Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents "Cartoon Face Generation"
theodp writes "The latest round of patents granted by the USPTO included one for Cartoon Face Generation, an invention which Microsoft explains 'generates an attractive cartoon face or graphic of a user's facial image'. Microsoft adds, 'The style of cartoon face achieved resembles the likeness of the user more than cartoons generated by conventional vector-based cartooning techniques. The cartoon faces thus achieved provide an attractive facial appearance and thus have wide applicability in art, gaming, and messaging applications in which a pleasing degree of realism is desirable without exaggerated comedy or caricature.' A Microsoft Research Face SDK Beta is available. Hey, too bad Microsoft didn't have this technology when they generated Bob from Ralphie!"
I don't have the link for MS tech but if you surf long enough you'll find some others already offering to make your avatar photo cartoonish with a pretty animated demo.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Has the definition of prior art changed? otherwise how are you claiming these completely different techniques are prior art? from my search of definition it is still "constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality.".
Before you waste your time downloading the SDK note that it is for windows phone 7 only. I know they did sell a few, but I've never met anyone who bought one.
This actually seems like a worthwhile invention.
Sadly, like most recent Microsoft "innovations", it's a copy of other people's work being patented in an effort to block competition (likely including the original developers) and/or extort money from people with a real product.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/11-sites-to-create-cartoon-characters-of-yourself/
Microsoft Song Smith is useful to obtain amusing Youtube videos. See for yourself: http://it.bing.com/videos/search?q=songsmith+vs&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=songsmith+vs&sc=0-15&sp=-1&sk=
Burger King did this via a website with the Simpson's years ago. It was called SimpsonizeMe or something like that. Also, the Wii U does it now to create Mii's.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I guess you didn't actually read the reference pages you berating. From the Rotoscoping wikipedia page:
In the mid-1990s, Bob Sabiston, an animator and computer scientist veteran of the MIT Media Lab, developed a computer-assisted "interpolated rotoscoping" process which he used to make his award-winning short film "Snack and Drink". Director Richard Linklater subsequently employed Sabiston's artistry and his proprietary Rotoshop software in the full-length feature films Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006).[7] Linklater licensed the same proprietary rotoscoping process for the look of both films. Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film. Additionally, a 2005–08 advertising campaign by Charles Schwab uses Sabiston's rotoscoping work for a series of television spots, under the tagline "Talk to Chuck".
So, even though Rotoscoping was first a manual technique done in 1915 and patented in 1917 (tracing live action frames that are projected onto the back of a frosted glass panel), that process moved to using a computer, and then was automated within the Rotoshop software.
There's even a patent from 1994 mentioned: US Patent 6,061,462 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6061462 for a digital rotoscoping process (that's a separate work from the Rotoshop software).
These may all be listed in Microsoft's patent - I haven't read it - but they certainly seem related, if not prior art.
Funnily enough all those wavy characters underneath the title of the patent are a text - in the English language, no less - which describes what has actually been patented. The title is... well, it's the title. It doesn't actually define the patent.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Already do this. The device takes a picture through it's front facing camera and automatically generates a "Mii" with similar features. I'm sure somebody else can find similar software that did this even before.
Unfortunately, that's what most software patents seem to be like. Look at the ridiculous 'rubber-band' effect for indicating you've reached the end of scrolling in iOS. The patent office approved it and I believe ruled against Samsung in using it. I can almost guarantee the code used to implement it was not the same. That is patenting the idea, not the implementation. The same goes for most other examples of software patents. You can't work around them by doing something differently, you must actually do something different, or so it would appear.
Indeed, it's disgraceful which software patents have been approved. That is an issue. If MS have generated a new algorithm in this case then that should, in principle, be patentable. And if the algorithm is described previously elsewhere, it shouldn't be.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The patent isn't on automatic generation of the caricatures, it's on their particular algorithm for doing so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I remember people doing something like this back in about 1990 using very similar techniques - locating the nostrils, the eyes, the curve of the mouth to generate a real-time animation. Back then, this allowed people to transmit a cartoon over the existing phone network, allowing the deaf to lip-read. Back then, this was a clever idea.
'generates an attractive cartoon face OR graphic of a user's facial image'
So it can either be attractive OR look like you.
So you shouldn't be allowed to patent, say, a car that does one trillion miles to the gallon, or is made out of four pounds of plastic, because at the end of the day it does the same thing?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
They're not patenting the entire concept of "cartoon face generation", just a particular approach to the problem that they worked on. Read the patent - they even refer to almost three dozen existing papers on the subject, so they're certainly not pretending to have invented the entire field. MS Research's algorithm tends to produce results that are recognisable and flattering at the same time, which I imagine they could find very useful for XBox Live.
I think the real problem here is the misleading "X patents Y" headings used on Slashdot to alarm people.
First of all the bottom line - patents suck shit. I'll try to explain, although there's so much to tell.
The only positive thing about patents was the original idea that inventors need a tool to protect themselves from copycats. A pretty good idea, but then came other people and turned the idea into a steaming pile of shit, as we often do with everything.
There's a number of complexities that people do not take into account when they file a patent:
1. It's freaking expensive because at some point you have to work with patent attorneys. You can submit provisional yourself, but you must hire patent attorney in PCT or National phases and it's unlikely that you can use proper language that the patent attorney will use, so you risk not having your provisional be considered a priority document (which sets the priority date, when your invention is considered to be created).
2. You'll spend a lot of time on it. Time that could better be spent on building and improving your product.
3. You'd have to reveal all details of your invention to everyone. What if it's hard or even impossible to prove if anyone infringes it later? Patent attorneys will never tell you not to patent it (see #2 above).
4. There's a very good chance that there's something like you invented already, so you won't get a patent despite all the efforts. In other words, unless your invention is abso-fucking-lutely genius, you're doomed to fail on "novelty" or "inventive step" requirements. Almost no doubt about it. Patent examiners are not the sharpest pencils in the box. Read this if you don't believe it: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57581797/the-letter-to-the-patent-office-you-have-to-read/
5. Let say you got your patent granted. You think you just skipped to the "profit" bullet? Ha! In order to benefit from your patent you need someone who infringes it and benefits enough from it to pay you damages. Not a small startup, they won't be able to pay you damages so no sane lawyer will take your case. If the infringing party is rich enough they still need to benefit enough from the infringing product or again no sane jury will give you the damages. Take into account that the bigger the infringer is, the stronger they'll fight you. They will bully and starve you.
6. IP cases take a very long time and cost millions of dollars, and their lawyers will drag you all the way through Inter Party Review at USPTO (where they'll reexamine your patent, another year and $500K) and it's quite possible that they will find some freaking conference presentation in Chinese that's close enough to your invention. Nobody will give a shit that you don't understand Chinese and never been to that conference.
7. In the US you could go to ITC (International Trade Commission) instead of a district court, but that only works when the infringing party is a foreign company and they import the infringing products into the US. ITC also doesn't give you damages, they can only stop the import of infringing products.
All the above taken from my very bitter experience in managing about 40 patent apps in different country.
JUST DON'T DO IT
So, now, mathematics are patentable.
get cancelled?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target