Sony Patents Matrix-Like Game Technology 532
howman writes "Reuters is reporting that Sony has been granted 2 patents, both describing 'Method and system for generating sensory data onto the human neural cortex'. These are patents 6,729,337 and 6,536,440. The patents go on to 'describe a technique for aiming ultrasonic pulses at specific areas of the brain to induce sensory experiences such as smells, sounds and images'. The story was first broken by New Scientist magazine." Commentary also available via Ars Technica.
Re:Doesn't it seem a bit odd... (Score:5, Informative)
1. patent some idea
2. wait for someone to build some device implementing this idea
3. profit
Noticed, there is no "unknown" step between 2 and 3?
Robertt
Patents are also for *future* protection (Score:3, Informative)
In short, while Sony may have patented the technology, it will be a long time before we have UT2k4 on a neural link.
Re:Paradise Engineering ... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, originally (in the US, from 1790) a model was required to demonstrate how it functioned, but that requirement was removed in 1870.
I would argue that maybe you don't have to actually build one, but you need to throw down a lot of proof that you know it could work, and if things don't work out that way then you haven't yet patented whatever you've just created, and you need to patent the proper method.
Re:PS9 (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, but I don't need to be one to answer this. (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, even if it did matter, the version in the Matrix uses direct insertion of a probe into the brain, presumably to directly electrically stimulate it. This method uses sonic pulses (and probably can't actually be made to work with the necessary precision). There is more than enough difference in the design to matter for separate patentability.
Remember the story about Sony losing the lawsuit over the DualShock controller to Immersion? If you read the comments, you might've come across the fact that Nintendo doesn't have to worry about Immersion's patents. While Immersion patented attaching an unbalanced weight to a spinning motor for creating vibration in a controller, Nintendo patented building an unbalanced weight into a spinning motor to create vibration in a controller. This subtle difference is all that was needed to make these separate inventions.
No, if sonic stimulation could ever work, this is a good enough patent to place a land grab on it. It's a novel method of neural stimulation with no precedent that I'm aware, and even if there is, it's unlikely that anyone has tried to use it to enhance a game yet. This sounds pretty solid to me. It does open up the field for other patents about how to actually get sonic neural stimulation to work, but if it ever does, Sony has a claim to using it in a game.
Re:Paradise Engineering ... (Score:4, Informative)
1) the invention has to be novel
2) the invention must not be ovious, there has to be an inventive step
3) the specification has to be detailed enough for persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention, that is to say, build the apparatus
These requirements are perfectly sufficient if they are properly enforced.
requirement 1 means, no patent is to be granted if there is prior art
requirement 2 means, no patent is to be granted for something that is obvious
requirement 3 means, no patent is to be granted for concepts or ideas, nor for applications that are too fuzzy to be pinned down to an actual implementation
The problem with the patent system today is that the patent offices are hopelessly understaffed to ensure that these requirements are actually enforced and consequently there are too many patents which are not novel, obvious or fuzzy or any combination thereof.
If a requirement to produce a working prototype was introduced, it would make things even worse because the already overworked patent examiners would now also have to examine the prototype and there would likely follow a tendency to grant any application as long as the prototype appears to do what the specification says it does. The result would be even more non-novel and obvious patents.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Informative)
1 file the last document,
2 get the patent, and
3 profit!
This workked so well because until that last document was filed, the patent number wasn't issued, making submarine patents all but impossible to look up.
Now the patent lifespan is 3 years longer, but the clock and the visibility of the patent starts as soon as the first document is filed.
Such Gibberish.... (Score:5, Informative)
There is no way in God's Green Earth that you can transnsmit a meaningful signal to the brain wirelessly through the skull. They even say it themselves in the article that you can't even target *groups* of neurons.
It's about the laws of physics. The fields just spread too much to allow you to target neurons.
Maybe with vast (!!!!) improvements in technology, we could selectively activate a region of the brain, making someone feel a particular way (happy, sad, horny, religious), but it would be sloppy, dangerous and need to be tuned to a particular individual.
Under NO conceivable circumstances within the universe that we currently live could you uninvasively transmit any detailed information, through the skull as the article (and presumably the patent) implies.
Re:question (Score:5, Informative)
A interesting read: Frontline: nixon & detroit: inside the oval office [pbs.org].
Already been done (Score:2, Informative)
The History Channel had a show on UFOs where they used techniques excatly like this to show that various magnetic fields on the brain can induce strange hallucinations.
Re:Already been done (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What about that third patent? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Such Gibberish.... (Score:2, Informative)
Don't you watch CSI? (Score:2, Informative)
Just sayin'
Re:Lawsuits (Score:1, Informative)
The male form is Circumcision [wikipedia.org].
When your mom and pop decided to do that they didn't think they just nicked a good chunk of your sex pleasure. Damn.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Informative)