Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   IBM had demonstrated 'human modems'

   

   alternatives, Jun 22nd, 2004 @ 8:11pm

   
   

   IBM had a cig-case sized device that was able to be a 2400 BPS modem and would 'detect' when one wearer of the device would touch another wearer.
   
   The idea was 'to exchage business cards with just a handshake' VS the 'beaming' of a business card in the Newton/Palm model.
   
   With Bluetooth, the 'need' "went away"

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Prior art!!!

   

   Dan, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 7:00am

   
   

   
   Wouldn't lightning be considered prior art? It definitely conducts power through the human body in some instances. And it's definitely been around longer than MS.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Prior art!!!

   

   BoilerBob, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 7:38am

   
   

   Maybe BillG is Ben Franklin reincarnated. Just think about the simaliarities, they both wear glasses, they both innovate (well that's what Bill calls it) and they are both very popular with the ladies.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Enter the...

   

   Mikester, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 8:34am

   
   

   Will it be the blue pill or the red pill?...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   No Subject Given

   

   PhilTR, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 10:30am

   
   

   Does that mean that M$ can tax every man, woman and child using this system to operate the appliances placed on or near the body or sue them for patent infringment?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Easter favorite

   

   Nate, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 2:02pm

   
   

   Anybody remember those little chicks that you got at Easter that chirped when you were holding them in your hand? Your body completed the electrical circuit via metal contacts on the bottom to power the sound chip. Pretty much thinking that prior art is there.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jun 23rd, 2004 @ 2:10pm

   
   

   Of course! What's wrong with that?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Prior art

   

   Håkon Styri, Jun 24th, 2004 @ 2:30am

   
   

   At least for the informal discussion US patent 166,096 (aka the "animal tissue patent") would be a starting point.
   
   Why "animal tissue"?
   
   The patent office initially rejected this application (filed in 1874), on the grounds that one could not patent a circuit which included a person. The patent was accepted when the inventor, Elisha Gray, replaced the person with a reference to animal tissue.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment