Spinvox Tries To Patent Dictation?
from the um,-seriously? dept
Over the years I've heard of a few different companies that have done variations on what Spinvox appears to be doing: using a combination of both speech recognition and cheap offshore labor to convert audio voicemail messages into text. But, Mark alerts us that Spinvox is trying to patent the process of using humans to transcribe messages (you can see the patent application here). It seems pretty ridiculous that the concept of transcribing a voicemail message could get a patent -- and one hopes that such a patent no longer has any chance under the current Bilski rules, but you never know. It's quite telling, though, how the company responds when asked about the patent:
Separately, it's a bit odd, but mixed in at the end of the BBC article is a small highlight of one potential problem with using humans to transcribe voicemails: some of the Pakistani transcribers apparently haven't been paid by Spinvox, and attached a message to one of the transcriptions, telling the recipient of their plight and asking for help.
"Generic patents help us build different combinations -- i.e.: Humans interacting with machines -- to prevent any other companies doing similar things in the long term."In other words, they're blatantly admitting it's got nothing at all to do with actually innovating, but getting enough of a patent thicket to have different combinations that prevent anyone else from doing things.
Separately, it's a bit odd, but mixed in at the end of the BBC article is a small highlight of one potential problem with using humans to transcribe voicemails: some of the Pakistani transcribers apparently haven't been paid by Spinvox, and attached a message to one of the transcriptions, telling the recipient of their plight and asking for help.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Oh, it's *way* worse than that
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
They Think Small Time
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, that's truly rich!
Poetic justice. That's just rich.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, that's truly rich!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon Mike
C'mon, be fair. You know the only reason they haven't been paid is because, unfortunately for Spinvox, someone ELSE owns the method patent "exchanging money on a regular basis, but not too much money, in order for brown people to pretty much do all the work and let us get rich"....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Later the stenographic record is converted to
text.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This presents several challenges to the user: first, he may not have a pen and paper to hand to take down any important information; secondly, he may forget or not be able to hear the options and hence will be unable to operate the voicemail system effectively.
Because of this inadequate and opaque interface, voicemail is not used by at least 45% of mobile telephone users. Of those that do use voicemail, it typically accounts for 30% of a user's call time and spend. One of the reasons for this perhaps surprisingly high level is that, because of the difficult interface, users frequently dial in again just to listen to key voice messages they did not get the details of the first time round.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh and thanks for the link to the register Petréa, good article.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uhm... I would say voicemail is not used because people don't leave voicemails. They use text messaging instead. If someone sent me a voice mail I would listen to it but none of the inconveniences you mention apply to the person sending the voice mail. I argue that most people would listen to their voice mail if they received one and they do listen to the voice mails they receive.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
More fun reading here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1202185/Pay-cut-SpinVox-phone-text-tycoons-told.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Closed Captioning
This Spinvox patent is stupid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Closed Captioning
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Closed Captioning
So? It's not like you can just send an example of prior art to the USPTO and have a patent automatically invalidated. Oh no, it requires much more than that, starting with lawyers and money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment