Impulse Sues Microsoft Over Kinect

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]I have seen "OMG you've infringed gazillion of our patents" only in US. I've seen multi-touch disabled when delivery point is US.Oh, and I've seen "patents" themselves. "Saving... using XML", brilliant.The fact that you fail to acknowledge, that there is something terribly wrong with US patent system, only makes it worse. First step to solve the problem, is to realize, that it exists. You aren't even there yet...[/citation]
Err, the USA comprises 5% of the worlds population but amazingly you have the majority of its technology patents so of course you have all the stupid claims, but it's not that I was pointing to, it was the "vague ideas" comment.

Patent documents are not vague ideas, if you ever saw one, you would know and it's not the patent system that is broken it's the legal system that is broken.

Apparently it doesn't matter if you invented something or not, if you have enough money and good enough lawyers you can convince people that black is white and claim ownership.

The patent systemn doesn't need reform, the law however does.

 

[alidan]

vague patents should be banned. that way, YOU CANT SUE OVER SOMETHING SIMMILAR but COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

key point here "though the patents do not provide much detail about the actual technology such as the sensors"

if they detailed more or less a bluprint, and it turned out that kinect used it, thats ok to sue over... but this is bs.

 

[mchuf]

[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]should be allowed to file a patent until it is built and works. i hold a patent for the hoverboard...[/citation]

Really, how can a patent be issued if there is no working model? How would the patent office know that the device is valid? Ideas should never be able to receive a patent.

 

[millerm84]

a tracking system for continuously tracking an overall physical location of a player in a defined physical space; and a computer operatively coupled to the tracking system for updating in real time a player virtual location in a virtual space corresponding to the physical location of the player in the physical space, for updating a view of the virtual space, and for providing at least one indicium of performance of the player moving in the physical space, wherein the at least one indicium is or is derived from a measure of a movement parameter of the player.

This is the first patent's description, there is no detail of how this could be achieved or the device that would coupled with the computer just the process of a computer system "tracking" a player's movement and reacting to that movement. Yes this is a perfect description of what the Kinect does (or at least Kinect sports) , however this patent was granted in 2000 11 years later and still no device from impulse More importantly MS describes the Kinect as:

Systems, methods and computer readable media are disclosed for gesture keyboarding. A user makes a gesture by either making a pose or moving in a pre-defined way that is captured by a depth camera. The depth information provided by the depth camera is parsed to determine at least that part of the user that is making the gesture. When parsed, the character or action signified by this gesture is identified.

MS says the Kinect is a gesture keyboard and Impulse says it's a tracking device and the tit for tat says Impulse can sue MS because the patent office granted MS a patent for a product that is accurately described by either patent. If Impulse has a case then MS should lose their patent and the patent office fined for duplicating patents.

It's all a huge mess the entire patent concept is just a huge mess. If someone doesn't already own it, you could patent the process of using an input device to manipulate combat scenarios on a computer system, and then sue the bejesus out of every one who created a game that has any kind of violence.

It's time to drop patents without proof of concept. This patenting of processes is absurd, a process should only be patented if you have developed a unique way of achieving that process. No concept no patent

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]Really, how can a patent be issued if there is no working model? How would the patent office know that the device is valid? Ideas should never be able to receive a patent.[/citation]
A really smart guy has a fantastic idea and then patents it.
A big company short on new ideas goes to the patent office, looks at the idea and decides to produce it as a product.
The company makes $10 billion is sales.
The guy gets diddly squat.
...
So what you are saying is that is fair? Because that is exactly what will happen.

 

[waethorn]

Solution: you can only hold a patent if you can prototype it.

This allows for minimal investment in productizing it, so small manufacturers can still hold their patents, and larger companies can't steal their ideas and mass produce it first. Likewise, larger companies have to actually create a working model without having a small patent troll come along and bilk them of their cash stores.

Problem gone.

 

[Miharu]

I should make an patient request : -Anything that could make technology evolve and write 100 pages how technology could evolve.

The concept of interactivity between human and technology exist since the begin of technology. Same as cognitive aspect... that any baby toy.

Those patients should never be accepted in the first place.

 

[digiex]

Should they grant patents to the inventors who had the actual working device?

If Gene Roddenberry patented all the devices in star trek then he would be the patent holder of tablets.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Waethorn[/nom]Solution: you can only hold a patent if you can prototype it.This allows for minimal investment in productizing it, so small manufacturers can still hold their patents, and larger companies can't steal their ideas and mass produce it first. Likewise, larger companies have to actually create a working model without having a small patent troll come along and bilk them of their cash stores.Problem gone.[/citation]
Again, you are talking about something that is impossible.
For example...
When the pharmaceutical companies make a new drug people complain about the cost when each pill only costs 2 cents each to make - well the second and subsequent pill may cost 2 cents but the first pill cost $3 billion in R&D.
The majority of any costing would be in producing a working prototype, after that mass production lowers the cost to practically zero so the system would again be weighted against bright individuals and in the favour of companies with big pockets but no ideas.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Miharu[/nom]I should make an patient request : -Anything that could make technology evolve and write 100 pages how technology could evolve.The concept of interactivity between human and technology exist since the begin of technology. Same as cognitive aspect... that any baby toy.Those patients should never be accepted in the first place.[/citation]
Again, someone else that has never read an actual patent document
Look at a few, anyone who reads the title only and thinks that is the extent of what a patent is, clearly needs to have a cat scan.
5 minutes of Googling and you can read lots of them in PDF format stretching over dozens of pages and tenns of thousands of words with supporting diagrams.

The Manhattan Project had less supporting documentation than some patents.

Please please please, unless you all know what you are chunnering on about, just STFU

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]Really, how can a patent be issued if there is no working model? How would the patent office know that the device is valid? Ideas should never be able to receive a patent.[/citation]

Wow, I'm definitely glad your "idea" of how the system should work isn't the "law". The system is actually a very good system, but as someone else has already stated, it is the law/lawyers that is causing all the problems. The more specific you make a patent, the more venues your giving a company armed with lawyers, to steal your ideas, as it gives them more ability to dispute the claim as their system uses a few different parts, or whatever. It's sad, but its how it works.

And as for the whole gotta have a working model / show constant progress to keep the patent.. That's the most redic idea ever.. Does a single mom or dad, that is working two jobs while taking care of their child(ren) and almost never, if ever, finds the time to make progress on their idea not deserve their idea anymore? The answer, people, is if you are going to make something, make sure you have the rights to it.. and if you don't BUY them, obtain a license, or whatever first.. Instead of going about this is an Apple-type way: Release, then buy the right.

 

[sykozis]

The patent system is nothing but a huge failure. Instead of inspiring innovation, it does nothing but completely strangle innovation. To obtain a patent, the applicant should be required to demonstrate the ability to manufacture and market the applicable technology, not simply describe an idea that may or may not actually work without ever actually developing anything. All these bullshit "proof of concept" patents should be voided and the "concept" should be fair game for anyone that wants to develop a product around the concept.

 

[fir_ser]

I wonder where this lawsuit will lead to.

 

[gm0n3y]

The real issue here has nothing to do with ridiculous law suits, you can't blame those companies for protecting their patents (in fact for those patents to remain valid they have to defend them). The actual problem is that patents are too broad / generic. Patent offices/boards need to start throwing out patents that aren't specific enough.

 

[cybr]

[citation][nom]vaughn2k[/nom]There are certain laws and systems involve in patents, and that the system really sucks, so don't blame the people. Much like the old guy Leroy Fick in Michigan that has already won U$ 2 Million in lotery, but still getting free food or food stamps because the law allowed him to do so.I guess the system should be reviewed and revised.[/citation]

Yep, they should do away with free food and food stamps provided by the government altogether.

 

[f-14]

sounds like the patent office is doing a piss poor job of researching existing patents before granting new patents for the same tech by some one else.
impluse should sue the u.s. patent office for violating it's patent rights in granting the same rights to some one else for the same thing.

 

[demonhorde665]

"Impulse is also suing software manufacturers that offer games for Kinect, including Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, THQ, Konami, Sega, Majesco, Namco Bandai and Harmoni."

LOL hey sure good luck with this ... MS lawers alone could bury these guys in paper work for years. team MS lawers up with lawers from all teh companies , and i smell epic fail on this law suit

 

[downunder1]

What Microsoft with no issued patents for the kinect system yet just pending patents
does not also realise is the very system which is helping them today to get much interest and massive sales for Kinect & Xbox console "the personal audio-visual virtual trainer” contained in 3rd Party developers applications was patented in 1994 in America under this No. 5,486,001

Hard to get a patent for a system which motion tracks a persons movement via camera, allows a computer to detect differences in a captured motion against a stored motion, display this on a screen and then computer automatically adds audio instructional comments to visually which allows a person to be taught all automatically by computer only when this system is already patented.