Microsoft Patents Looks-Are-Everything Dating

theodp writes "Screw that eHarmony Compatibility Matching System nonsense. 'Physical appearance is generally considered one of the most important search criteria among users of online dating services,' according to a patent granted Tuesday to five Microsoft Research Asia inventors. Its Image-Based Face Search technology not only allows people to specify the 'gender, age, ethnicity, location, height, weight, and the like' of their prey, explains Microsoft, it also allows them to 'provide a query image of a face for which they would like to search for similar faces.' So, even though you can't have the real Angelina Jolie or Natalie Portman, Microsoft will fix you up with a look-alike."

Comments

Good grief.

[Frosty Piss]

Come on! Patenting searching for someone who looks like someone else?

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

Re:Good grief.

[jonbryce]

If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.

Re:Good grief.

[mangu]

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

Re:Good grief.

[camperslo]

I think there's prior art...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmonkey3.htm

Re:Good grief.

[dltaylor]

They get paid to assign patent numbers.

How many bureaucrats would be out of work if the office was reduced to a reasonable level, for example, a single clerk with a "DENIED" stamp?

Re:Good grief.

[causality]

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

That reminds me of a really good quote:

No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.
-- P. J. O'Rourke

I'd say those four things provide a coherent explanation of the current patent system.

Re:Good grief.

[Theaetetus]

They get paid to assign patent numbers.

Actually, they get paid to reject applications. They just have to come up with a good reason to do so.

Re:Good grief.

[aaaaaaargh!]

Part of the reason the patent system is broken is there is a huge misconception among people about what a patent is and isn't.

I disagree, the patent system is broken because the patent evaluators have no clue about prior art and far too lax criteria for what counts as a specific implementation. That's why there are ridiculous yet valid patents for things like using windows as GUI elements or electronically serving structured documents from a remote server.

Re:Good grief.

[green1]

I bet they're on salary to be honest, so they don't care either way, but by it being known that you can patent basically anything, they make sure that people try to patent EVERYTHING, meaning more work for them, meaning less chance of the office downsizing and letting any of them go... plus it's easier to stamp "approved" than to actually do research needed to reject something. and government bureaucrats are not known to put in more effort than the minimum they can get away with...

Re:Good grief.

[Decker-Mage]

I do have to wonder about their method for selecting matching faces. Thumbs+ (Cerious) has had an image 'matching' method for quite a while now so my question is this prior art?" True, the method (algorithm) in Thumbs+ is a general pattern matching versus Microsoft's pure facial.

Re:Good grief.

[flowwolf]

Part of the reason...

Re:Good grief.

[andydread]

Right and as patents are for the betterment of the arts and were created to encourage inventors to show how their invention works for the betterment of the arts, the patent filing should include the source code.

Re:Good grief.

[Dachannien]

So, can Mister Armchair Quarterback do any better at rejecting those claims?

Re:Good grief.

[DrVomact]

If the computer can do it for you by recognising features on the uploaded photo, then maybe it is patentable. However, the patent shouldn't be granted on the general idea, but on the specific technology that makes it possible.

Right. An image search algorithm that does this well would indeed be technologically interesting...maybe even unique, as it's my understanding that current "face recognition" technologies don't work that well. Certainly, the Department of Homeland Security would be very interested. But patent the "general idea" is exactly what they did. It's clear nobody that nobody's been home in the U.S. Patent Office for some time...but I bet they keep collecting their paychecks.

Re:Good grief.

[AK Marc]

But it isn't a specific implementation. There's nothing in there of any novel ideas, such as calculating underlying bone structure and coming up with a metric for all pictures and comparing those or such. This is just a fancy way of stating "find a face (completely unpatentable) - on a computer (suddenly worthy of a patent, though it shouldn't be any more patentable)." This crap is Hot or Not (with the very un-novel idea of splitting individual features up).

Re:Good grief.

[mwvdlee]

OTOH, if you look at the patent, what it describes is pretty much what anybody would implement as a method; it's obvious.
Use some undescribed magic to extract specific facial features from a photo (this is the part which probably WOULD be patentable on it's own) and build an obvious user interface around it (this is the part they actually patentented).
The problem here isn't a generic description of the goal, but a generic and obvious solution to achieve the goal.

Another part of the problem is that the patent describes a user interface where somebody can upload a portrait and find pictures with similar facial features. Where can I upload a nudy picture and match a girl with similar... "chestal" features?

Re:Good grief.

[Theaetetus]

I bet they're on salary to be honest, so they don't care either way, but by it being known that you can patent basically anything, they make sure that people try to patent EVERYTHING, meaning more work for them, meaning less chance of the office downsizing and letting any of them go... plus it's easier to stamp "approved" than to actually do research needed to reject something. and government bureaucrats are not known to put in more effort than the minimum they can get away with...

How much would you bet? The Patent Office Examiners get paid by a point system with points earned for disposals of applications - including rejections.

Re:Good grief.

[Prof.Phreak]

I would've assumed that the justice departments of the world had this kinda technology already...

Re:Good grief.

[swillden]

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

That reminds me of a really good quote: No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -- P. J. O'Rourke

I can implement that test in software:

bool o_rourke_test(const Person& person)
{
return true;
}

Accurate, but hardly useful.

Re:Good grief.

[lsatenstein]

Gee, For the past two years I have been watching CSI Miami and CSI in general, and wow, face recognition and fingerprint recognition, seem to be well advanced as recognition methods. So what is the justification for the MS Patent.

Re:Good grief.

[davester666]

For many guys, they would prefer to base their choice off boobs and/or booty.

Re:Good grief.

[causality]

What's gong on at the Patent Office? I'm starting to think they all need to be drug tested.

They can't do it because a method for selecting patent office workers based on analysis of drug use has already been patented.

That reminds me of a really good quote: No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -- P. J. O'Rourke

I can implement that test in software:

bool o_rourke_test(const Person& person) { return true; }

Accurate, but hardly useful.

"Hardly useful" because it discounts those individuals who really do strive to become something more than stupid, ignorant, greedy, and power-hungry. They really do exist. They just don't achieve dominance (power) or prominance (influence) because they'd rather live and let live, so there are few you've actually heard of unless you are privileged to know them personally.

Your algorithm there is a nice treatise on cynacism. Damn I used to be quite the cynic myself. Then I realized that if I don't like the way things tend to be, I need to represent personally the change I want to see (and should I fail, I need to learn why I failed and make progress towards correcting that). There's no other way, really.

Re:Good grief.

[Macgrrl]

Surely half the police procedural shows on the TV would provide prior art in face matching software - I've lost count the number of times grainy low res photos are used to identify someone doing a facial geometric match against some federal database.

Re:Good grief.

[swillden]

Actually, my attitude isn't cynical, it's accepting. Everyone is stupid, ignorant, greedy and power-hungry at least some of the time. Some people try harder to avoid it than others, but we all fail.

I find your attitude to be pretentious and holier-than-thou. Any time you find yourself thinking "I'm better than THOSE people because X, Y and Z", you need a dose of humility and you need to pay more attention to your own failings -- in particular, your own stupidity, ignorance, greed and hunger for power.

Re:Good grief.

[tehcyder]

Actually, my attitude isn't cynical, it's accepting. Everyone is stupid, ignorant, greedy and power-hungry at least some of the time. Some people try harder to avoid it than others, but we all fail.

I find your attitude to be pretentious and holier-than-thou. Any time you find yourself thinking "I'm better than THOSE people because X, Y and Z", you need a dose of humility and you need to pay more attention to your own failings -- in particular, your own stupidity, ignorance, greed and hunger for power.

So, because no one's perfect, we're all equally bad, and so there's no differentiating between Gandhi and Hitler?

Re:Good grief.

[swillden]

I didn't say we're equally bad. But any time you find yourself thinking you are better than someone else, you should think again. Most likely you're just not noticing your own faults, and not recognizing their virtues. Working on yourself is great. Pointing fingers and saying the world's problems are because others aren't as good as you is not only wrong... it's the source of at least as many of the world's problems as the faults you listed.

And, yes, I recognize the inherent hypocrisy of that paragraph.

Only the face? Not good enough.

[John Hasler]

n/t

Website name

[girlintraining]

And they'll probably call it iShallow.com.

Re:Website name

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Shallow, yes; but also refreshingly honest about it. Arguably giving such people an efficient clearinghouse in which to practice their assortative mating is a net win for everybody: If they have a clearly superior option, they will flock to it, and the people who aren't don't have to worry about the possibility of dealing with one of them who is emulating an interest in nonvisual qualities. Everybody wins.

Re:Website name

[erroneus]

Truth is often the most ugly thing about life. We spend our daily lives dressing up and hiding the truth at every turn. When someone dies, we say "pass away." And when someone is defrauded or tricked in some way, we say "fucked." And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

I have been with great-looking women and many not-so-great-looking women. Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience unfortunately and I had to become "over 35" to learn that lesson and accept the truth of it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NF5XU-k2Vk -- there is a lot of truth in this song but I can't easily tell my wife that... it hurts her feelings. So instead I tell her another truth -- I am with her because she treats me very well and I appreciate it deeply) So yeah, there is something to be said about how "shallow" it all is, but the fact is, most people are shallow even when they think they are not. I know I am shallow in many ways and I accept it, because this shallowness is a part of human nature.

Re:Website name

[Smauler]

Meh - if finding your partner attractive is shallow, then I'm shallow. To be honest, being with someone you don't find attractive is way more shallow in my opinion.

Re:Website name

[Announcer]

You've said "Beauty is only skin deep" in much more eloquent words.

Who are they trying to kid? This new(?) site/service is only going to set people up for 1-night-stands, with a very poor ratio of GOOD relationships.

Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE.

This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

Choice is good: To each their own.

Re:Website name

[morgan_greywolf]

Meh. It all depends on what your priorities are. Not all people who are dating are actually doing so because they're looking for a serious relationship. Maybe they just want to date and play the field a while.

Thing is, despite what Match.com, eHarmony, etc., would like you to think you can't really "buy" a good relationship. There is no such thing as "good relationship in a box, just add water!" All a dating site can do is provide a way to introduce people to you who meet your personal preferences, whatever those are. It's still up to you and some other person you meet to make a good relationship out of what the two of you have in common, etc.

Re:Website name

[Nidi62]

Exactly. My current girlfriend, we met online and I spoke with her for over a month on the phone before I ever even met her. It allowed me to become attracted to her personality before anything else, and that is why I care about her so much. And you know, they say love is blind. That doesnt mean you dont see people's faults. It means you dont let them bother you.

Re:Website name

[dgatwood]

Eharmony is for people who want to be serious and have a good LIFE. This mess is for people who want to remain as shallow as rain puddles.

Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to look through.

Also, it could be set up in such a way that you only see each other if you both are likely to find the other attractive. That would be a huge win because it would save an awful lot of awkwardness when one person likes the other but not vice-versa. For people who are intimidated by such social interaction, that would be a godsend.

