Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Virtual Skywriting Patent App Features the Real Thing
theodp writes "GeekWire reports that Microsoft this week was awarded a patent on something it calls 'virtual skywriting', an augmented reality service that adds fake skywriting to scenes captured on a cell phone screen. Odd enough in its own right, but Microsoft also included an unattributed photo in the patent application which it described as 'an example of virtual skywriting in use,' although it certainly appears to be identical to a famous image of actual skywriting from a 2001 public art project. If that turns out to be the case, could the self-described opponent of half-baked patents and IP misuse find itself in hot water with the USPTO for using the 'prior art' to fake its fake skywriting?"
Why is this a bad thing?
Take a step back and think about it: if this patent is granted and we can all do virtual skywriting, it will eliminate actual planes in the air doing "real" skywriting.
There are a few reasons why this is a great idea:
1) All those carbon emission will be eliminated which means less carbon to warm the earth and less carbon going into your system which causes dangerous nervous system issues.
2) People will not have to go outside in the bright sun to view skywriting. This would probably eliminate dozens, maybe millions of skin cancers every year. Not only that, the oncogene trigger is but one thing tripped by excessive sunlight. Another is vertebral subluxations around C7-C8 and T1-T7. Those cause issues with your hands and chest. They aren't sure exactly why this happens but there was some ongoing research at The Journal of Subluxation Research before they went offline some time ago.
I'm not the biggest fan of "tech for tech's sake" but this is a genuinely good idea. One of the better examples of tech improving our lives.
Take care,
Bob
Chiropractic Saves Lives!
let's award a patent for adding text to an image. Sometimes I wish Mr Franklin had been given a perpetual patent on electricity, which he chose to not license out.
How is this "prior art"? Surely if anything it would be misrepresentation and copyright infringement, but real skywriting doesn't constitute prior art for a computer app which fakes it...
Next thing they will want to patent faking farting sounds in rerecorded recordings.
That it looks so much like a real photo may be the point in proving how well it works, although I would imiagine it's very difficult to recreate that entire scene.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So now instead of patenting something by adding "on the Internet" to the end, we add "in Augmented Reality"?
Are you fucking retarded? It's an example image.
Slow news day, huh?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Of cloud computing.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Superimposed images are only the visual representation - the end product, so to speak.
I guess writer of the article was too busy being all "OMG! Evil M$ empire steals photo, spreads lies!" to pay any attention to the actual idea behind the patent.
What they are actually patenting is a service that lets its users take photos of the sky and superimpose text and/or images over that image to appear like skywriting.
Said service then STORES THE LOCATION OF THE USER, and then allows other users to see those (and other) superimposed images when they take a photo of that piece of the sky.
Think virtual Bat-signal, not "lame automated Photoshop plugin".
Or, for the daylight photos "Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's - the new Coca-Cola commercial".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It is perfectly normal for patent submissions to be made up of "artist's renderings" as they used to be called or "PhotoShopped Images" as we usually think of them today.
Thanks for looking like a fool for our entertainment.
if you wanted someone to belive your spam link you should have at least said something bad about microsoft
In Soviet Russia, Reality Augments you! (sigh...)
and I'll let you finish, but Adobe had the best photoshop of all time!
This is something only microsoft would do
I my experience patents are written by lawyers. In particular they're written by law firms that specialize in writing patents. Because of this they're disconnected from the original inventors of the technology. They might not even be particularly familiar with the technology involved. In addition to this they might have the paralegal getting the pictures for the patent.
This doesn't excuse this problem, but it might explain how it came about. Microsoft is supposed to have reviewed the patents before submission, but who knows, the inventor might have left his job while the patent was getting written up. Or when it is crunch time, who has time to carefully review patents?
[Update, Thursday June 23: Microsoft's statement in response to our inquiry: "âoeThe use of the skywriting image in the patent was an error and Microsoft will immediately submit the patent for re-issue proceedings to correct the drawings. Microsoft regrets any confusion caused by this error.â]
The mind boggles as to why people would voluntarily take pictures of the sky so that M$ could insert fake sky writing in them.
Unless, of course, you mean the US patent office, oh my god, has patented purposeful and with intent to profit copyright infringement, the illegal alteration of someone's copyrighted photograph and the insertion of advertising in that image that will destroy the original intent of that private image. So an invasion of privacy in accessing the private data of a phones stored images, an illegal copyright infringing copy of that image being made so that it can be altered, the illegal infringement of copyright in altering that image, the fraudulent misrepresentation that the user wanted to incorporate the fake sky writing in that image.
So basically some dick who want's their advertising to appear in a particular section of sky, takes a photo of that section of sky and pays a service to commit a string of crimes so that "a plurality of users" get stuck with that fake sky writing if they take a photo with that particular section of sky in it. So yeah, reading the actual patent, pretty Evil.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
...or do you dye your hair?
Who's now copyrighted what now?
You mean that when YOU take a photo of THE SKY, you think that YOU are breaking copyright? Whose copyright? God's?
Also, when YOU upload YOUR photo to an online service for the purpose of adding various clip-art drawings and or text, you actually think that you are breaking more copyright? Whose copyright would that be?
You from 5 minutes ago? Are you really THAT big of a prick, that you would sue your future self for copyright infringement?
AND invasion of privacy.
Are you schizophrenic or something?
Do many people live in your head, fucking with your mail and erasing your phone messages while you sleep? If so, you should see a psychiatrist.
Now. Before they take over again.
Once again, how it works.
YOU take photo of sky.
YOU upload photo to M$-patented-thingamajig.
YOU write "I suck many cocks" across the image of that part of the sky using their built in interface. I believe that you already see the appeal of THAT.
M$-patented-thingamajig records your location and the stuff you wrote/draw, and puts that (location and your text/drawing) into their database. It's OK... You clicked [yes] on their EULA.
YOU then tell your friend to use his M$-patented-thingamajig phone app, take a snapshot of the sky "over there" (he could be across town, but in the line of sight to that piece of sky) and read you what it says.
Your friend takes a snapshot of the sky using M$-patented-thingamajig phone app.
M$-patented-thingamajig takes his photo and checks his location, analyzes its relation to your original position, photo and text, renders visual representation what HE would see on HIS photo and sends HIS photo back to HIM.
He reads "rtb61 sucks many cocks" back to you.
And any copyright issue Microsoft might have with you writing copyrighted text/drawing copyrighted images in the virtual sky of your photos is dealt with simply by a line of text in the EULA.
Line that says that YOU take all responsibility for all instances of "I suck many cocks" that you will write, which don't already fall under fair use.
As for use of this as an advertising device...
On second thought, unless they start charging money to have parts of the "virtual sky" protected from vandalism, and thereby destroy the appeal to the common user - there would be too many instances of Cock-A-Cola or similar "sky graffiti" over existing commercials for this to ever be profitable.
Besides... Advertising is something Google would do.
Microsoft would just force you to use their Zune-Phone or something in order to use the app.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Adding fake Graffiti to walls?
Adding people in picture that aren't there when the picture is taken?
Adding thinks like cigarettes or beer bottles to people's hands ?
Come on people, this is just silly.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Seriously. If you're point is to get the picture to ask some geek hag to marry you because you've grown beyond virtual girl and want a real one then hire the stinking sky writing pilot to spell out "@SkankyGurl, will you marry me?" - so the whole bay area can see it, take a picture of it and post it to the internets.
My office has been taken over by iPod people.