
It is 2.7 kelvins, not 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
n .wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin>
ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvinhttp://e
you seem to have already forgotten about this article.
...may I introduce Microsoft.
[sung, of course, to the Brady Bunch theme]
I figure if my heirs invent faster-than-light travel, they'll come back and give me the info to patent it. They'll be rich.
Of course, if FTL doesn't involve going backwards in time, they can fly to Omicron Persei 8 and sell spoilers to the latest season of Jenny McNeal.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Microsoft today acquired a patent on time travel. Commenting on this development, Steve Balmer had this to say: "We don't know how to do it, but I'll be damned if I let someone else get credit when they figure it out. We had the idea first." Also, a patent for the flying car has been issued to General Motors. Company officials obtained the patent amid concerns that someone else might be able to develop the technology first, and then how would GM make money on it?
Seriously, this is just another example of why the patent office should be eliminated in favor of private licensing agreements, contracts, and NDAs. Let the company worry about enforcing their IP rights, which has the added benefit of preventing them from "protecting" IP they don't have.
dude, you are seriously smart
Go for it! Its going to take at least 20 years for both, and by then the patents will have expired and nobody can get rich off them!
"It is 2.7 kelvins, not 2.7 degrees Kelvin"
Both are correct
There doesn't have to be a way to build the actual device in order to get a patent.
You can easily patent something of the form: "given a means of reducing gravity in a local area, a device that makes popcorn with this technology using this exactly specified process".
All you have to specify adequately is the process.
If you could come up with an idea for a specific way to do it that hasn't already been published, you could patent a space elevator if you wanted to, completely legally (well, ok, there are special clauses in the law involving inventions in space that might affect this, I don't know).
The fact that no material exists that you could actually build it out of doesn't mean you didn't specify the invention precisely enough that you *could* build it given the material.
The *point* of the patent system, though, is that if you have protection on the space elevator, you could perhaps license it to someone that would then have an economic incentive to *create* the material. That's how it's supposed to spur innovation.
Here's a wikipedia article on his role in modern patent law, and a somewhat-religion-heavy-bio that goes in great length into the work he put into getting his version of the bible out. Not that I'm christian, but he seems to have been an intellectual and a writer (friend of Shakespeare) who even then valued free speech and human capacity (in this case to translate important stuff) higher than a blind allegiance to catholicism or protestantism - the subject of a huge war which was going on in the rest of europe during his reign.
Strange that someone who lived so long ago ended up dealing with both patent law and free speech - issues that today are so crucial to some.
Back in '95 there was a game for the 3DO system called Immercenary, in which a large portion of humanity was trapped in a virtual world and they were conected to it pretty much in the same way. They had a headband thingy which transmitted signals into their brains. In fact every time your character "jumped" into the virtual world you would be in this chamber and you could see rings of electricity going around you.
Heinlein "invented" waldos and waterbeds, and put them into his short stories. Once he did (and after a year had passed, which is the limit for claiming patent rights in the U.S. - in foreign countries you have to claim them immediately), they were in the public domain. I think a good case could be made on the same grounds.
An interesting application of this would be the stimulation of pleasure center (as described in some of Larry Niven's work). Doing it with external probes would amount to invention of the tasp, with the predicted amusing social consequences (taspers hide in parks and cause passers-by to go into ecstasy for a moment); use of the device replaces recreational drugs, for a better and purer high at vastly lower cost...)
The notion of involuntary addiction to such gadgets may have occurred to Sony too. (Prior art there, besides Niven's work, in at least one Star Trek episode.)
It is at least known that pleasure and pain centers can be stimulated, though it is unclear any other can, and I wonder if anyone at Sony even has an idea how to sufficiently localize sound energy to attempt the purported stimulus? I'd bet the patent is useless if sound only; you probably need an EM field in there somewhere...
Scarrrrey...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Now I just need to patent "a method of patenting things seen in sci-fi movies", and I can retire filthy stinkin' rich.
Well, it is a novel method of neural stimulation, with the wrinkle that it doesn't freaking work. Everyone here is correct: the patent, in order to be valid, must contain a sufficiently detailed description of the invention such that someone skilled in the field could reproduce it. Nobody can build this thing today.
This patent is a stinking turd. Sony isn't dumb enough to think that this thing would withstand even the most cursory review of a court. This is a marketing patent, pure and simple.
Marvy summary. But...
[...] there was never any requirement to provide a prototype [...]
I was under the impression that:
- In the US, when the patent office was first set up, there WAS a working prototype requirement (for inventions where that was applicable).
- The patent office very quickly ran out of space, so
- the prototype requirement was dropped in rather short order,
- except for perpetual motion machines (to keep THOSE out of the patent officials' hair), and
- when the Smithsonian Institution was founded the patent office donated the prototype collection to it.
(But I just HEARD that. It might just be a shaggy dog story I was told.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So I call for prior art in the matrix series and few dozen movies, books and comics that explored this line of thought before. If they can patent imaginary inventions why there can't be an imaginary prior-art?
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
They used to be 17 years from the date they issued, but that changed sometime in the last couple of years.
Thank you - I stand corrected.
If it's a dumb idea that doesn't work, what's the harm?
Because it *might* be possible, and a patent for something for an "idea" that the patent-holder not only can't do, but doesn't even know how to implement, can stop legitimate researchers from pursuing.
If it's a great idea that does work, apparently Sony's R&D team came up with it first
No, they didn't. They came up with an *idea* of how someone *might* do it. There is a huge difference between inventing something, and coming up with an idea on *how* to invent something.
Where does it say this'll be used for videogames?
I wonder what Alexander Graham Bell would have been told if he'd shown up at the patent office years earlier and said "I've got this idea about a theoretical device called a 'telephone' that will encode a voice into electrical signals which will pass through wires to another 'telephone' which will turn the signals back into sound"
I'd say claiming matrix as prior art is about as sensible as claiming this generic idea patentable...
I think you're right. There was a requirement for prototypes in the US some time about 200 years ago or so. I stand corrected. However, it is my understanding that this was specific to the US only.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
Iam SO thinking of putting in an application for a patent for a device (shaped like a beanie and uses lots of tinfoil) that nullifies ultrasonic waves directed to the brain. Base it on noise cancelling technology or something similar.
Hey it *must* be plausible because there's a patent for soney's device right??
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
We need an option to hide all children of a post modded off-topic.
Simple. Uncheck "reparent highly rated comments" and set the offtopic modifier to -6. Gone.
welcome our new Sony overlords
but now im a little suspicious
i always wondered what that expansion brain slot was for...
this sig has been discontinued.
"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
Who cares, Hook me up, just as long as you do not start feeding another lame ass Matrix sequel into my neurons.
Actually Samsung is creating a competing technology that connects to your nural system via your rectum. This will clearly be the preferred format and Sony will continue on it's wave losing format battles. Even though at the end of the day both technologies are out to screw us.
Now it appears that not only can you patent actual inventions, but you can also patent ideas?
So now real life can be as insanely crappy as the Matrix movies? Sign me up!
So there was merit in creating commerical couple of years ago. If any of you Tv watchers out there, before the PS2 was released, they had a commerical that advertised the release of Playstation 7 50 years from now. This playstation was hooked into our brain creating a vitual reality.
Rape is not about sex.
Just sayin'
My sig sucks.
NONE of the hrd work in making this device a reality has been done. The ONLY novel thing is saying "using ultrasound transducers". However, that's the easy bit. What about
1) How do you produce the right waveform
2) How do you direct it
3) What are the safeguards
4) Will ultrasound work
5) Will it damage the person
Someone who does that work will have to license this patent, despite that being worthless.
With any patent, you should ask yourself "what has the public lost if this doesn't get patented" and "what does the public gain from this patent".
The first question stops "one click" patents. The tech would still be used because it makes the store easier to use, therefore you get more money. So no patent costs nothing.
The second questions stops this sort of thing. The public gets nothing from this patent. Why expend public resources making it safe, then?
Right; now they can just take a powerful sonic scrambler, point it at your head, and set it to "frappe".
*Cue Music*
"You've got to admit, it's getting bet-ter, it's getting better all the time!"
None of the difficult questions have been answered. Not even "can it be done by ultrasound". Questions like
How do you aim it
How do you stimulate the right areas
How do you stop damaging other areas
How do you make the right signal
I want to patent the exact same idea but use "piezo-electric transducer" instead of "ultrasonic transducer". "No way, it's the obvious way to produce ultrasonic soundwaves" Sony cries. "If it was obvious, why did you leave it out of the patent?" I reply.
It would be sweet...
This has already been done...has been used in modern music for at least 12 years. Don't believe me? Light up a Philly and listen to some Insane Clown Posse...
This begs the natural question of just how far is the research into cortical stimulation via ultrasonic waves will go in our lifetimes. It also legally limits the ability of others to do research in that field without violating the patent rights.