Combine that with something like eHarmony's matching scheme, and you could rapidly narrow down the choices to the dozen or so people that might actually work out, instead of having to manually weed out the million that wouldn't.

Re:Website name

[dgatwood]

And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

That's actually not true. Multiple scientific studies show that most people tend to have a preference for other people of comparable levels of attractiveness and weight. People who are a little overweight tend to shoot for people a little overweight on average. People who are morbidly obese tend to shoot for people who are morbidly obese.

Re:Website name

[jhoegl]

Nah being with someone you are not attracted to is called desperate.

Re:Website name

[cyber-vandal]

Nope it'll be something like this.

Re:Website name

[LordLucless]

I see your Penny Arcade, and raise you an XKCD: http://xkcd.com/800/

Re:Website name

[causality]

Not at all. Let's face it, looks might not be everything, but they are important. It's only shallow if that's your only criterion.

What looks mean to you can also be non-shallow. I'm likely to catch some flak for this but I'll give an example: obesity. That's a matter of looks, but it's also a matter of how the person got to be that way. It says something about their ability or willingness to take good care of themselves. If they do not wish to be obese but have failed to effectively do something about it, it says something about their level of discipline and commitment to goals that are important to them. If they do not accept personal responsibility for their own health, and instead have a million excuses for why their obesity is somehow not their fault, it tells you that they have a victim mentality and are unlikely to be honest about their own shortcomings within the framework of a relationship. That honesty about each other's shortcomings is the first necessary step towards accepting them and growing past them.

Anyone angry or upset by the above paragraph is failing to understand one thing: you can be objectively honest about such matters, ugly though they may be, while also having compassion for the person who struggles with them. Just because someone doesn't meet your criteria for what you want in a mate, just because there are good reasons for that, doesn't make them any less human or any less worthy of kindness and respect. The level of childishness that has infiltrated this site is the only reason I feel a need to explain that, as many of you are trigger-happy when it comes to "ZOMG, he said something that might be negative, hurry, demonize him and deny any point he made!" It's the very opposite of benevolent benefit of doubt when multiple interpretations are possible, in other words.

If a dating site has a prefilter that somehow magically figures out what you find physically attractive and only shows you those matches, that's tens of thousands of profiles you wouldn't have considered anyway that you no longer have to look through.

That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

Also, it could be set up in such a way that you only see each other if you both are likely to find the other attractive. That would be a huge win because it would save an awful lot of awkwardness when one person likes the other but not vice-versa. For people who are intimidated by such social interaction, that would be a godsend.

I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

Combine that with something like eHarmony's matching scheme, and you could rapidly narrow down the choices to the dozen or so people that might actually work out, instead of having to manually weed out the million that wouldn't.

The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

Re:Website name

[Sir_Sri]

Well that's the advantage of online dating in general. Have a monacle fetish? Tired of your friends setting you up on dates with people who don't have monacles because you haven't told them about this. No problem, online dating will help. You can be brutally honest about what you want, and don't want. The downside I can see with online dating is that there's a difference between wanting a fantasy (wanting a woman who looks like angelina jolie), and wanting something you learned from experience (someone who is both willing, and financially able to go on at least 2 weeks of overseas vacations a year). I think the younger generation, teenagers, early 20 somethings, who don't yet know or fully appreciate what they do, or don't want are going to be handed a lot of tools to find a fantasy. For all of it's faults what eharmony purports offer is an attempt at least, to understand what you seriously want in a partner and not just what would fulfil your immediate daydreams. Whether it succeeds or not I have no idea, having never tried the service.

I suppose in the parlance of computer science it's requirements specification. Online is a great way to do pattern match and some sort of combinatorial optimization to 'rank' different pairs of people, but you need to have accurate input in the first place on just what people want and are. There might be a neat machine learning problem there where you could take a dataset of people and then as it pairs them up ask them how the date went in a number of ways and then build a set of relations between some sets of have - want properties.

Re:Website name

[Sponge Bath]

being with someone you are not attracted to is called desperate.

Isn't there a /. merit badge for that?

Re:Website name

[sjames]

Shallow may be human nature, but depth is a natural human capacity. The real differentiator is between those who celebrate shallowness and those who seek depth.

Re:Website name

[sjames]

Let's face it, that's SOP for MS anyway. They have always valued appearances over actual suitability.

Re:Website name

[kesuki]

the truth isn't ugly at all. what i have seen since 2006 opened my eyes for perhaps the first time. i no longer believe what i have been told. television, books, internet, my own family, so called doctors, supposed religious icons... i quit video gaming i quit reading i almost quit internet and tv, i really could live without all the lies. i couldn't type the truth here but i know it now so good luck pretending.

Re:Website name

[kesuki]

obesity is just an option. you say it is diet but if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss, the fat is there and it won't go away no diet drug is going to fix it, i never even lost my baby fat. does that mean i'm a cyborg with no ability to process fat? possibly. i got serious over water purity and my appetite went down and i found gold crystals in the water they are pumping weight gain shit in my drinking water, then there are the 'preservatives' in food, yummy more toxins plz. no thanks there is a reason not even insects eat the grain we grow here. all poisoned. sad.

Re:Website name

[dgatwood]

That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're clearly looking for a rather different function than a dating site was intended to provide.

I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

You're confronting those fears asking someone out no matter what. The point was that some people have a tendency to recede into themselves, and if they get turned down too many times, they don't ever really recover. This could allow those sorts of people to get back on the horse again, knowing that although there's a risk, at least the decked isn't stacked 10:1 against them.

