More Patent Lawsuits Over Interactive Sex Toys -- The Teledildonic Patent Thicket

from the quite-a-patent-thicket dept

A few years ago, we wrote up a story about a patent fight concerning force feedback technology used in "cybersex" or "teledildonics." That case involved two patents from famed haptics company Immersion (5,889,672 and 6,275,213) which was involved in a bit of a legal fight with a company called Internet Services. The details suggested that Immersion -- who was famous for pioneering things like "force feedback" in video game controllers -- had licensed its patents to Internet Services, so that it could use them in the virtual sex space (also known as "teledildonics" -- you can figure it out). Immersion felt that it might not look good for an upstanding company such as itself to be involved in such a business, hence the licensing.

Well... now it appears that some others are claiming teledildonics patents, and they're not at all happy with Internet Services. Apparently a company called New Frontier Technologies, which licensed a patent (6,368,268 -- "method and device for interactive virtual control of sexual aids using digital computer networks," -- and you shouldn't miss the (possibly NSFW) flow charts on pages 5 and 6 of the patent) from another company, Hassex, is suing Internet Services for violating that patent with its "Real Touch" masturbation tool. Of course, it will be interesting to see if Internet Services fires back with the Immersion patents that it licensed.

In the meantime, this all brings new meaning to the concept of innovation happening when ideas have sex.

Filed Under: patent thicket, patents, sex toys, teledildonics
Companies: immersion, internet services, new frontier technologies

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Dec 2010 @ 8:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Right here in this post. I guess when you make it up as you go it is easy to forget what you wrote. You've also said that copying is innovation. I get the impression that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Well, I will assume anyone reading this, with the exception of you apparently, can tell that my original statement ("this all brings new meaning to the concept of innovation happening when ideas have sex") and your subsequent statement ("ombining ideas *defines* innovation.") are not in any way equivalent.

    I realize that you are being purposely obtuse, but just on the offchance that you really did misunderstand such a simple concept, I will explain. If you say that A happens when B happens, it does not mean that A ALWAYS happens WHENEVER B happens. It merely means that B is a prerequisite to A happening. So, the point (which is clear if you click the link) is not that "whenever 'ideas have sex' innovation happens" but that "for innovation to happens 'ideas have to have sex'" The two statements are clearly quite different.

    Also, I have never said "copying is innovation." Nice try though.

    Willfully misstating my position is a pretty silly past time. Do you honestly think people are so stupid?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.