[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Microsoft and their "patents" are really starting to piss me off. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Windows user and will be until Microsoft replaces it with something else, but really, putting a patent on the Kinect? Horrible idea. I'm not a fan of letting Microsoft control the complete advancement of technology, in this aspect, motion sensing gaming.[/citation]
Just how do you think "motion sensing" gaming came to be? Products like the Wii release. Nintendo is NOT going to do this if MSFT and Sony can just copy them. So patents "made" the Wii. Because of said patent Sony and MSFT had to invent something different. So patents drove innovation to the next product. If MSFT doesn't patent their inventions then someone will steal them instead of making the next innovation.
you can't patent software, so I hardly see how most of their patent could even be enforceable. You could even argue the obviousness of "motion sensing technology using a camera". Since it's been done since the 90's.
Eye toy was released in 2002 with interactive gaming based on the player's movements.
FreeTrack is an open source webcam based motion tracking system for head movements that could be adapted for any kind of body movement if you wanted to waste the time to further develop it. http/citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.50.9280
FreeTrack is based on a model that requires a base of only 25 lines of code.
M$ did nothing special with Kinect. They just spent the money required to move existing technologies into every day people's hands. There's nothing here to patent except software applications for processing the data collected from already existing technology, and again, you CANNOT patent software because it's mathematical and therefor a part of natural science. you can copyright it's written form, but there are an infinite number of ways to write the same program...
A method for using a gesture shortcut in a system that takes user gestures as input to an application, comprising:receiving data captured by a capture device, the data corresponding to a user-performed gesture;processing the data to determine an output corresponding to whether the user performed a shortcut of a gesture, the shortcut of the gesture corresponding to a full version of the gesture; andsending the output corresponding to the shortcut of the gesture to the application.
Which is just one point in a patent, but is sooo general, any non-controller device is/will be able to do that. Will M$ own the right to hand movements towards any kind of device which receives commands by movement? that would suck
[citation][nom]reddozen[/nom]you can't patent software, so I hardly see how most of their patent could even be enforceable[/citation]
So the fact that people are patenting software, licensing it for use and winning court cases when their patent is infringed is just a figment of our collective imaginations?
These companies do have patents for some products and software they are now using to make these new interactive services/displays but as for the total "as a whole" systems they are now promoting/selling with third parties, which can be patented, especially the personal audio-visual trainer feature, they have NO issued patents.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]So the fact that people are patenting software, licensing it for use and winning court cases when their patent is infringed is just a figment of our collective imaginations?[/citation]
Just because they're suing people over their patents doesn't make their patent valid in the first place. You have to escalate and appeal to the supreme court and heaven help the "owning" company if my case gets to the supreme court and I win cause my suit for damages wouldn't be pleasant.
You can patent a machine that USES software to preform a task, but not the actual software that preforms the task, or the combination of software with an existing product that already produces the same result in the same way.
I patent a copier that spreads ink on a plate by hand.
you cant just add a computer controlled hand to spread the ink and file for a new printer patent. You can however patent the part of the machine that actually is the new mechanical product. It would simply become an evolutionary version of my own product, and I would have to pay you for the computerized potion unless I could make another machine that preformed the task in a similar manner without being a copy of your design.
now, if you make a new KIND of printer that sprays the ink in instead of spreading it, then you can patent a new machine.
Our patent system is a joke here in the states, and yes, as it stands, you cannot patent software. And patenting a "gesture" is like patenting flicking someone the bird... no one has the money or time to fight the patents even though they're not valid, ludicrous, or invalid for being obvious (yes, a patent can be invalidated for being obvious / common knowledge).
Patents stifle innovation / invention. They really should expire to "common knowledge" after a set amount of time. Like 10 years... you'd have 10 years to abuse your patent before it's fair game. They'll never revamp the patent system. People are too afraid of change.
Microsoft with its recent patent applications for Kinect should now look at this site http/www.htv-worldwide.com
and see what was patented way back in 1992 long before they and the other major games companies came out with motion tracking a persons movement, showing a person their movement back on a screen with another persons movement, or and objects movement and then providing people with personalized audio instructional advice comments, all automatically from a computer system. This is the system they are all using now to provide personalized audio-visual trainer to a person with no issued patent rights to do so. When prior art is in place a company cannot gain a patent for the same system as I expect you realise. Interesting times ahead in 2011 if the games companies now have no protection for these new interactive personalized video systems and services they are now showing/selling in the marketplace.
With what the games companies have recently done in regards offering these motion tracking personal audio-visual trainer/advisor systems, they performed no new innovation over a prior art 1994 issued patent in America so now should suffer the consequences of selling products and systems to the public which they do not own the legal rights too. They are acting no better then a thief at the moment who steals someone else’s item. With Patent Law one should check what they are putting on the market first to see if a valid patent is in place or they run the risk of a patent infringement action down the track.