Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Trying To Patent a 'Magic Wand'

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the also-patenting-bag-of-holding dept.

theodp writes "Newly-disclosed USPTO documents show that Microsoft is seeking patent protection for a 'Magic Wand,' a device with various gizmos and sensors that can manipulate and interact with its environment, including video and holographic images, while using biometrics to connect with the user. 'Even the most pragmatic individual,' explains Microsoft, 'would have trouble arguing against the merits or utility of, say, a magic wand that actually worked to control or communicate with objects or components in an associated nearby environment.' No doubt. The inventors include CXO/CTO J Allard, and Sr. Researcher Andy Wilson."

2 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Don't forget the ORIGINAL Magic Wand! by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Surely someone is going to point out the comparison to the original magic wand? I think this might prevent Micro$oft's patent as it came out in the 1970s??

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16896630001

  2. OT: Paid by word? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Somewhat off-topic, but the wording in patent applications always amuses me. For instance, the abstract says:

    The architecture can utilize one or more sensor from a collection of sensors to determine an orientation or gesture in connection with the wand, and can further issue an instruction to update a state of an environmental component based upon the orientation.

    They say "one or more sensor from a collection of sensors", which is redundant. They could just say "sensors". And why say "can further issue an instruction to update a state of an environmental component" when it is simpler to just say "can update another component"?

    The architecture can utilize sensors to determine orientation or gesture of the wand, and can update another component based upon the orientation.

    I understand the need for precision. And I guess if they don't claim "one or more sensors" then someone can try to circumvent the patent by doing the same thing with only one single sensor (or whatever). But it still sounds ridiculous, and is no excuse for making confusing sentences. So many sentences are needlessly complicated or outright superfluous. Is there really no better way to word patents?

    Can anyone comment? Is that kind of wording truly necessary for the patent to be robust, or is the wording intentionally obtuse and confusing, so that they can later use the ambiguity to argue for broader applicability?