its common knowledge that the elves patented "the method of imbuing magical qualities within compositions of matter," (see M.E. pat. '108). Sauron then proceeded to manufacture the rings of power, and the Elves filed a willful infringement claim in King's Court. Meanwhile, the elves got an injunction against Sauron in a Valinor court (which is commonly known to be an easy place to get an injunction), but a Gondor court held that it was unenforceable. Settlement negotiations quickly fell apart, leading to the War of the Last Alliance in SA 3434.
This is not Google's problem. And it makes no sense to issue a court order to Google to take down the video. Issue a court order to the uploader. How will this get their attention? What is the point? Get their attention and say "you're right Brazil we should individually pre-screen all of the millions of videos we handle every day," really? Go firebomb a US embassy because of this already.
Sure, except, in the smartphone market, by banning the sale of iPhone you also eliminate the entire iOS mobile platform. Talking mobile platforms, the MAJOR choices are iOS, Android, and BlackBerry(sortof). If you roll in Windows Mobile, that throws the calculation to 25%. If you include symbian, 20%. The various flavors of Android implemented by the makers you listed aren't exactly much of a choice.
thank god for this new slightly smaller PS3. I happen to only buy tiny doll furniture, so this will really make a difference in my miniature entertainment center.
I just read through the patent and I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being patented. The best I can tell is some sort of system that has multiple identities that it shows to different people depending on your relationship.
And if it's difficult to tell what is being patented should it really be patented?
Claim language can be confusing, as the need for repeating terms makes reading a claim very clunky. The specification (written description) is always secondary to claim language when you're talking about what is covered by the patent. It's useful for claim interpretation and defining scope, but the claims are the name of the game. Here's the first independent claim of the Google patent:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a plurality of personas for an account of a first user of a social network performed on one or more computing devices, the method comprising: receiving, using the one or more computing devices, information for the plurality of personas from the first user, wherein the information comprises a name, a representation, and a visibility level for each persona in the plurality of personas; associating the information for the plurality of personas to the account of the first user; associating a particular persona of the plurality of personas with a second user on the social network, the second user being distinct from the first user; receiving a selection of one of the plurality of personas from the first user; determining, using the one or more computing devices, an appearance of the selected persona based at least in part on the visibility level and representation of the selected persona; and providing the determined appearance for display.
Based on a quick read, its a method for generating different profiles based on the user account preferences and that user's relationship with another user viewing the profile. The very earliest possible priority date on this is 2010: "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/219,398 filed Aug. 26, 2011 and entitled "Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions," which claims priority under 35 U.S.C..sctn.119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/526,567, filed on Aug. 23, 2010, entitled "Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions" which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety."
I have absolutely no idea, even after reading through some of the file history, how they got around privacy settings/public vs. private profile features, which have been around for quite some time.
once again, OP has posted a misleading article. This is not a granted patent. This is a patent application, as the text of the article states, but the title, what every reader sees first, is blatantly false.
not granted. this is just an application that has been published. the OP has incorrect and misleading text. The examiner hasn't done any prior art examination, according to USPTO PAIR.
Yes, its 3d projection mapping, as in that awesome vid. However, I believe the idea behind the patent is the ability to do the 'mapping' of the surface to be projected on every time the Xbox is turned on, or at least by calibration within a reasonable time. Maybe there is a device that does this now. Anyone? Also, there is language in the spec suggesting that the mapping dynamically changes to detect the user's position (e.g. movement within the room is detected, the system doesn't just assume the player will be on a treadmill all the time).
Also, the term of a patent is 20 years, not 50, which begins counting from the date of filing. So, even if the patent issued today, MS would have only 18.5 months to do anything with the patent. Inspecting the file wrapper of this application shows that the examiner has done essentially NOTHING, and the claims are not allowed yet. There is still plenty of time for the examiner to review prior art and ask MS for claim amendments limiting the scope. Almost every file history I have read has had at least one rejection of claims due to overbreadth or prior art, which results in amendments limiting scope.
This is a patent APPLICATION, not a PATENT. The USPTO PAIR website, so far, has no examiner-side documents. As this was filed just 18 months ago, and things at the USTO can take around 30 months for a final decision, there will be plenty of time to examine prior art. I'm not convinced CAVE totally preempts this patent, either. CAVE is a room with perfectly flat walls and no furniture. The MS spec and claims describe the ability for the system to perceive depth and obstructions and distort the projection so that the user sees 'nothing' except the game environment, including in rooms with furniture and not just flat square walls.
Slashdot Mirror
its common knowledge that the elves patented "the method of imbuing magical qualities within compositions of matter," (see M.E. pat. '108). Sauron then proceeded to manufacture the rings of power, and the Elves filed a willful infringement claim in King's Court. Meanwhile, the elves got an injunction against Sauron in a Valinor court (which is commonly known to be an easy place to get an injunction), but a Gondor court held that it was unenforceable. Settlement negotiations quickly fell apart, leading to the War of the Last Alliance in SA 3434.
20 years. 20 years. 20 fucking years from the date of filing, not 17.
the constitution may be a pretty substantial roadblock, just sayin'.
This is not Google's problem. And it makes no sense to issue a court order to Google to take down the video. Issue a court order to the uploader. How will this get their attention? What is the point? Get their attention and say "you're right Brazil we should individually pre-screen all of the millions of videos we handle every day," really? Go firebomb a US embassy because of this already.
Sure, except, in the smartphone market, by banning the sale of iPhone you also eliminate the entire iOS mobile platform. Talking mobile platforms, the MAJOR choices are iOS, Android, and BlackBerry(sortof). If you roll in Windows Mobile, that throws the calculation to 25%. If you include symbian, 20%. The various flavors of Android implemented by the makers you listed aren't exactly much of a choice.
in each market. But sure, it won't impact US consumers.
thank god for this new slightly smaller PS3. I happen to only buy tiny doll furniture, so this will really make a difference in my miniature entertainment center.
I just read through the patent and I can't make head or tail of what exactly is being patented. The best I can tell is some sort of system that has multiple identities that it shows to different people depending on your relationship.
And if it's difficult to tell what is being patented should it really be patented?
Claim language can be confusing, as the need for repeating terms makes reading a claim very clunky. The specification (written description) is always secondary to claim language when you're talking about what is covered by the patent. It's useful for claim interpretation and defining scope, but the claims are the name of the game. Here's the first independent claim of the Google patent:
.sctn.119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/526,567, filed on Aug. 23, 2010, entitled "Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions" which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety."
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a plurality of personas for an account of a first user of a social network performed on one or more computing devices, the method comprising: receiving, using the one or more computing devices, information for the plurality of personas from the first user, wherein the information comprises a name, a representation, and a visibility level for each persona in the plurality of personas; associating the information for the plurality of personas to the account of the first user; associating a particular persona of the plurality of personas with a second user on the social network, the second user being distinct from the first user; receiving a selection of one of the plurality of personas from the first user; determining, using the one or more computing devices, an appearance of the selected persona based at least in part on the visibility level and representation of the selected persona; and providing the determined appearance for display.
Based on a quick read, its a method for generating different profiles based on the user account preferences and that user's relationship with another user viewing the profile. The very earliest possible priority date on this is 2010: "This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/219,398 filed Aug. 26, 2011 and entitled "Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions," which claims priority under 35 U.S.C.
I have absolutely no idea, even after reading through some of the file history, how they got around privacy settings/public vs. private profile features, which have been around for quite some time.
once again, OP has posted a misleading article. This is not a granted patent. This is a patent application, as the text of the article states, but the title, what every reader sees first, is blatantly false.
MS hasn't been granted this patent, hasn't been reviewed by examiner, and is just a published application.
not granted. this is just an application that has been published. the OP has incorrect and misleading text. The examiner hasn't done any prior art examination, according to USPTO PAIR.
Yes, its 3d projection mapping, as in that awesome vid. However, I believe the idea behind the patent is the ability to do the 'mapping' of the surface to be projected on every time the Xbox is turned on, or at least by calibration within a reasonable time. Maybe there is a device that does this now. Anyone? Also, there is language in the spec suggesting that the mapping dynamically changes to detect the user's position (e.g. movement within the room is detected, the system doesn't just assume the player will be on a treadmill all the time). Also, the term of a patent is 20 years, not 50, which begins counting from the date of filing. So, even if the patent issued today, MS would have only 18.5 months to do anything with the patent. Inspecting the file wrapper of this application shows that the examiner has done essentially NOTHING, and the claims are not allowed yet. There is still plenty of time for the examiner to review prior art and ask MS for claim amendments limiting the scope. Almost every file history I have read has had at least one rejection of claims due to overbreadth or prior art, which results in amendments limiting scope.
This is a patent APPLICATION, not a PATENT. The USPTO PAIR website, so far, has no examiner-side documents. As this was filed just 18 months ago, and things at the USTO can take around 30 months for a final decision, there will be plenty of time to examine prior art. I'm not convinced CAVE totally preempts this patent, either. CAVE is a room with perfectly flat walls and no furniture. The MS spec and claims describe the ability for the system to perceive depth and obstructions and distort the projection so that the user sees 'nothing' except the game environment, including in rooms with furniture and not just flat square walls.