RSS
What Else Can We Patent?
from the great-ideas dept
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Supreme Court Says Patent Abuse Can Violate Antitrust Laws
- Company Claims Patent On Pop-Up Ads, Sues Porn & Travel Companies
- Knowing The Government Is Spying On You Changes How You Act
- Google Proposes Clever Video Codec License -- But The Real Problem With Patent Pools Remains
- Supreme Court Strikes Down Gene Patents
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
I’m looking for research...
Geography Of The App Economy
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
1. nina sucks/is a pirate/is a freetard/is an idiot
2. dis comix iz stoopid/nut funne/nut ore-ih-ginal
3. omg nina you don't know what you're talking about!
5. TL;DR
6. omg nina you dumbass you shouldve licensed your songs first serves you right you pirate/freetard/imbecile everyone knos that why you are crying in the first place lololololol
7. trololololol
8. OH EM GEE NINA WHY DON'T YOU DO SUMTHING ORIGINAL FOR A CHANGE????? ALL YOU DO IS COPY!!!!!!!!!
9. *insert condescending remark here*
10. *insert rude sarcastic remark here*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Patenting gestures
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I laughed.. then cried....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You spelled it wrong...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, doesn't that run into the Bilski ruling?
I'm not kidding, I'm actually curious about that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I am so gonna do it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Anonymous Coward, did you get a patent on truly horrible comments?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I am so gonna do it....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not "process for", you need to use the expression "method and apparatus for [insert here the concept you are trying to patent] ". With those magical keywords, you can get anything through the USPTO
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shit, Squirrel, you just got Pizzzowned! Just hang it up... headshot!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If they don't go away, it'll become clear they aren't here to satiate some sadistic need for troll-food, but they are being paid to astroturf. In that case, click "report" and move on.
Internet 101. Seriously.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Put up or shut up
So I would say, either:
a) Show us your superior creative work; or
b) Please provide a clear, articulate explanation of why you don't think Nina quite hit the mark on this one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What Else Can We Patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What Else Can We Patent
"An electronic method by which one exerts an artificial construct over both tangible and non-tangible inventions"
I actually think that is less vague than some of Apples recent patents.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well Done
Which patent did I just violate with the =) emoticon?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Put up or shut up
How hard was that?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Well, to be clear, you're not wrong in your assertion that one cannot patent emotions... you're wrong in the thought that this was Nina's point.
She was illustrating the absurdity of patenting the expression of emotions (through silly typographical marks) and the attempt at enforcing that.
Now, to Squirrel's point... without you actually saying what you just did, I have no idea how you got from "Nina, did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons?" to "You can't patent emotions". Your initial post was unduly critical and, well, assholish as you made an attack at Nina's artistic ability without actually stating why. Nothing illegal about that or anything... just makes you look like a dick with no actual point to share... just chiming in to be heard and try to hurt someone's feelings.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I didn't attack Nina's artistic ability (she has shown the technical ability to produce a cartoon, which is more than many of us can manage). I just find that the content, the actual meaning of most of her cartoons is lacking in any value, adds little to the discussion, and often seems mostly intended to add FUD in a humorous manner.
So for me, her cartoons,while techically well produced, generally are horrible because they either miss the mark, or intentionally misrepresent things to support the Techdirt position.
What I don't get is how nobody seems to notice that Nina glommed onto Techdirt like a life preserver when she was in the middle of dealing with her errors in the land of Sita. She hasn't gone away since, and instead has become sort of an in house propaganda tool. Another reason I find her toons to be horrible.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
b) you can't patent emotions.
How hard was that?
As easy as saying SONY.
SCEA Experimenting With “Laugh Detecting”, Emotion Tracking Software - August 14, 2009
"Laughter… as a “controller”? It sounds funny on paper, but Sony Computer Entertainment America seems serious about the concept considering they filed a patent for a laugh detecting program.
The application picks up on metadata, which includes laughter recorded by the microphone and a user’s expression from the camera. Both devices are linked to a “game console”, shown as a PlayStation 3 in the diagram, which identifies the user, notes emotions, and transfers the data over a network.
How will Sony identify emotions? The patent mentions identifying body gestures and tracking group interactions “such as when two individuals give each other a ‘High Five.’” Sony also developed smile detecting software for their Cyber Shot W120 camera which could be used too.
While the patent focuses on laugher it can identify other emotions such as sadness, excitement, anger, joy, interest, and boredom. For example, boredom may be detected if a user is “looking away from the presentation, yawning, or talking over the presentation.”
The software isn’t limited to video games. It can also be used for TV shows, films, and other media presentations, but we’ll drop those for now.
What do you think of a game that can read your emotions? Perhaps, an RPG that changes its story or the way the characters interact based on how you react.
Can't wait for the patent lawsuits to fly when Xbox and Wii start detecting emotions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I think the main point is that businesses love monopolies and will use their organizational skills and resources to try to expand what they can get a monopoly on. The patent system is a tool that has been fairly effective in granting those monopolies beyond the intended purpose of a patent. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for some entity to try and so some as ridiculous as patent emotions (if they haven't done it already.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75502288
and
http:// www.despair.com/frownonthis.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
When the Shills result to insulting you Nina, you've hit your mark. Good Job.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Now where was that when you made an unnecessary attack against Nina? Your initial post was pointless and hostile... didn't anyone ever tell you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything? In this case, if you don't agree with Nina's "agenda", just shut up and don't read it. Pretty simple.
By saying simply "did you get a patent on truly horrible cartoons" without any elaboration, you are attacking her as an artist. And I'm not the only one who things this, judging by the reaction to your initial post.
Again, then why do you read them? And if you're reading them just to come on here and attack her freetard agenda, that's a pretty sad hobby, in my opinion.
You know what I took out of that cartoon? "Gee, they sure do try to patent some pretty silly things out there... hahaha". That was about it. I didn't look at it as a rallying-cry to abolish the patent system. I looked at it in the same light as Carlin's 7 Dirty Words... a humorous take on censorship, not a call to abolish the FCC.
So, with all that, what was the point of coming on here and shooting your mouth off about how horrible her comics are?
So this is your hangup? Your view that Nina is a propaganda tool? Really? Wow. Nice strawman, by the way.
She's a cartoon artist who illustrates her opinion through sarcasm. I don't think there's one of us (well, except you, apparently) who thinks Nina really believes these kinds of patents are commonplace. If I took cartoon artists that seriously, I would call the cops on RK Milholland because he's obviously going to kill the next person who pisses him off and would never own a cat again after reading Two Lumps.
Bottom line... it's a cartoon. You seem to be the one coming on here to make some kind of "us v them" point.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I Second That Emotion
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
But if you think there is ONLY ONE POSSIBLE METHOD to create an emotion then this would be an issue.
Now it's just purile, and stupid, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of something THAT FREAKING SIMPLE !!!!!!
If I invent a machine that makes you fell "happy", that machine uses "A METHOD", that does not stop you inventing a machine to make you happy it only stops you re-inventing something that someone else has allready invented.
That's probably there is more that ONE Joke in the world, or more than one comidy, or more than one 'tear jerker" movie.
Because if you could patent the RESULT and not the METHOD that would be the case.
"You cannot produce that movie, it might make people happy and that is a violation of my patent !!!" yea right....
Get a grip !!!! how about actually LEARNING something, like WHAT A PATENT IS before shooting off without thinking...
If you do not understand the patent system, or even the basic concept of what a patent is. What right do you have to comment on it ?
Lucky there is not a patent on stupidity !!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Next, I suppose you'll be telling us that human gene sequences that occur naturally in DNA are unpatentable because they appear in nature.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I suppose that just about anything that pokes fun at your source of income is horrible, isn't it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
we'll said...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Second That Emotion
Yep, Smokey Robinson, 1967.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
"we'll [sic] said..."
Awww, look, it's an industry troll love affair. Aren't they cute together?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: your a bitch
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So by that definition, everyone you call a troll knows that YOU are a troll.
BWT: a troll is someone who posts in forums, but who does not in any way talk about the actual article.
Guess what, reading your trolly post I not that it fits that definition exactly.
(and therefor so does this.... wait).
Nina's cartoon sucks..
Ok I am no longer a troll..
But YOU are !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
?!
have you seen much of that recently ?
would not ?! be prior knowledge ?! (woops)...
since when does the two charactors ?! = helpless outrage ?
Oh yea, since Mike found Nina... (how you two getting along now??????!!!!!)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ?!
Pay special attention to things like augmented reality, realtime camera tracking that can be used to animate 3D characters.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patent is A freaking METHOD, not a RESULT... Geezz
Here is me making a point:
- Patents are a Method of achieving a result
another point:
- There is more that one way to skin a cat.
You do not ever patent "A printing machine" you patent a METHOD of printing on paper.
So if you were smart enough to invent and patent a "dot matrix printer" you are most certainly not locked out of the printing on paper industry.