What happens if the device Sony comes up with, misfires? Will you suddenly get an image of your mother in the middle of a sex scene as you're about to climax? Or will your partner suddenly turn into a duck or a chicken?
I do see the misfiring though as a benefit to create negative feedback while re-training rapists, child molesters, and other sex crime commiters. It may also be beneficial in treatment of sex addicts.
If a requirement to produce a working prototype was introduced, it would make things even worse because the already overworked patent examiners would now also have to examine the prototype and there would likely follow a tendency to grant any application as long as the prototype appears to do what the specification says it does.
Or, they could just reject patents without a working prototype out of hand, simultaneously freeing up the system and destroying a lot of junk patents -- junk patents like this one.
It's highly addictive, 'expert users' say it's much better than sex (it makes you not want the real thing anymore) and if everyone was using it the human race *would* go extinct.
It's called heroin...
As always, nature was much faster than our ideas. If anything deserves patents, it's nature...
It immediately illustrates why some things/research would better be left alone...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
All nutjobs have prior art on that one. They've been making Tin-Foil Hats for years.
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Well, it's well established in comic book science that animals change behavior at certain ultrasound frequencies. There could be a connection here.
Wouldn't it be the world's biggest irony if there was some anarchist at Sony who's thinking is "Hey, it will take about 20 years before this technology is really possible...if I patent it now, then by the time it's actually built, it will be public domain!"
All Hail the Maggott Show
... a cure for ugly. I'll save a fortune on paper bags.
There is no patent...
Why are we letting people who might not be the first to market with a product patent it?
This doesn't protect inventors or the consumer.
If you are allowed to patent pure speculation, doesn't that mean science fiction novels may constitute prior art? In that case, there is abundant prior art, I would say.
Really, the US patent system is ridiculous. Please let us Europeans be spared this nonsense.
I've patented random no-sex-life jokes pay up.
The RIAA holds the copyright on frivolous lawsuits, and as I understand it, only SCO has a valid license. Are you sure you want to go down that route?
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
second - the human body is one of the most efficient CONVERTERS of energy available to us.
g/most/s//least/
Solar energy is stored chemically in plants, and what is not lost is then partly converted into energy by us when we eat it (or when we eat whatever eats it.)
Plus, a lot of that energy is wasted on tasks like supplying oxygen to the brain. I don't care if my power plant can think, I only care about energy output.
"This will solve several problems such as sex with minors, rape, teenage pregnacy..."
;)
Uh, not quite. Thinking a rapist would be satisfied with virtual "sex" is kind of like saying some redneck who barfights for fun would be satisfied by playing Mike Tyson's punchout. It's not about the act, it is about doing the act TO someone.
I don't know much about teen pregnancy or sex with minors though. Of course, that's assuming the kids' puritan parents will allow them to buy the equipment. (My mom would have died if she'd ever found my vibrator. Hate to think what would have happened if she'd found VirtuaVibe3000 in my computer desk.
Bam! Link!
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
That is the difference between constructive reduction to practice and actual reduction to practice. Actual reduction to practice is not a requirement to secure patent protection for a number of extremely valid reasons, most notably to facilitate small entities without mountains of capital to risk on prototypes.
Sony's claims recite "projecting sensory data in a part of a human brain" and it cannot be denied that the apparatus does so - it appears to bombard the victim, eh, user with acoustic energy. (I would be interested in how these claims satisfied 35 USC 101, especially in regard to concrete results in at least the case of a deaf person.) They recite an apparatus that clearly achieves that purpose.
I don't want to be flippant, but I fail to recognize where you're talking about "an *idea* of how someone *might* do it" as opposed to what they have patented. Could you please quote the patents so I know exactly what you're referring to? A cotton gin is how someone might remove the cotton from the stalk, and using a cotton gin to do so is a method of removing cotton from the stalk. As far as I can tell, this is pretty much what Sony has here, except their technology seems infinitely less useful. (I'm sincerely not trying to flame, but I really don't see what you're talking about.)
Perpetual motion machines are rejected by the USPTO.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Woooo I've needed a tan for a loooong time.
to corner the worldwide porn market, as the "PS" brand name is remarketed as "PornStation"!!
Wow! They patended a headphone! Bell will be spinning in his grave...
I am filing for patents on cold fusion, nanobots, flying cars, and jet packs. A crayon sketch of the inventions should do the trick. When someone actually makes one of these things, I will already pwn it!
or else!
This is why the patent system is absurd:
A Sony Electronics spokeswoman told the magazine that no experiments had been conducted, and that the patent "was based on an inspiration that this may someday be the direction that technology will take us."
People should only be granted a patent when they have proof that they are working on something, or close to having an end product. Getting a patent for something that is not yet possible allows companies to sit back and wait until someone actually creates an innovative product and then cashes in from IP lawsuits.
Ew, fluid transfer?!
place the quote, win a prize...
If Sony puts out a TV with technology that induces sensory input by shaking my brain with sonic waves my parent's predictions that my brain will turn to mush from watching too much TV may actually come true!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
This is a classic error of assuming expertise in one field implies authority in another.
He is an expert in one field (neuroscience), but he is prognosticating about another (physics).
Making a claim about "the laws of physics" preventing the possibility of this machine working is not something an expert physicist would likely say.
Although I am not myself an expert in physics, I do have some training in the field. Im going to say that it is easily within the 'laws of physics' to create a device that, for example, stimulates exactly one point within the skull at least as small as the wavelength using a broadcast technique without causing stimulation to surrounding areas. Granted, this would be some very advanced technology, but it would be theoretically possible to use the interference and cancellation properties of waves to construct a standing wave in an apparently spacially separated location. Applying this sort of technique with enough smarts, it just might be possible to manipulate sufficiently small parts of the brain to achieve their claims.
They shouldn't have a patent on a device unless it works.
If this does work, I want to see the demo!
If it hasn't even been implemented yet, someone's head should roll at the USPTO.
These are the same peeps that brought us the vomit known as Sonic Stage. Now they want to brain-fuck us. No thanks..
I'm not trolling, I just have an opinion.
This isn't true in all cases. Free energy or "perpetual motion" device patents are routinely rejected even if there is a detailed description of how to build the device.
"If the invention is flawed and doesn't work, in most cases, there is still something to be learned from its disclosure for others to fix the flaw or not make the same mistake and instead come up with a better idea. This is what enrichment of the public domain is all about."
So why did the patent office reject my cold-fusion patent? It involved submerging frozen banana peels in deuterated canola oil and humming The Happy Birthday Song(TM), so it certainly was novel and non-obvious. How does this not meet the criteria?
Sigh,
Fine, if you scanned the surrounding tissue down to the molecular level (oh, and you certainly would have to) so that you could understand exactly how the intervening tissue would interfere, and you had a device complex enough to reverse engineer the necessary input pattern to produce not just activity centered on one 50 micron spot, but a simultaneous and dynamic pattern of activation among thousands if not millions of such 50 micron spots.... THEN it would work.
I'm guessing the amount of computation to compute the precise spatiotemporal pattern of extracranial sources necesary to interfere in exactly the right dynamical pattern would be......beyond comprehension.
I give. You're right.
Given speed of sound in water (of which we humans are mostly made in the head) is over 1,000m/s (closer to 1,400m/s actually), and ultrasound is around 40KHz, we end up with a wavelength of:
:v)
1,000/40,000 = 0.025
2.5 cm or about an inch.
So that's roughly the size of the area of the brain you'll be whacking with ultrasound. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this does not make for very precise neural stimulation.
Vik
I'm happy to see Sony is making progress toward the Playstation 9.
http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/pers inger.html?pg=2&topic=&topic_set=
h tm l
http://www.geocities.com/satanicus_2/GodHelmet.
Micheal Persinger built a "god helmet" which induces feelings of being at one with god or the universe via magnetic fields. It should also be able to induce other sensory experiences as well. I think we have a case for prior art here.
Nice Marmot
No, you _cannot_ patent ideas. At least not lawfully.
A patent specification must be detailed and specific enough "for persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention" and you must specify at least one embodiment (an actual implementation of the invention) along with drawings.
The notion that requiring a prototype is a solution to the problem of bogus patents is not only showing total ignorance of the patent system, it is showing total ignorance of the problem, too. The problem is enforcement of existing patentibility rules. Adding more rules will only make the problem worse.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
wouldn't any nonacoustic form of communication fall under this description?
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Whether it is couch potato football coaches who know better than the real coaches how to turn the team around, whether it is wannabe CEOs who know better than the real CEOs how to run companies etc etc ... it's always amazing how people who have absolutely no knowledge of the problem at hand come up with silver bullet solutions that contribute nothing but only attest to their ignorance.
The problem of the patent system today is too many obvious patents, too many patents where there was prior art. Requiring prototypes does absolutely nothing to avoid those, NOTHING!