The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

Patents retard progress inherently. There is no such thing as a good software patent, and this one is no exception. It likely means that the sorts of dating sites I want to see won't happen until I'm too old to care about them. The very definition of hell is corporate ownership of ideas.

Re:Website name

[Anonymous Coward]

you say it is diet but if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss

Dieting: you're doing it wrong.

Re:Website name

[blahplusplus]

"now I am shallow in many ways and I accept it, because this shallowness is a part of human nature."

For those who are interested... see demonstrations tests for unconscious bias.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

Re:Website name

[jeffrey.endres]

Use feedback from previous dates. For example, they rated themselves as athletic, when in fact they are overweight. The previous date then rates them in a anonymous and hidden manner. Then you can browse the two versions listed. Like the saying that there is the person you perceive yourself to be, the person other people see you as and the person you really are.

Re:Website name

[SuricouRaven]

"if i starve myself for a week no fat loss only water weight loss"

Are you aware that you need to lug your lard-filled body off the couch and actually move around a bit in order to use up the fat??

Re:Website name

[Prof.Phreak]

Microsoft could also turn it into a face-ranking system, where they keep track of how often your face shows up in search results... Then online-dating folks will have scientific proof that they're ugly :-/

Re:Website name

[rubycodez]

blaming the water? aw cmon, how do you explain the thin people in your area. Eat a good diet of mostly vegetables and fruit, with rice or potatoes without the butter or sour cream, with six ounces or less of lean meat a day, and get off the workstation chair and start walking, adding a little distance each day, get to two miles or more a day. Then add some of those exercises we all learned in school PE, jumping jacks and pushups and such.

You'll be amazed what happens in six weeks....

Re:Website name

[Alok]

You just need to make sure poor broke fat ass is accompanied by a face that looks like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise etc (or whoever is considered as a 'hot' actor, I don't pay attention to guys ;) ). On this site, shouldn't that atleast get you an initial date with the Schiffer, Portman or Johannson lookalikes? :)

Re:Website name

[causality]

That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're clearly looking for a rather different function than a dating site was intended to provide.

I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

You're confronting those fears asking someone out no matter what. The point was that some people have a tendency to recede into themselves, and if they get turned down too many times, they don't ever really recover. This could allow those sorts of people to get back on the horse again, knowing that although there's a risk, at least the decked isn't stacked 10:1 against them.

The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

Patents retard progress inherently. There is no such thing as a good software patent, and this one is no exception. It likely means that the sorts of dating sites I want to see won't happen until I'm too old to care about them. The very definition of hell is corporate ownership of ideas.

That's true for someone who wants a serious relationship or a sexual relationship and will accept nothing else. It leaves little or no room though for deep, satisfying, rewarding friendships that you might have with someone who isn't attractive to you but has a big heart, a strong spirit, or a perspective on life that you truly appreciate.

Well, there's certainly room for sites to make new friends---maybe even for the same site to provide for that functionality and date searching---but at that point, you're clearly looking for a rather different function than a dating site was intended to provide.

I admit that this is true, but is it ultimately a good thing? It would be "a godsend" in the short term. In the long term, wouldn't it also provide a means to run away from confronting one's own fears, overcoming them through persistent effort, and becoming a stronger person? Don't we do enough of that already?

You're confronting those fears asking someone out no matter what. The point was that some people have a tendency to recede into themselves, and if they get turned down too many times, they don't ever really recover. This could allow those sorts of people to get back on the horse again, knowing that although there's a risk, at least the decked isn't stacked 10:1 against them.

The problem is that the patents on these systems make it less likely and more expensive for a single comprehensive service to offer both. It is one potential example of how the patent system actually retards progress.

Patents retard progress inherently. There is no such thing as a good software patent, and this one is no exception. It likely means that the sorts of dating sites I want to see won't happen until I'm too old to care about them. The very definition of hell is corporate ownership of ideas.

I'll note upfront that I, for one, am completely against software patents for any reason. I believe the downsides greatly outweigh a

Re:Website name

[tehcyder]

You just need to make sure poor broke fat ass is accompanied by a face that looks like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise etc (or whoever is considered as a 'hot' actor, I don't pay attention to guys ;) ). On this site, shouldn't that atleast get you an initial date with the Schiffer, Portman or Johannson lookalikes? :)

Your cunning plan is undermined by the fact that when you turn up and look nothing like Brad or Tom, it is somewhat unlikely that your date will culminate in awesome sex.

Re:Website name

[tehcyder]

I'm great looking myself,and two meters height

If only you weren't so damn modest you'd be perfect.

Re:Website name

[kesuki]

i actually was up to 10 miles a day riding bike, eating pinto beans and low fat diet etc. but i didn't lose a single pound after 40 days of trying.

some say that i just got muscle weight and i forgot to do a waistline check, of course... so no i have tried.

creepy creepy creepy...

[maxwells_deamon]

Probably more patentable than most software patents if you actualy patent the means of doing it and not the idea.

You need another patent on how to get sane people to sign up for this. I can see a first date meeting at a restarant.

"No you can't be my date, you don't look like my mom"

Re:creepy creepy creepy...

[SEWilco]

So, is this patent Hot Or Not?

What does microsoft know about dating?

[tp_xyzzy]

I thought everyone in microsoft are just nerds, who know nothing about woman. Now they claim to know enough of it that they can patent it?

Re:What does microsoft know about dating?

