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.
No, it's perfectly good from business angle:
1. patent some idea
2. wait for someone to build some device implementing this idea
3. profit
Noticed, there is no "unknown" step between 2 and 3?
Robertt
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
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.
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
1 file the last document,
2 get the patent, and
3 profit!
This workked so well because until that last document was filed, the patent number wasn't issued, making submarine patents all but impossible to look up.
Now the patent lifespan is 3 years longer, but the clock and the visibility of the patent starts as soon as the first document is filed.
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.
A interesting read: Frontline: nixon & detroit: inside the oval office.