At the same time, not all patents are equal. Some are very narrow, some are very broad. An application seeking to patent a concept that the applicant has no clear idea how to implement will always be very broad and it is very likely to be shot down because broadness is something even an inexperienced patent examiner can usually spot.
Even if it passes, it will become what is known as a weak patent. As a rule of thumb, the broader your claims, the weaker your patent. More often than not, very broad patents, if they are granted, are considered unenforcible. Holders of such patents are often told not to sue any infringer because they risk having the patent revoked if it was to come to a lawsuit. This is not an ideal situation, but the result is that the damage such patents cause is negligible compared to the damage that the bulk of bogus patents cause, that is patents which are not-novel or obvious or both.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
Indeed there are exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are exempt from patentibility.
The rule which leads to the non-patentability of perpetual motion machines is that an invention must be of industrial utility. This has been introduced to avoid patent offices having their time wasted with applications that fulfil the criteria but add no value.
Perpetual motion machines may be novel, non-obvious and specified properly, but they are considered not to be of industrial utility because they are just curiousity toys. Perhaps if you patent such a device as a toy, you may get around the industrial utility rule by arguing that the utility is to provide entertainment. However, if you want to patent it just for the heck of it or to imply that it would be a source of energy, then it will be rejected on the grounds of lacking industrial utility.
In any event, this is not about "show me that it works" because there are many perpetual motion machines that do work. Of course, considering that they generally are implemented using a vacuum, patent offices could probably reject them on the grounds of prior art, so you may want to consider this rule a kind of shortcut.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
On suing companies that make neural interface products for unprovable damages.
I just looked at the patents, and both use 2 "layers" of transducers. Other obvious ways of screaming to the neurons are using just one layer of transducers, or 3, or non-layered transducers, or not have the layers behind each other.
I admit that having 2 layers seem to make the implementation and computational costs lower, which is good.
I hereby grant anyone licence to use these ideas, or use them as prior art.
I think it's actually better to allow patenting ideas. You see, the patents do expire and there isn't a tradition of extending them into infinity like with copyrights. So, by allowing Sony to patent this in 2005 (they filed in 2003), you guarantee that it will expire in 2023. If you waited until Sony had a device (say, in 2011), they (or someone else, it doesn't matter for the majority of people) could hold the patent until 2031. The earlier the patent is filed, the better off the public is!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
You ignored the problem of patents for inventions that do not work that are sufficiently broad to cover others' inventions that DO work. This will allow Sony to sue anyone who comes up with the WORKING device, to the detriment of the public (because these risks actually quell investments in R&D).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
From an intellectual property point of view, that is...
The issue you raise has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not there is a prototype.
You are confusing symptom and cause here. You might as well ask for special legislation applying only to red painted cars on highways, simply because a number photos from speed cameras show red sports cars to be breaking the speed limit.
There are already laws in place to deal with drivers breaking speed limits. If these laws are not enforced, no new laws relating to the colour of cars used for speeding will solve the problem.
Likewise, the example you are bringing up is a case of not enforcing existing rules of patentability, most notably the requirement for a specification detailed enough for "persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention", the requirement to specify at least one embodiment to that effect.
Not enforcing this requirement will leads patents with claims that are broader than what the invention actually is about, regardless of whether the invention works or not.
Such fuzzy patents are indeed a problem but the problem is caused by not enforcing existing rules. It is not a problem related to absence of a prototype requirement.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
Related, but off-topic....
Parent poster mentions 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I just thought:
Don't nuclear weapons violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Can any physicists explain any errors I've made in my reasoning (see below) WITHOUT getting into trouble with their governments by replying to this post.
Ok. Thanks to Albert Einstein's (in)famous E=MC^2 formula I know a little bit of matter contains A LOT of energy (which may be the key to possible errors in my reasoning).
The explosive force of the conventional explosives used to trigger the uncontrolled nuclear fission inside a fission based 'nuclear device' is, to me, MANY orders of magnitude LESS than the explosion it subsequently unleashed. It appears you got more energy out than you put in. You seem to get more (destructive) energy out than you put into such a device and, at face value, seem to be violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
My question is, what is wrong with this picture?
I am, like Einstein said of himself, passionately curious and wondered about this seeming conundrum just now.
you are releasing stored energy just like when you burn coal or gunpowder
the difference is that atomic reactions can relase an insanely large amount of stored energy.
this also means that they are among the few reactions that can cause a measureable chance in mass (remember energy is mass and mass is energy)
the conventional expolsives are just a trigger. (they put the atoms of nulcear fuel closer together so the reaction rate can increase to a level where it explodes)