Microsoft Trying To Patent a 'Magic Wand'

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."

Comments

It's called a Wii-mote!

[jholder]

Wonder if they get into trouble with Nintendo.

Re:It's called a Wii-mote!

[Z00L00K]

And all other remote controls that already exists and has existed since "deity-knows-when".

Even the director's wand at an orchestra is a form of remote. But not very advanced in itself.

Don't forget the ORIGINAL Magic Wand!

[blahbooboo]

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

The Doctor called...

[DigitalSorceress]

The Doctor called... He wants to have a word with them about his sonic screwdriver.

It's called a universal remote

[kawabago]

It's time Microsoft stopped inventing things that already exist!

Sure, they can patent a magic wand,

[FlyingSquidStudios]

but they still can't use it to make Vista disappear.

Re:Sure, they can patent a magic wand,

[ozmanjusri]

but they still can't use it to make Vista disappear.

Maybe.

But their magical marketing team has managed to transmogrify a thinly veiled facelift of it into the widely hyped Windows 7.

That could actually be fun

[v1]

Having something that operates a bit like a wii controller combined with a universal remote.

Imagine pointing the wand at your receiver and giving an upward flitting motion and the receiver bumps up the volume. or flick to the right and it changes stations or goes to the next track. Twirl it in a circle clockwise to turn on or counterclockwise to turn off etc.

And would only react to the device you point at. (might have to establish separate gestures for nearby components etc)

I'd buy that.

Re:First result on search for "Magic Wand"

[loutr]

I think MS needs to rethink their naming. I doubt this is what they have in mind.

Then again we're talking about the company whose CEO wants to squirt you pictures of his kids...

Re:Vas Flam!

[ozmanjusri]

I have prior art, I was born with a magic wand!

Yes?

And do you put on your robe and wizard hat before you use it?

For what its worth...

[rodney dill]

... As long as it works by magic, and not technology, give 'em the patent.

I see your shwartz is a big as mine...

[genghisjahn]

...let's see how well you use it. And so began the great wand battle of '09 between MS and Nintendo.

OT: Paid by word?

[JustinOpinion]

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?

No thanks.. ..

[Ozric]

[quote]device that can manipulate and interact with its environment[/quote]

I will stick with the katana .. it manupulates and interacts with the phyical enviroment very well.

Does a good job on people with pesky magic wands too!

No sensors or gizmos needed, and only effects what you point it.

YMMV

Re:First result on search for "Magic Wand"

[Tablizer]

I think MS needs to rethink their naming.

Wandows?
   

Re:Not new

[cayenne8]

Microsoft's New Magic Wand Promo:

"It's not the size of the wand...but, the MAGIC behind it!!

Meh

[srussia]

Probably just a stretched-out Clippy.

Did they need to wait for Clarke to die first?

[Torodung]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And apparently, in their filing, Microsoft thinks that any sufficiently obvious idea is indistinguishable from innovation.

--
Toro

How is this not a Wii controller?

[pembo13]

It's already in the shape of a wand. And it can do everything described with simple software updates. Do you get a patent just for using someone else's design now? And that's not considering how innovative the Wii controller is itself.

Voldemort called....

[jollyreaper]

He claims prior Dark Art.