No, if you patent ANOTHER METHOD of printing on paper, may be a Laser Printer nothing is stopping you patenting that NEW METHOD of printing.
You do not get a patent on "printing" but a patent of a WAY to print.
And that is why I find it so sad and amazing that Mike does not appear to understand that basic fact !
I do know why, because it would mean that his entire 'argument' against patents would fall in a hole.
Why someone who claims so much knowledge in a field would make and continue to make these kinds of statements is quite odd to me.
I have presented several patents, and I clearly well know the process that is involved. According to Mike I would have never been able to patent anything I have had patented.
I have even patented a method that was applied to another technology, and applied it to a new technology, that was totally different, same method two different results, two different patents.
Because the original patent was "A method of charging batteries", my patent was a method of modifying the transmittance of electrochromic glass.
It just so happend that the electrical nature of the electrochromic glass substrates had similar charasics to electrochemical cell's (batteries).
I did not invent that by looking at battery chargers, I invented that method by an electrical analysis of the device, and tailored the circuit to suit the application.
Starting from first principles (clean room if you like), the fact that it ended up the same method that was applied in another field ment it was a NEW method and application of something allready known.
I doubt if too many people here would understand that, and the rest (most of) will probably not want to hear that.
I believe Mike is either being deliberately decepting, or we'll I dont know, he MUST know what a patent is, he talks about them enough, says he even reads them !
I have also patented a "depth sounder" or fish finder, have you ever seen one of those things ?
Common right, I could of purchased one and reverse engineered it, or I could get text books out and design it as any engineer would from first principles.
Mike, how many patents have you prepared ? how many times have you gone through the quite long and involved process of submitting a patent and having it approved ?
Do you know the process ? or do you prefer to just guess ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: your a bitch
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Easy steps to fame, fortune, and 20 years of monopoly
Eunice: Can you do that?
Mimi: Why not? I'm "ordinary", found it "non-obvious", and beat them to the post office.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: your a bitch
Don't be a spoiler.
English For Dummies doesn't cover that until chapter 6.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I would be embarrassed to get caught saying this.
Let me check... yes, you did protect your identity with "Anonymous Coward"
You know what the inventiveness standard is in the US. For those who don't know: "non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art."
So AC, do you still want to maintain that a 20 year monopoly given to someone who demonstrates the "non-obvious" to someone of "ordinary" skill helps society?
Do you know of the millions of software developers that exist, how many are above average?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are smarter than above average?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are genius?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Do you know how many are ordinary, yes, but who persevere over problems they first found to be non-obvious?
You want to hand-cuff all of those?
Are you sure about this? Do you really want to go on record as saying you want all of these people tied down for each patent that gets passed? Are you really out to destroy America?
Millions of people unable to legally create freely in each of hundreds of thousands of areas covered by so many software patents is sickening. Anyone wonder why the US is slipping?
Software is cheap to create and distribute. You don't need 100 million dollars nor will the quantity run out. The manufacturing process is instantaneous. The complexity of software makes re-use and collaboration as important as it is in any academic field (arts or sciences). Many have written top notch software in use by Apple, Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, Wall Street, the US gov, the top supercomputers in the world, and many many more groups.. as volunteers as well as by making a healthy salary and name for themselves.
Software-based inventions implemented on general purpose re-programmable devices make the world turn. ... Ah, perhaps that is why you like patents! That spells a lot of money for the greedy patent owners and their lawyers.
Software patent claims, being broad descriptions of something else protected are idea monopolies. The SCOTUS will in time clarify that ideas cannot be owned, neither in relation to copyrights nor in relation to patents.
AC, keep your anonymity for wanting to hand-cuff America's best and brightest (and many "ordinary" as well) and violate the US Constitution wholesale. You would be egged off some stage somewhere if people who saw you knew what you represented.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Easy steps to fame, fortune, and 20 years of monopoly
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Squirrel Brains> I think I get how this works
Squirrel Brains> Anonymous Coward, did you get a patent on truly horrible comments?
What kind of shameful disrespect and exploitation of someone else's intellectual property is that!
Next thing we know, the commenting on techdirt will deviate towards retelling retold jokes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
At least for software, I get the feeling that for every 10 "sophisticated" patents you can find, someone else will be able to find (a) 100 pathetic ones that clearly would stifle the progress, as well as find (b) 100 more sophisticated works where the author did not seek a patent.
Einstein was very smart to have left the world of patenting and sought his contributions in an area free of patents. He knew he had to leverage off society (like every patent author does frequently without giving credit) in order to be able to make great contributions to society.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Do you also mean something similar to how a computer is instructed by the software?
I can see a device which behaves according to the verbal cues and emotions installed on it by its owner.
Then we'll start seeing the emotionware patent lawsuits.
1. Claim a process where a smart house is coordinated to turn on the TV to a comedy channel and possibly play certain pre-recorded video segments by cues given to it by the house inhabitants.
Then when Mary Robinson programs her new house by setting the house to learn mode and speaking into the house "ear" a sample of her voice and laugh patterns, subsequently changing to the video feed for comedy and setting a few options, she will have violated the patent. And when she sends a copy of this recorded emotionware to her friends so they too can get the same effect, she will be infringing on the patent as well.
Once upon a time, software developers, hardware engineers, and mathematicians, laughed when you mentioned that software would be patentable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
It's still NOT an intellectual property violation of that inventor if you keep your genes on. As long as no one can look or touch, you are OK.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He was about to file a patent:
1. Claim a cartoon that mocks a flaw in US patent system, using 3 or more frames, using at least 3 rather different expressions to refer to the object of that flaw.
2. Claim 1, where the cartoon is part of a running series.
3. Claim 1 and/or 2, where the cartoon dialog takes place between 2 or more characters.
4. Claim 1, 2, and/or 3, where a digital version of the cartoon is created.
5. Claim 1, 2, 3, and/or 4, where a digital version is posted online.
6. Any of the foregoing claims, where a digital version is posted onto a blog or blog-like forum.
7. Any of the foregoing claims, where the object of the patent system flaw being mocked is the patentability of material not intended to be patentable by the male parents of the US and who also drafted the US Constitution.
8. Claim 7, where the specific category is emotions.
9. Any of the foregoing claims, where the cartoon depiction closely patterns a reaction humans would have under a similar scenario.
10. Any of the foregoing claims, where 6 or more colors are used in the segment.
11. Claim 2 and any of the foregoing claims, where a reference is made to the primary website associated with the cartoon series.
12. Claim 11, where the reference is presented in an other than natural reading style in the primary language implied by the reference and/or cartoon.
13. Any of the foregoing claims, where the cartoon text is in a Western language and uses 3 or more punctuation marks.
14. Claim 13, where the punctuation marks are normally used to end a sentence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
We'd all agree the patent system was doing a spectacular job and arguably abiding by its Constitutional requirement to promote the progress.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
Funny, but I think I mostly agree.
"there are some [of something of which in reality at least 1 exists]"
"There are exceptional fringe [.. ditto]"
"I just find [some opinion or other -- unverifiable]"
"So for me [..opinion ..unverifiable]"
"What I don't get [.. expression of confusion -- unverifiable and likely]"
However, I have my doubts about
"If we judged [something or other], we could close Techdirt down"
Don't mean to be disrespectful to AC, but his/her views on patenting are anti-social and anti-progress.. in my opinion of course.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can make it more likely to be awarded a patent by rewording,
"Claim a method which generates a cartoon...."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Subliminal delay
Eunice: 20 years for each new step
Mimi: Patent law is auto patented
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Put up or shut up
I'm sure you have loads of evidence of these "errors".
For example, from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/filmmaker-nina-paley-freeing-copyright-for-art-an d-profit-53342.html :
"While trying to market the film, one reputable distributor told her that she might realistically expect to make $25,000 over a 10-year contract, perhaps $50,000 in her wildest dreams. The highest advance she was offered by a distributor was $20,000. "
"From March 2009 to March 2010, “Sita Sings the Blues” brought in $132,259, nearly $75,000 in donations and voluntary fees from screenings and broadcast, $12,500 from awards, and $45,000 in merchandise sales from the film’s website."
Yeah, sure, perhaps in the early days she made a lot more by sharing than the greedy copyright distributors forecast for her if she exploited the monopolies, BUT how is she doing *today*:
We can take a glance at a single distributor's current numbers
http://questioncopyright.org/files/finances/store-details.txt to see that each month Sita Sings the Blues continues to bring in significant donations and sales, for example, over $1000 in July.
Do you know how many hours people making minimum wage have to work each month to earn that money? This is only one distributor (at least that is my interpretation of those numbers). This isn't peanuts or pennies. It's equivalent to a lot of physical labor each month. She has many other sources of income. This isn't a bad way to make a living. And it happened, not thanks to copyright law, but thanks to the Internet and the removal of copyright restrictions.
I appreciate you helping us gain insight into Nina's many errors.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment