Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Portables Hardware Your Rights Online

Xybernaut Patents Collar Computer 198

Posted by timothy from the rational-action-in-an-irrational-system dept.
igargoyle writes "Wearable Computer manufacturer, Xybernaut, has encouraged the kludge that is the patent office by patenting collar based wearable computers. Besides being extremely vague, the whole thing sounds likes the Slashdot article, 'A Linux Machine For Your Collar.' There are many references to this idea, and computer collars have been used as nomadic radios and animal tracking devices before. Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xybernaut Patents Collar Computer More

Xybernaut Patents Collar Computer

Comments Filter:

  • Xybernaut... (Score:2, Funny)

    by thrill12 ( 711899 ) *
    ...sounds awfully much like the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation [hhgproject.org] to me. Need I say more ?
  • How can you patent something like a collar computor, thats like trying to patent shoes! Nike cant just go and say "Oh, we own shoes" so how can these clownboats get a patent on a collar computor... methinks its time for some peaple to bring out the toolkits and Redhats.
    • It's not the computer in the collar they've patented it's a wearable computer with components which can be located on the collar.
      • The real problem is that this is relatively obvious to anyone who a) has a computer and/or b) has a computer.

        Any communications gear would have to be located near the head, and the collar is an obvious one.

        Thus, the patent should never be considered, much less granted.

        • What's even worse is to quote once more

          Under the protected patent, the computer components can be extended beyond the confines of the collar and are adjustable -- such as to be moved near the user's face. When the components are not in use, they can be retracted back inside the collar and out of the way and/or protected by the collar.

          • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Funny)

            by NatasRevol ( 731260 )
            Didn't some cartoon character already have that?

            Can you consider a cartoon character prior art?
            • I'm going for the patent on combining a secret spy computer with a schoolbook. It would have built in wireless, video phone capabilities, and a complete library of all spy data (especially info on M.A.D.D.)

              After that, I'm patenting extendo-legs with springs, hat helicopters, and exploding paper. Oh, and I'm trademarking the line, "I'm always on duty!(TM)"

    • Re:wtf? (Score:5, Funny)

      by YeOldeGnurd ( 14524 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:09AM (#10382154) Homepage Journal
      No, it's not like patenting shoes, or shirt collars for that matter. It's a patent for the allegedly "innovative" combination of a computer inside a shirt collar.

      The obvious response would be to patent a computer integrated into a thong. The antenna for wireless connectivity could run up the buttstrap. The computer itself could network with other thong computers to guage compatible sexual responses to social interactions, could be used to time fertility for female wearers, and include new and innovative video game controller mechanisms.

      • Re:wtf? (Score:1)

        by kfg ( 145172 )
        No, it's not like patenting shoes, or shirt collars for that matter. It's a patent for the allegedly "innovative" combination of a computer inside a shirt collar.

        In other words it's like patenting a sandal with an attached upper (in European history the sole and the upper were originally seperate pieces). You can still seperate the uppers and the soles and wear the soles as sandals if you wish.

        You may think of the shoe as a single item, but it isn't. It's an assembly of previous technologies. Just about

      • Re:wtf? (Score:3, Funny)

        by AltairMan ( 530839 )

        Cease and desist! I own the patent for this. It's what I call CrackNet.

        I had problems figuring out how to power it without the lithium ion batteries burning the sensitive skin on the backside, so I use kinetics -- cheeks rubbing together produces an amazing amount of energy. There's a thin wire, like a bra underwire, that runs through the top that's connected to an 802.11g card.

        The biggest problem is positioning the computer so it doesn't make women's butts look big.

        Get a free iPod...learn how here: f [freeipods.com]

      • Now, if I can just arrange the words ethernet, sniffer, promiscuous in some logical fashion...

      • Re:wtf? (Score:4, Informative)

        by karniv0re ( 746499 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @02:18PM (#10385939) Journal
        You laugh, but this has been done. Not with a computer, but with a wire tap. Pick up a Newton's Telecom Dictionary and look up "Bikini Transmitter".

        Better yet, I have one here. I'll read it to you:

        "The Bikini Transmitter is a body wire developed for a special surveillance project. Law Enforcement professionals needed to secretly record a conversation between a suspect and a female agent. The suspect insisted the meeting take place at a topless beach. An audio transmitter was sewn into a string bikini with the antenna threaded through the string. The largest component, the battery, was carried, uh...internally. It is not known whether the transmitter was waterproof."

        Now, get to patenting! Chop chop!

    • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Funny)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 )

      How can you patent something like a collar computor, thats like trying to patent shoes

      No, it works like this: take two common items, and them patent their combined use. I have just sent off patent applications on the following similar inventions to the patent office:
      - The ankle computer!
      - Using a thermos can on the beach.
      - The breast pocket wallet (rather than one carried in a pant pocket).
      My brilliance is unmatched, surely.

      I have also patented the bathroom break, so pony up or plug it up!

      • Re:wtf? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I have patented the "fanny pack pocket protector", a device which prevents any embarassing ink stains from appearing in those delicate difficult to clean areas.

    • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      . . .thats like trying to patent shoes!

      Exactly! They think they're so smart, but I'm ahead of them. I have the patent on the collar and they'd damned well better call me for a colicensing deal or I'll see their arses in court.

      I've got lapels, plackets and cuffs too, so they shouldn't get to thinking they can pull a fast one that way.

      I couldn't get shoes though. Nike already had that one. The bastards.

      KFG

    • Re:wtf? (Score:2, Funny)

      by svin ( 803162 )
      Well actually I already patented the following items
      • Shoes.
      • Shoelaces.
      • Undergarments.
      • Trousers (in any form)
      So either you owe me obscene amounts of money, or your coworkers are having a laugh.
  • Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it.

    This comes with a link to Xybernaut.
    Now, I still do not understand how this company is evil and wasting public money if the submitter cannot even qualify their product better than "vague".

    What is it ?
    A wearable computer which is being patented.
    We know that patents are evil [slashdot.org] but why is this one even more evil ?
    • I've seen (and played with) an MA V (and the XyberKids, which is an MA V with an 800x600 touchscreen). It's not the device in question, but they make wearable computers. The MA V base unit straps onto your side (the ones I played with, it was in the bag that goes on your side, and one was in a docking station). You can get a wrist-mount keyboard (the one I played with the most had a 40 key model), and they use one of the $10 presentation trackballs. I was using it with a 1" SVGA HMD.

      FWIW, I played with it

  • Sigh... the patent office stuffs up again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrRTFM ( 740877 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:04AM (#10382123) Journal
    How many times does this shit have to happen before the Patent Office is called to account for itself.

    There have been so many stupid patents in the last few years that I have lost count - patents which have OBVIOUS prior art and are EASILY disputed. Silly patents are becoming the norm, and yet there isnt much news on the dispute of them - perhaps there should be a very serious penalty to companies which patent obvoius things (like one click shopping, etc)
    • What I really can't understand is why it's supposedly so expensive for "infringers" to defeat these things in court. Suppose Microsoft decided to sue me for infringement of, oh I don't know, their patent on using four or more colours in a single application. Why do I need to spend money on lawyers? Why can't I defend myself, and have it all done in about twenty seconds flat?

      Microsoft Lawyer: Your honour, the accused
      has infringed our patent on using four or more
      colours in a single application.

      Me: M'lud,

      • Because Microsoft has very good lawyers.

        Won't do. The legal process is supposed to find in favour of the person who's right, not the person who's hired the best lawyers. Granted that it ain't always so, nevertheless it should surely be so in a clearly black-and-white case. However many lawyers MS hire, they will not be able to persuade a judge or jury that 2+2 = 5, and neither should they or anyone else be able to make the obviously invalid patents stick.

        I am not talking about those that are inval

        • To paraphrase the one-time best (in terms of winning) lawyer in Canada:

          Trial by combat didn't end ... it just moved from the arena into the courtroom.

          Don't make the mistake of believing right will triumph. It helps a lot in the courtroom, but is no means a guarantee, by itself, of victory.

        • Ha! (Score:2)

          by siskbc ( 598067 )
          Won't do. The legal process is supposed to find in favour of the person who's right, not the person who's hired the best lawyers. Granted that it ain't always so, nevertheless it should surely be so in a clearly black-and-white case. However many lawyers MS hire, they will not be able to persuade a judge or jury that 2+2 = 5, and neither should they or anyone else be able to make the obviously invalid patents stick.

          Guess you missed the OJ trial ;). Seriously, snowing over a dimwitted jury with technical e

    • Re:Sigh... the patent office stuffs up again (Score:4, Informative)

      by jludwig ( 691215 ) * on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @09:25AM (#10382648) Homepage
      Right... the patent office has basically stopped screening patents in an effort to reduce costs. I've had a patent lawyer explain this to me, basically the USPTO office got sick of paying for detailed review of the ever increasing number of patent submissions. The unwritten protocol now is that almost anything goes and the review process essentially occurs if/when the case goes to court. In other words they want the companies to pay for the cost of review in the form of lawyers -only- if the claims in the patent are contested. If no one is going to contest the patent, why spend money reviewing? Its a sort of innocent until proven guilty approach with respect to prior art. Just because a patent is granted nowadays does not mean the claims were valid, it basically means they followed procedure properly.

      • um no (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I work as a patent examiner, and if that was the case my quota would be so easy.

        I personally allow less than 6% of the cases that go accross my desk.

        The office doesnt have enough funds to hire more examiners as the funds are being diverted.

    • Fault and patents (Score:4, Interesting)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @11:12AM (#10383590) Journal
      How many times does this shit have to happen before the Patent Office is called to account for itself.

      As I read this Slashdot story, I see a number of people doing one of the following:

      (a) Blaming the USPTO and saying that they need to get their act together.

      (b) Blaming Xybernaut for filing a bullshit patent.

      Now, before you start writing, consider what you intend to accomplish.

      Let's take a look. First, the people criticizing the USPTO for doing a poor job reviewing patents. The USPTO can't simply review patents "better". To some degree, this is a matter of money. You are dealing with documents (and often not very clear ones) that are often describing bleeding edge research, stuff that perhaps one or two people in the world fully understand. Even if it were possible to hire the PhDs and spend the desired time on each patent, it would be incredibly expensive, requiring vast amounts of funding to be channeled to the USPTO. Or, perhaps patent fees could be significantly increased -- which would make it difficult for the little independent inventors to obtain patents.

      Then, the people criticizing Xybernaut.
      Usually, we have a gut reaction, learned in childhood, to blame and criticize people that do something that hurts us. The problem is that corporations are very carefully designed to make it as easy as possible to be as exploitative as possible and to ignore this sort of complaining -- if they *aren't*, they get quashed by someone else who *is* nastier. Many of the structures we have -- isolating upper management and decision makers from direct contact with the outside, making executives legally responsible to the shareholders of a company, paying executives based on what share prices and profits do -- are designed to prevent typical learned human reactions from coming into play. An executive is encouraged *not* to have his business donate $5,000 to the local school for sports equipment (unless, of course, the advertising value of the donation is greater than the cost). So, there isn't a lot of point in complaining about Xybernaut's behavior. They're doing exactly what the system is designed to encourage them to do. The CEO who thought he was so clever to keep patenting silly things really *is* clever, if he can use the patents to pull money away from someone else.

      So, all I can say is that complaining about poor review practices or "evil" behavior on the part of Xybernaut is not going to accomplish anything. Such actions just have no impact on the system as it stands. It's like politely asking a boulder that's in your way to move -- it's not an effective solution to the problem.

      I, personally, think that the only effective way to solve the problem is the change the patent *system*, which is where the flaw is. Make patent challenges (especially prior art challenges) extremely simple and inexpensive, as idiot-proof as possible, so that they can be done without a lawyer. Make the *loser* of a patent challenge case, not the *challenger*, pay the patent challenge fees. Require the holder of a patent to have an opportunity to, before each challenge is examined, release their patent to the public domain. Include an "obviousness" restriction on patents (in the common sense, not in the current sense of obviousness consisting of differences from an existing patent). If a typical engineer in a field will come up with the patent given the problem the patent is intended to solve within five minutes, then the patent does not warrant the Constitutional granting of a monopoly -- the patent filer is not advancing the state of knowledge. This changes the system to have the characteristics that we want -- it is no longer in the interest of a company to file bullshit lawsuits, if such a bullshit patent does slip through it can be easily removed by anyone (instead of adding more garbage to the USPTO database until some court case comes along involving it). In addition, cap the number of claims per patent at a much smaller number (perhaps ten).

  • market-speak (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kz ( 4332 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:05AM (#10382124) Homepage
    From the press-release:
    How to get the job done as efficiently as possible, regardless of the specific task at-hand, is an area in which Xybernaut has extremely deep knowledge and know-how. In fact, it is what we are all about

    What does this mean??? It can be summarized as 'We are good at doing jobs'.
    • Almost. The fist sentence actually says "We know very well how to do jobs." The summary of the second is: "But we won't do them." (Because if the knowledge and know-how is all they are about, then they are not about actually doing anything).

  • Collar Computers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kumorigoe ( 816912 ) <rromig@@@hotmail...com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:06AM (#10382131)
    What I'd like to know is exactly what these collar computers would be used, or useful, for. With traditional computers, you need two things to use them effectively. A way to input information, and a way to output information. Now, while advances have been made in the areas of display technology, I don't think we're to the point where you could have a practical, comfortable, usable display that can be worn. In the book "Digital FOrtress" by Dan Brown, an assassin uses a unique input system bases on the touching of contacts together in rapid succession, the contacts being worn on the fingertips. This might be an interesting concept. So far as the display goes, my idea would be to use the "smart window" technology to have a small screen embedded between two panels of glass or plastic. These could be worn as eyeglasses. The application of a small amount of voltage causes these panels to become opaque or clear, depending on the setting. This might prove to be a viable display technology in a few years.
    • I think this application is probably intended for military command and control. For example, a tank commander that could get HQ instructions/radar info/enemy mapping, etc.
    • So far as the display goes, my idea would be to use the "smart window" technology to have a small screen embedded between two panels of glass or plastic. These could be worn as eyeglasses. The application of a small amount of voltage causes these panels to become opaque or clear, depending on the setting.

      GREAT IDEA!

      * runs to patent office *

  • or does this patent apply only to collars worn on humans, not dolphins :-)

  • Dont getcher panties in a bunch. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lottameez ( 816335 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:08AM (#10382144)
    Don't know why anybody would be surprised. The patent system is absurd and the concept of obviousness is a concept the USPTO doesn't seem to grasp.

    Corporate counsels are recommending that their companies attempt to patent everything they can think of. Like it or not it makes good business sense if your company can afford to do it.

    Note that 60% (or so) of granted patents don't withstand serious challenges. Of course, they can still be used to threaten competitors.

  • The Patent Office Just Doesn't Get It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roly ( 576035 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:08AM (#10382145)
    The U.S patent office just doesn't get it to do with hardware/software patents (i.e: allowing microsoft to patent sudo). The patent office needs a rethink of how they handle technology patents. Half the time, the patents are given out to companies/people who didn't come up with the idea, that just heared it somewhere else and got involved with it.

    They need a rethink. A major one.

  • patent office makes money (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:08AM (#10382147)
    The patent office's dubious practices don't cost us anything now. They're actually profitable [forbes.com]. It's just the long term consequences for innnovation that worrying.
    -sd

  • RTFA (Score:3, Informative)

    by The_Mr_Flibble ( 738358 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:11AM (#10382157)
    To quote the article

    involves a wearable computer having computer components movably located in a collar (such as that of a garment) that the user wears around his or her neck. The computer component(s) can be a display, monitor, a microphone or audio headset

    Which is even more stupid than previously thought.

    • Re:RTFA (Score:2, Funny)

      by myc_lykaon ( 645662 )
      The computer component(s) can be a display

      Woooooo! Bring back the 70's and 15" collars!

    • RTFWS (Score:3, Funny)

      by ImaLamer ( 260199 )
      Their website has this memorable quote:

      [IDG Logo, of course]
      Mobility Trends: Are Xybernaut's Wearable Computing Technologies and Services Finally Gaining Acceptance?


      Well they were until Slashdot pointed out that you've patented something ridiculous... now there isn't a nerd in the world who accepts anything you do. Good luck fellas!

    • involves a wearable computer having computer components movably located in a collar (such as that of a garment) that the user wears around his or her neck. The computer component(s) can be a display, monitor, a microphone or audio headset

      A microphone that can be worn around the neck? Like the old pendant microphones in use throughout the 20th century? BTW, as microphones got smaller, the pendants got replaced with lapel mikes.

      --Rob

  • obligatory comment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cribb ( 632424 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:11AM (#10382160)
    I, for one, welcome our new computer-collar wearing, cyborg-dog overlords!
  • So, if I wear my laptop bag over my shoulder, am I almost infringing this "patent"?

    These ridiculous patents not only make the patent offices look inane, but also somehow lessen the validity of genuine ones.

  • Good for them! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by StripedCow ( 776465 )
    I am all in favor of this. The more absurd entries in the patent system, the sooner it is going to collapse.
    • The problem with waiting for a system to collapse in its own absurdity is that often it stubbornly stays up. Even worse when you try to hurry said collapse by adding absurdities, as you sometimes wind up having benefitted your opponent. It's like trying to shift into a throw in a fight to unbalance your opponent and finding that they're quite happy with you moving in that direction and would like to help you accelerate just a bit more on your way to the floor.
    • I am all in favor of this. The more absurd entries in the patent system, the sooner it is going to collapse.

      I'll bet you also thought that the legal system would collapse when it reached the point of Person A suing Person B because Person A poured coffee on themselves.
  • "Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it."

    This is like asking corporations to pay their fair share of taxes without passing a law that requires it. If there's one lesson in the success of capitalism as an economic system, it's that people are basically greedy and that what's not forbidden will be done and genrally accepted, even if it's not right.

    We need to curtail patents, not shame individual piecemeal patent holders. Get in touch with your legislators or spred the word through publicity stunts that patents are bad, but this sort of rear guard action helps no one.
  • I saw this concept in Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex Season 1 ep 1.

  • Text of Patent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Twinky ( 32219 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:16AM (#10382186)
    Before you reply, please read the patent file [uspto.gov].
    • Is this a serious patent or are they all like that ?

    • It's a catch-all (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schmaltz ( 70977 )
      I read the patent, and to me it's a wide-ranging catch-all. A neck computer that's also a cellphone, or maybe it's a radio, possibly has a display, maybe you can listen to music on it.

      Hey! I know! Let's work all conceivable notions into the patent for what a neck computer could be, so if anybody else wants to make one, they gotta pay us.

      Patents like this make patenting seem like a racket.

    • Re:Text of Patent (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 )
      We do, mostly. Tell me which bit of this is 'novel';

      This invention involves a wearable computer having computer components movably located in a collar that the user wears around his or her neck. The computer components can be a display or monitor, or a microphone or any other computer component.

      Apart from the weight of the 'wearable' computer impacting _extremely_ negatively on the collarbones, this patent is so overbroad and loaded with prior art that you have to question why the USPTO is bothering

  • Tired of the whining... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:19AM (#10382208)
    Every single time there is a patent story we get the masses biching and complaining about the patent system, yet EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU are too farking lazy to write letters to your senators, represenatives, president, governor, etc.. explaining the problem and how it is something bad.

    It's time, I'm calling all you asshat's out.

    Shit or get off the pot. I.E. if you do not write those letters, and become a patent reform supporter then you need to shut the hell up and be happy.

    If you are so lazy that you can not be bothered to get away from slashdot for 20 minutes towrite those letters or make those phone calls, then you are nothing but a waste of space and need to sut up.
    • I can't do anything but complain about the USPTO.
      I can't write a letter to my senator, as I'm not a US citizen.
      I really can't see anything I can do about it.
    • I used to think that engineers were better about not jumping to conclusions than other people.

      Well, maybe none of you are really engineers.

      You can't just point at any old collar-related computing thingie and say it's "prior art"... Prior art is generally a reference from before the patent was filed that teaches each element of a claim.

      None of the references pointed to here have all of the elements of their first claim. There have to be _movable_ computing elements in a collar that _extend_ out, such as

  • Prior art? (Score:4, Informative)

    by XemonerdX ( 242776 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:20AM (#10382210) Homepage
    IANAL, but wouldn't these jackets [cyberpunk.co.uk] made by Levi's & Philips, from 2001, count as prior art?

  • How are they wasting taxpayer's money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:20AM (#10382213)
    > stop wasting taxpayer's money

    Patent applications are not free. And neither are the patent maintenance fees (if the patent is issued).

    The USPTO collects so much in fees that the government takes some of the money collected by the USPTO and spends it elsewhere.

    Instead of complaining about companies voluntarily PAYING fees to our federal government, we should complain about HOW that money is spent--for example, complaining about the USPTO not being able to use all the collected fees to improve itself would be the smarter thing to do.

    If you read the patent laws and policies, you'd see that innovation isn't hurt, but actually helped by "correct" patents. The problem is with patents being granted that do not meet the legal requirements in the first place. But then, those scenarios can play out in court later on and the patent will get killed if it was undeserving of a grant.
    • The USPTO is not self sustaining. The patent fees cover some but not all of the operating expenses. See the patent cost is a fixed value, the research to determine if it is valid or not is not a fixed amount. As a matter of a fact, the more claims of prior art, the more the patent office has to research and spend. The attempt to keep costs down to what the fee covers is why people can patent things like a pda on their shirt collar. The uspto is a waste of taxpayer money but a valuable investment to business
      • actually no

        http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20 04 0202.asp

        examiners don't get paid by the claim, they get paid by the disposal and first action, so a case with 10 claims counts as much towards one's quota as a case with 500

        the new fee structure was imposed to actually reduce the number of claims, by having larger numbers of claims cost signifgantly more, thus reducing examiner workload
        • examiners don't get paid by the claim, they get paid by the disposal and first action, so a case with 10 claims counts as much towards one's quota as a case with 500

          They are not paid in quotas, quotas are not valid currency. Figure the economics of paying someone as part of the price. If someone is only paid for one of the claims not 7200 claims or 12 claims they are still busy processing those claims which still means you need more inspectors ie still more pay per claim just expressed differently.
    • If you read the patent laws and policies, you'd see that innovation isn't hurt, but actually helped by "correct" patents. The problem is with patents being granted that do not meet the legal requirements in the first place.

      Which, of course, brings up the question of whether it's feasible to make the patent system have an acceptably low level of bullshit patents being granted.

      Just because the problem is "with individual patents" doesn't mean that a flaw with the system has not been raised.
  • Is the collar computer obvious? If so, why has nobody thought of making one before? Just think, all of you guys who came up with this idea years ago could have made a million dollars producing one of these.

    Jeez, these guys come up with an invention. Sure, it doesn't change the world, but it's a clever idea, and its original.
    • The problem is that just about anybody can think up a good idea - the real challenge is figuring out a way to make money on it.

      Most of us don't bother with implementing our ideas because of the time/money resources involved - buuuuut, if you have a intellectual property lawyer on the payroll, you can stake your claim now and not worry about how to make money on it until you're ready. (or you just make money off the patent by extorting the people who do figure out the business end)
      • By definition, if you can't make value from it it isn't a good idea. There's nothing wrong with patenting some technology you've developed, even if you can't make it work on the business end - so long as the technology fits the real definition for a patent, i.e. an innovation non-obvious to someone skilled in the field.

        (I use the term value rather than money to avoid being accused of being a capitalist pig - but if an idea has no value, it isn't a good idea, now matter how clever of a hack it is - UNIX ON
    • No, this is NOT what the patent system is for.

      The patent system is NOT for allowing someone exclusive rights to something trivial, obvious, or abstract. It is to allow someone limited exclusiveness on something that is non-trivial, non-obvious, and concrete.

      Unfortunately, the patent offices do not seem to understand what the system is for, OR they are unable to judge what is trivial, obvious, or abstract. Probably the last.

    • Is the collar computer obvious? If so, why has nobody thought of making one before?

      Displays. Wearable displays with small weight, small size, and useful resolution are still AWFULLY expensive. The computer cores themselves were too (or too weak, or too battery hungry, or all of that), until quite recently.

      Just think, all of you guys who came up with this idea years ago could have made a million dollars producing one of these.

      Not everybody who comes up with a good idea has the resources to actually prod

  • Depends on whether the usage of "wires built into the jacket" counts as a computer.

  • Put the blame where it belongs! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:23AM (#10382231) Homepage
    You can blame a company who obtained an asinine patent for doing what is perfectly legal. If it doesn't do it, some other company would, and than that Xybernaut would be screwed.

    If you have a problem with what Xybernaut did then you should move to change the law. To expect corporations (and citizens) to follow laws which do not exist is as asinine as the patent that Xybernaut obtained.

    • If it doesn't do it, some other company would, and than that Xybernaut would be screwed.

      Nope. If it's been published before the patent application, you can't get a patent. So instead of applying for one themselves, they could just publish their idea and prevent everyone else from getting a patent on it. Almost any kind of publication is good enough as prior art, no need for a patent.
      • You'd like to think that wouldn't you.


        Isn't the whole point of the /. bitching about this that it's been done (and even published) before, and still the PTO granted this patent?


        Sure, such a patent would (maybe) be invalidated, after a lengthy and expensive process, but they'd still be screwed.

  • Slavery (Score:2, Insightful)

    by little1973 ( 467075 )
    There are many slashdotters who think patents are needed because without them the little guy is screwed. However, there is a much more fundamental problem here. Patents basically prevents someone from using his own knowledge even if the knowledge came from someone else initally.

    Tell me, if preventing someone from using his own knowledge (it is his knowledge since it is in his mind) by force is not slavery then what is it?

    • Re:Slavery (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 )
      You are talking out of your asscrack, and anyone who modded you up should be ashamed.

      Patents are *slavery*? Patents are designed to encourage sharing knowledge; without the limited license provided by a patent, people would just try to keep trade secrets. You aren't prevented from using your knowledge; use it all you want. But you may have to obtain a license from the patent-holder in order to obtain the legal right to make money off of their idea, even if you independently developed the knowledge, beca
      • I should remind you that according to patent lawyers you should not read any patents because if by chance you infringe on one the court may decide you commited willful infringement. How is this situation helps sharing knowledge?

        Also, if a particular knowledge is mine (it is in my mind therefore it is mine) then I should do anything with it including making money from it.

        This trade secret excuse also tires me. This comes from the assumption that knowledge can be lost. Knowledge cannot be lost. It is not a
        • Wrong, by the way. According to the patent lawyers I work with, you shouldn't read *current* patents. Any expired patent is fair game.

          First off, the knowledge isn't yours. Knowledge doesn't belong to anyone (yes, this is true in a patent system, in fact more so than in a non-patent system). The knowledge is intentionally made available to all in a patent system; no one owns the knowledge, or equally validly, everyone owns the knowledge equally giving no one any more or less rights to use it than anyone
          • I think you shouldn't work with patent lawyers, because what you said is the stupidest thing I have ever heard on slashdot.

            Why should I read 20 or so year old outdated patents? Most patents are useless after 20 years. And if not they became public knowledge, so I do not have to search the patent database.

            And I can own knowledge. If I have an idea and I do not share the idea, then it is mine. Nobody can force me to share my idea. However, if I share the idea with somebody I no longer can claim ownership on
            • I stand on the shoulders of giants who came before me. Why do I read 20 year old patents? Because the bleeding edge 20 years ago is, in my field, often very applicable, and even when it isn't directly applicable often gives me a direction to work from, a base to start from. Obviously, I work with significantly smarter people than you. As to the public knowledge argument - I work in a specialized field. Some of the patents are not public knowledge, and its quite useful to have read them. I read journal
              • You're contradicting yourself - if you can own knowledge, then you can lose knowledge. And yes - if an idea is come up with, it *is* possible that it will never be redicovered if it is lost. Unlikely? Sure. But possible.

                You are right. However, IMHO the chance is so small that it does not worth giving monopoly powers to a few corporations at the expanse of the public.

                Also, if you do not have faith in humans then how can you trust in the goverment? As far as I know, the goverment consists of humans, too.

                A
                • The monopoly powers aren't granted to a few corporations; they're granted to the inventor. This can be anyone; patents are granted to individuals regularly. The reason most of them these days are granted to corporations and universities and other large entities is because a lot of research requires more support structure than individual inventors generally have.

                  Anyway, the point isn't to prevent the loss of knowledge. The point is to encourage the fastest possible spread of knowledge, at the price of so
  • A useful Wiki would be for prior art, or for people to submit ideas they want publically documented but not patented.

    Perhaps someone has already done this, anyone know? The useful part would be the Wiki though, so everyone can submit prior art.

  • Pfaff ! (Score:2, Funny)

    by jhermans ( 108300 )
    This opens new opportunities for Jean-Marie Pfaff !

    (Belgian inside joke)
  • But if you guys show up wearing tinfoil body wrap and bouffant hairdos, I'm gonna hurl.

  • I'll give you prior art! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Look no further than Dr Theopolis and Twiki!

  • What is a "War Fighter"? (Score:4, Funny)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:44AM (#10382334) Homepage
    Is a "war fighter" what used to be called a "soldier"?

  • Xybernaut Dictionary (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Extract from the Xybernaut Dictionary:
    Re-search, n. [Pref. re- + search: cf OF. recerche, F. recherche.] To pull an idea from your arse and run headlong through the village shouting eureka in the hope that nobody notices you're covered in your own shit.

  • "Optimumly" (Score:4, Funny)

    by djmurdoch ( 306849 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @08:47AM (#10382347)
    To quote the patent,

    The preferred and optimumly preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described herein...

    Does the use of "optimumly" invalidate the patent? Or is the invention of this word covered under the same patent?

  • Waste of Taxpayer money? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ReadbackMonkey ( 92198 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @09:07AM (#10382510)

    The USPTO actually makes money by charging a substantial fee for every interface with it, and strictly monitoring the time spent on each task. I'm told that a USPTO examiner only has time to look at a patent for 8 hours during its entire examination, including prior art searches and the response to the patentee

    The funds raised by the USPTO are used for things that have nothing to do with the USPTO, thus the poor results. This makes most of the IP community fairly angry, as pseudo-companies are getting patents on ridiculous things, which then waste real-companys' time fighting ridiculous lawsuits from "trolls".

    I am used to the general uninformed ranting that goes on Slashdot regarding the patent system. i.e. "IM GOING TO PATENT TEH NUMBER "0"!!!! I OWNZZ J00 F007!!!!". But I'm surprised that this statement got onto the front page.

    Don't get me wrong there are a lot of problems with the USPTO, but most could be solved by a simply allowing the USPTO to use the money it makes to do its job, rather then allowing congress to put that money into its coffers. If you are going to bitch, at least make it informed, or else you run the risk of misleading your audience and don't actually solve the problem.

  • It's not that bad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nameer ( 706715 )
    I read the claims. This certainly seems patentable to me. It's not a computer in a collar, it's a computer that is a collar. The independent claims are 1, 11, 20, 22 so focus your attention there. The key bit seems to be the "moveably enclosed longitudinally...", which keys in on the display aspect of it. Nothing mentioned here on /. even comes close to prior art.

    Is it novel? Eh. I can't think of anything like what is described, but there are lots of things under the sun.

    Is it useful? Probably to

  • Making Good on Threats (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MichaelH ( 3651 ) <pdxmph+sd.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:11AM (#10383028) Homepage

    This is no surprise.

    I interviewed Xybernaut's CEO several years ago at COMDEX. The interview was set up for the purpose of talking about his company's use of Linux on its gear, but he only half-heartedly showed me a few models, then launched into his spiel about Xybernaut's patent attorneys, which he had all over the world. I think he claimed over 60 countries.

    He told me Xybernaut could see the downturn coming and that it had decided licensing and royalties were where it's at. To demonstrate the company's "innovative" strides in patent gamesmanship, he pulled out a unit that a hinged and retractable slot cover for a PCMCIA slot. It was a slot cover: It closed when the card was in place, and opening it caused the card to eject.

    He said no one had patented anything like it, and that his crack team of attorneys were now vigilantly monitoring dozens of countries to make sure that if anyone did anything like it, they'd be on hand demanding royalties and a cut of the action.

    When Xybernaut announces patents like this, I suppose we can take comfort in its consistency: It's going on four years of taking out patents and then watching for someone to run afoul of them so it can get down to its real business, which is making sure the only "useful art or science" left is patent litigation.

  • Xybernaut, collar computer... (Score:3, Funny)

    by XMyth ( 266414 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:23AM (#10383129) Homepage
    Boy, this sounds like something out of a comic book to me.

  • xybernaut (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Unabageler ( 669502 ) <josh&3io,com> on Wednesday September 29, 2004 @10:43AM (#10383284) Homepage
    Is one of the more innovative companies out there. They have a good solid history of wearable computing designs, so I support them in protecting their assets. This is NOT another IBM or MS. This is NOT an evil company doing evil things. Shit, back in 1994 all I wanted was one of their devices. I still want one, they're badass.

  • Please help encourage this company to stop wasting taxpayer's money and encourage innovation instead of preventing it.

    Take a look at the patent office price list [uspto.gov]. Those aren't exactly bargain prices and the patent office has the habit of routinely rejecting first time applications so that they can charge more for extensions, re-submission, clause additions, etc. Basically, they're raking in the money for the public. Unfortunately, the patent office is seen as a cash cow and milked appropriately by the fed

    • Your 100% right. The patent office like the post office actually generate revenue. During the Clinton years, Billy boy took 100 million dollars away from the patent office revenues to help balance the budget. The patent office is self sustaining, in that its fees are what pay the employees salaries. I know I once worked there. They not only charge for extensions, but you have to pay to renew your patent every so many years. Believe me they 'paid' for that patent.

      My problem with a wearable computer co

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close