[arekusu_ou]

They are not claiming to know anything about women or dating. They are using technology, software, and algorithms to solve a task, which is in the skill set of Microsoft and Nerds.

Also this has nothing to do with knowing anything about women. If physical appearance or the facsimile of an appearance is the criteria, this is nothing but an exercise dealing with information/data. Any knowledge in regards to women as a human being is trivia in that regards.

Re:What does microsoft know about dating?

[tp_xyzzy]

Well, they don't get it right the first time...

Re:What does microsoft know about dating?

[93 Escort Wagon]

No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. Microsoft employees have lots of money. They're fine with women. It's the Slashdot crowd I believe you're thinking about. ;)

I know some 'softies, and a wad o' cash often isn't enough to compensate. You notice that even Gates ended up going in-house?

Re:What does microsoft know about dating?

[PPH]

Microsoft employees have lots of money.

Have you been following their stock price? The old timers are rich. The younger ones, not so much.

They're fine with women.

Heh. I was dating a stripper a few years ago. She wanted me to teach her enough about IT, programming languages and the like so she could converse with Microsoft 'marks' on their level and squeeze a few extra bucks out of them.

Poor social skills make you a target. If you've got money, all the more so.

How long 'til people get "creative" with it?

[Opportunist]

I foresee a whole new kind of image memes soon. Imagine someone uploading a goatse pic? Or the pic of a very disgruntled baby? Or let's play "people who look like things"?

Gawd, how long 'til it gets launched?

iPhoto face matching

[fermion]

So how does his compare to wha t iPhoto does? Are the techs basically the same? Does Apple have a patent on what iPhoto does.

It seems to me that this tech has reached a commodity level, and unless MS is doing something very different, this is just seems like a gimmick to sue others out of business.

What I think would be useful is to allow users to choose their favorite celebrity and match user photos that are close. I know many people who will go out with anyone that looks like Antonio Banderas.

fixed that for you

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

And they'll probably call it iSwallow.com.

I've been waiting for this

[NaCh0]

Can Microsoft deliver my Ms Portman look-alike petrified with hot grits down her pants?

Thx in advance.

Re:I've been waiting for this

[Iskender]

Ah, both hot grits and Natalie Portman. This made my day significantly better.

Re:I've been waiting for this

[Jartan]

Did you perhaps mean paralyzed? Or did I miss some new internet meme where people want statues of Ms Portman?

Re:I've been waiting for this

[Biff Stu]

I don't get it. Could you provide a car analogy?

Re:I've been waiting for this

[Zugok]

Did you perhaps mean paralyzed? Or did I miss some new internet meme where people want statues of Ms Portman?

How did a six digit Slashdot user fail at recognising a petrified Natalie Portman meme?

Re:Next step

[BiggerIsBetter]

The big technical leap would be tying in their credit rating and financial assets like property and stock. Is golddiggers.com taken?

Yes, it is. Funnily enough it redirects to http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/

Image editing

[coolmadsi]

If this actually gets implemented, I wonder what percent of photos uploaded will be edited in some way or another.

Ballmer Signed-Off on this Remarkable Demo

[theodp]

Steve Ballmer greeenlighted the patent application after seeing this remarkable demo of the technology. :-)

And why not?

[MintOreo]

Finding the type of women/men you're physically attracted to is a good place to begin in the search for personalities you're attracted to.

Racist

[mangu]

Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside though and the only teacher of that is experience

The act of classifying people by their appearance has a special name, it's called "racism".

According to my experience, looks have no correlation to character, however the plural of anecdote is not data, so YMMV.

It could well be that it's not that great-looking women are no good, it's you that don't treat them right.Perhaps you went after a number of great-looking women with just the intention of having sex with them and they treated you accordingly.

Re:Racist

[jhoegl]

Actually its called Prejudice....
But I love how you follow up with a stereotype.

Good game sir.

Re:Racist

[Bill Dog]

People will take more guff from charismatic persons. The attractive are indirectly taught that they don't have to be as nice to other people, to be liked, as less attractive folk. So there tends to be a (inverse) correlation between looks and what I'll call sustained pleasantness and graciousness. (Which besides attraction is also crucial to a long-lasting love relationship.)

So character as in honesty and integrity may very well be orthogonal to looks, but sweetness of disposition and generosity (beyond merely the ability to excel at initially exuding such, that everyone with highly-developed social skills has learned to do) is not. Great-looking women are rarely great people on the inside in this regard.

Re:Racist

[mangu]

People will take more guff from charismatic persons. The attractive are indirectly taught that they don't have to be as nice to other people, to be liked, as less attractive folk

No, they are taught that there are prejudiced people and start ignoring people like you.

Using the same armchair psychoanalysis, one could as well argue that women who are less physically attractive become envious and bitter. They are indirectly taught that it's no use being nice since they will always be less liked than more attractive folk.

The type of woman who has less sweetness and disposition and generosity is not a beautiful woman, it's a woman that makes an effort to become beautiful. That kind of person it could be argued that is egocentric and shallow, because she puts external appearance before other values.

 

Re:Racist

[russotto]

The act of classifying people by their appearance has a special name, it's called "racism".

No, it isn't. Only lazy racists classify people according to their appearance; the meticulous ones demand a pedigree.

Incomplete

[the eric conspiracy]

The search needs to include the total person, i.e. all of the body characteristics.

Finally, Microsoft comes out with something useful

[MoxFulder]

... where do I sign up?

Think of the trolls!

[makubesu]

You can't patent this, think of the potential trolling applications. What about a dating website that actually matches people based on how similar their pictures are?

Customer - wait you mean you're my cousin!?

*Steve Balmer and Bill Gates High Five*

Natalie Portman?

[__aatirs3925]

Of today or a la Leon the Professional? Please elaborate as my interest has been peaked with curiosity.

Re:Porn browser obviously

[__aatirs3925]

Internet Explorer 10 plugin approved for production. Hell, someone's gotta give a reason to use IE.

Helps in subjective judgments of attractiveness

[No Lucifer]

I've never really understood the attraction to Anna Kournikova; and Kelli Garner is the pinnacle of beauty to me. I can't speak for women, but at least for men, it has been my experience that we have varying tastes in what we find attractive in the opposite sex. While there are objective measures of beauty (i.e. Megan Fox), there are many, many women who are attractive to me, but would be considered average-looking by most other guys. This service is great for finding women who are my "type". It doesn't mean it is easier to filter out the uggos and fatties, it means I can use pictures of women who fit my subjective tastes and go from there.

The Borg

[Teun]

As long as I remember all Microsoft stories have this Borg avatar, why not this time, is it to prevent Bill to find his perfect match?

Prior art

[Dcnjoe60]

I'm pretty sure that the FBI and CIA already do this and have been doing so for a number of years.

Re:Prior art

[marcobat]

You mean they select who is going to go through the full body scanner based on their personal preferences?

Re:How about specifying girth and length ?

[Teun]

Hmm, I've heard more women complain about 'to big' then about 'to small'.

Maybe just a personal thing though.

What about makeup?

[thetoadwarrior]

Will the algorithm factor in push-up bras, make-up, stupid camera angles and other things women do to mask what they really like or will it still be a case of you have to wake up beside her to see what she really looks like?

Not that there is anything wrong with a natural looking woman. To be honest I'd prefer it but there is often a lot of deception put into someone's looks (especially with women) so unless they're honest it's not really going to match what you're looking for.

but the real bonus would be someone different ;)

[youn]

just go, I want someone that does NOT look like your ex, susan boyle etc :)

Dear theodp,

[93 Escort Wagon]

You sound particularly bitter in this submission - are you taking it personally?

Did Microsoft use ImgSeek?

[kallenberg]

Well take a look at the program imgseek. You index your photos, draw a drawing in a simple bitmap paint area, then search for what you painted. Program works well e.g. if you draw a dog... a horse surely will show up. Did microsoft use this program to make their patented image search engine?

Might also be useful for casting

[John.Banister]

Might also be useful for casting, if you wanted to hire a performer with a certain sort of face, but didn't quite want any you had yet seen.

Well

[ShooterNeo]

From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

2. High incomes of most American workers, and relative egalitarianism. Unlike say, 1950, many women don't need men for money. They are no longer remotely impressed by men making incomes in the bottom 99%.

3. Aging of the populance. All men, from age 13 to age 90, want women in the same age range. Women are fertile and make good mothers between ages 15 and 35. That's 17 years of (legal) breeding ability. Yet, out of the millions of men in the United States, every last one of them prefers women in this age range.

And other factors. Sexual harassment laws mean that men who ask anyone at work for a date risk their careers. The laws in general have gone from being biased towards men (prehistory-1980) towards heavily biased in favor of women.

This is why a lot of men in the U.S. would be best served dating oversees. If you're in the top 10-20% of income in the U.S., but not the top 1%, and you have average looks...you're a dud by the standards of the handful of attractive available non-obese women in the United States. You're royalty with that kind of money and prospects by equally attractive women in say, Ukraine.

Re:Well

[molo]

Right, just ask Nina Reiser.

-molo

Re:Well

[btcoal]

This is really the most accurate, most insightful thing I have ever read on /.
Thank you.

Re:Well

[toddian]

I'll probably get shot down for this, but read The Game sometime.

People who haven't read it usually call it misogynistic bullshit, but it makes a lot of good points. Not least of all, that women aren't at all attracted to money. Sure, they're attracted to men with money because they act like alpha males, but that doesn't mean you can't act like an alpha male too.

Re:Well

[ShooterNeo]

That doesn't really counter my argument. In the U.S. today there's 1000 of those "suckers only" mail order get-rich schemes. Odds are, at least some of them actually will get you rich if you get in early (if it's a pyramid scheme/multi-level marketing) and get very lucky. They're not all scams (just 990/1000 of them)

Point is, if you cheat at the game of getting rich AND get very lucky you just might be one of the handful of success stories.

But that's the same argument with the book you reference (which I do have a copy of). If you're an 'average' man of average height and build and you try to act like an alpha male...you might get lucky. Then again, you might get lucky sitting in your apartment and smoking pot (I knew a guy with a beautiful girlfriend who did that).

Doesn't change the hard reality that the game is heavily, heavily weighted against you.

Go somewhere else where the odds aren't stacked against you quite so heavily, and you might do better with less effort. In "the game" they admit you'll often have to try hundreds of times before you get a hit. Stories I've read say that people who go date in Eastern Europe go straight to meeting the girls and frequently get laid if nothing else.

Re:Well

[ShooterNeo]

To be honest, Hans and Nina got a pretty good deal until some spousal argument ended in murder. (which happens all the time with couples in the U.S. in any case. Probably was not statistically more likely to happen because it was an overseas marriage)

They were married for 10 years. Nina was a doctor, and eventually got a U.S. license. She gave him 2 kids and probably lots and lots and lots of sex. She was beautiful until the day she died (rather than blowing up like a balloon like many spouses do) He got to stay a software nerd rather than forcing himself to be someone else. Had it not ended like it did, it would have been overall a good relationship that ended like most do.

Even the criminal trial was fair : the judge told Hans that he believed that this kind of thing could happen in an outburst of anger, and offered him about 4 years in jail if he admitted to the crime. Had Hans come clean about it he would be released soon and would get a second chance.

Re:Well

[ZmeiGorynych]

Been in the forums of the community that The Game describes long before the book came out. Whether money is the criterion or not, it remains the case that to have a serious shot at being attractive to women certainly in the US, you have to behave in a totally different manner than what comes naturally to a lot of people. In particular, being nice gets you nowhere, or rather being used as a doormat.

And I agree with the gp, it's way less bad eg in Russia (where I have personal experience), where basic traits like kindness just seem to be around more in women, and I don't have to fire up nearly as much of a virtual personality to be attractive to them.

Re:Well

[swillden]

From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

How does that work against the average US man? He's fat, too.

Re:Well

[mcvos]

From the perspective of an average man in the United States : there are a number of factors working against the average man in the U.S. today in terms of dating.

1. The obesity epidemic. This removes millions of women who have the genetics to be desirable, but are instead obese.

Are only women in the US obese? I'd say this is acting against Americans in general, and not merely any single gender. And it has little to do with dating either. You can always date someone who's just as fat as you. Or you could get off your ass and get some exercise and healthier food, of course.

2. High incomes of most American workers, and relative egalitarianism. Unlike say, 1950, many women don't need men for money. They are no longer remotely impressed by men making incomes in the bottom 99%.

That just means women aren't desperate to get married for economic reasons. But plenty of women still want a man. Just not some jerk. (Or maybe they do want a jerk; some women seem to prefer them.)

3. Aging of the populance. All men, from age 13 to age 90, want women in the same age range. Women are fertile and make good mothers between ages 15 and 35.

I was under the impression that a lot of men aren't really all that eager to reproduce. They want the sex, but not the kids.

The only real factor weighing against men (and women!) is this: unrealistic expectations. You get your expectations of the other sex from Hollywood, porn, trashy romance novels and what-have-you, and when you finally get out in the real world, all you can find are depressingly real people. Everybody wants to supermodels and ruggedly handsome doctors to fall madly in love with them despite their ill-adjusted anti-social attitudes. The problem is with you, not with the others.

Re:Well

[swillden]

Because he doesn't want to date a fat chick. It's not like fat guys want to date fat girls.

And it's not like girls want to date fat guys, either. His own obesity has a much larger impact on his prospects than the obesity of the female population. Men who are fit and look good are hunting among the population of females who are fit and look good. Given that the obesity rates are about equal among males and females, fit men may have fewer fit women to choose from, but they're also facing fewer competitors.

Net impact on prospects is that they're unchanged.

Ugly people dont fuck. Its that simple

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Ugly people have no hope in this world. Just live alone and pay to watch pretty people fuck.

Re:Ugly people dont fuck. Its that simple

[Locke2005]

Thanks to the miracle of BEER, ugly people have actually been getting laid for hundreds of years now. Obviously they are in fact breeding... that's why there are so many of them!

Re:Ugly people dont fuck. Its that simple

[Gripp]

lol, troll. actually, i knew a guy growing up that slept with EVERY woman that we ever ran into, even many of their mothers and sisters as well.... and he was one UGLY dude! i never did figure out how he did it. mind control i tell ya!

Slim Pickings

[NicknamesAreStupid]

A better patent would be for software that takes ugly people and makes them look beautiful. As long as they never saw the real thing, it might make for the ideal relationship, not to mention increasing demand for paper bags.

Not shallow

[triclipse]

Basing mating choices on physical appearance is the product of a hundred million years of selective pressure. It is not shallow, but rather it is one of our deepest animal traits.

Re:Not shallow

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You can't ignore physical appearance(though evolution hasn't quite caught up to the appearance of the 'myspace angle', so false signalling is a risk; but the trick is the phrase "basing mating choices on"...

If this site is, largely, just for apply comp-sci efficiency to arranging hookups, it should work just fine. If people expect to form stable relationships long enough to accrue a white picket fence, golden retriever, and 2.5 children, they are going to have to examine the matter more closely...

Re:Not shallow

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Character is hard to judge based on looks, appearances are easily doctored, and longevity is being adequately privatized. Looks-based dating doesn't tell you a damned thing, irrespective of how long it's been around. If you accept it only because it's enjoyable, and not because it's wise, you're making a shallow decision.

Re:Not shallow

[cayenne8]

"If this site is, largely, just for apply comp-sci efficiency to arranging hookups, it should work just fine. If people expect to form stable relationships long enough to accrue a white picket fence, golden retriever, and 2.5 children, they are going to have to examine the matter more closely..."

Not necessarily.

I mean...I would want to hook up for a long term relationship with someone that looks as close to my ideal as possible. The quickest way to do that, is to bypass those who do NOT look like what I really get turned on by. Weed out those early and concentrate on ONLY dating those that look like what I prefer.

Re:Not shallow

[tehcyder]

You are begging the question that physical appearance is the only or main criterion for choosing a partner.

Re:Not shallow

[cayenne8]

"You are begging the question that physical appearance is the only or main criterion for choosing a partner."

I'd say for the majority of people, most of the time, it is the FIRST criterion for choosing a partner.

I don't think there's a guy in the world that saw a girl walking across the bar and think to himself, "Damn...she smart and has a great sense of humor".

Physical appearance is VERY important...it is the first thing one notices (unless you are blind).

SEO for your face

[jamesh]

The next patent will be on a method of doing plastic surgery to make you look like the movie star of your choice. Search Engine Optimisation for your face!

Meh ...

[lennier1]

Sooner or later someone will upload a certain hello.jpg file.

Re:every country has a motive to be lax

[Asic Eng]

Patents must be respected internationally due to treaties

That's not quite correct, actually. Patents apply only in the country in which they are granted. However the Paris convention provides that filing an application in one member state gives you an exclusive right for one year, to file in any other member state. However your patent still needs to fulfill the requirements of the country you are filing in. So if you have a weak patent in the US, you may not be able to successfully apply in e.g. the UK (assuming they are more strict for the purpose of this example).

If you are based in the UK, the US patent could still be relevant for you though - e.g. if you are exporting to the US. That's one of the reasons why many foreign companies file for US patents, even for "inventions" which wouldn't be patentable in their home countries.

if you cut out

[bugs2squash]

everyone that isn't within 10% of the beauty level of Natalie Portman, you cut out a lot of potential customers. Perhaps the owners of the dating web site will give a free "beauty rating" so one can at least know that their web site is a waste of hope and money before shelling out for a subscription.

Re:black male

[marcobat]

No it doesn't, microsoft apply for this one, not google

Protection, too

[DrYak]

Also, patents are supposed to grant protection to new idea, but software doesn't need any.

The idea is that some genius inventor, might have some great technological idea. But to commercially exploit that idea, a 1 billion dollar plant is necessary. Even building a prototype would cost in the range of hundreds of thousands.
The single lone inventor can't start a business like this. He needs to raise funds and for that he need to talk to investors. But the investor could run away with the idea with it. Or there's risk that the investor pours lots of money to develop the product and then some other company copies it. The patent is here to give some protection to the money seeking and money investing. It makes sure that the long development time will get compensated for.

In the realm of software and algorithms, a "plant" is simply a laptop and investment is hacking a couple of week-end in a row. That's it. By the end of the month, the genius inventor has his product up and running. No need to secure a 100k deal to build a prototype. Unlike in the engineering world, in the software world, ideas are cheap.

Re:Protection, too

[mwvdlee]

Not really.
I can have an absolutely stunningly brilliant idea that involves doing something with sentences.
It'll only be useful if I can build the complete word-processor to wrap around my invention.
Or if I can sell the invention to a current word-processor developer, in which case your logic of outside investors applies.

The problem with software patents is that my absolutely stunningly brilliant idea is exactly what every other developer would come up with given the same problem.

Re:Protection, too

[Keeper Of Keys]

Stop being sensible.

Re:Protection, too

[LordNacho]

It's true that software ideas are often a dime-a-dozen, but there are software projects that require a lot of investment of money and manhours. In fact something like an OS would take a long time to write and test.

Re:Hey guys, this is wrong

[AK Marc]

People are willing to pay for convenience. Whether that's quicker shipping on Amazon or for porn from a site that provides what they like in an easy to use format, people do like their convenience.

What they should be developing instead

[kheldan]

What they should be developing is a way to ensure that people who use online dating aren't lying about their age, weight, fitness, appearance, etc. and aren't using a fake photo. Online dating is a joke because of all these problems, and I'm not even getting into all the whores who use online dating sites as a way to either get desperate men to go to their porn site, or as a front for outright prostitution.
Let them patent this all they want. They can have it all.

Drug testing the Patent Office?

[commodoresloat]

What a great idea! You should patent that.

Always marry an ugly girl

[Bayoudegradeable]

So always marry an ugly girl, Cause that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you And if she does, you won't mind.

Disappointment

[Adrian Lopez]

Cue millions of really disappointed teenage girls.

Good old paranoia

[pinkushun]

It worries me that:

1] Normal people love this kind of thing and will flock to any kind of social dating setup

2] It is a good way to catalog and profile all these people, with personal, contact, and now biometric details.

I'm sure its fine, yes it will all be fine . . .

Does anyone have...

[TDyl]

Does anyone have a decent picture of Admiral Grace Hopper around 80-85 years old? ;)

No it isn't

[ZmeiGorynych]

The act of _judging_ people by their _race_ is called racism. Not classifying alone, and not by 'appearance' in general.

As for 'great-looking' women, I've made the same experience, on average (not universally of course) they tend to be much more demanding, and thus in the medium run a pain in the ass to be with. Rational for them, since their pool of potential suitors is larger, but it's equally rational for me to not invest the effort they demand because I don't weigh 'great' looks very highly in a partner (not being totally ugly and somewhat maintaining a decent appearance is of course necessary, but that's a filter that includes at least 75% of women), as what mainly matters to me is a woman being fun to be with.

Re:Only the face? Not good enough.

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Wow, /. for a discussion of dating sites. Isn't that like hanging out in a PETA forum looking for a good steak recipe?

porn

[Gripp]

soon enough such technology will no doubt be used to look up porn vids with actors who look exactly like your current stalking vict.. er... crush!! aren't we all so thrilled!

Re:idiot

[tehcyder]

Physical appearance is as arbitrary of a basis for selection as personality. Do you really need a woman to be funny and witty to make babies? Physical fitness is probably a better criteria.

Because, obviously, the only reason people have relationships at all is to make babies.

Re:Still won't work

[tehcyder]

It still won't work when 90% of the photos women put up are 10 years old or 30 pounds lighter or otherwise completely deceptive.

As opposed to all of the men on dating sites who are always completely honest?