Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Patents Entertainment Games

Microsoft Gaming Patents — Where They're Going 69

Posted by Soulskill from the is-it-disneyworld dept.
An anonymous reader writes "BNET looked at some patents which suggest that Microsoft might be thinking about an integrated game console/set-top box. Quoting: 'Patent 20080167128 is for watching television on a game console, while patent 20080167127 covers switching a gaming console between various media, including television, video, music, and games, and even using the console as a set-top box. Clearly Microsoft has been interested in controlling the living room, and combining media, gaming, and set-top functions in a single device would make a great deal of sense.' There are also hints of mobile gaming that support the current round of rumors about a combination Xbox-Zune. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Gaming Patents — Where They're Going More

Microsoft Gaming Patents — Where They're Going

Comments Filter:

  • IP TV (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pulse_Instance ( 698417 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:14PM (#28076275)
    Wasn't Microsoft working on this a while ago. There were going to add IP-TV functionality with a DVR to the 360. I was really looking forward to it but as far as I remember it was never actually released.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AnalPerfume ( 1356177 )
      Microsoft, Sony & Apple have all eye'd the sitting room as the next battleground for media domination and control. They know people use their TV's for more and more functions, not unlike a web browser which started life as a simple application but has now grown to be multi-functioned and used to interact with more and more things.

      Sony and Microsoft have their consoles able to connect to the net, play DVDs etc. They know that if they can get the trojan horse in the home, they can sell peripherals designe

      • Prior Art ? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's staggering that Microsoft would get a patent on something which seems blatantly obvious as the next feature on a TV based console. It's no surprise that they applied for it however.

        Obvious, indeed. Isn't there already a ton of such attempt at multi-functional devices already ?

        Countless of do-it-yourself, small form factor PCs sitting under the TV set and featuring, TV reception, DVR functions, multimedia player, and console emulators ?
        The patent was only filed in 2007. Whereas the mini-ITX [wikipedia.org] format which spawned so much of these home theater PCs dates back 2001.

        And building multi-function boxes has so much been a hot topic, that in 2002, a whole 5 years before Microsoft even files a pat

        • I noticed a mistake in my original post, they are looking at patents in these areas, they haven't gotten them....yet. You're right though, there is plenty of prior art on this one. Microsoft did try to patent sudo which they didn't invent and don't use just to extract money from FOSS projects. They tried to patent ODF in some countries despite trying to kill it through the ISO then from within the ODF board itself. This seems like vintage Microsoft to me. They won't change.
  • I think the Xbox/Zune crossover project was mentioned somewhere in Revelations...

  • Xbox 360 MCE (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Drakkenmensch ( 1255800 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:21PM (#28076325)
    Anybody else thinking of Media Center Edition? While the required hardware implementation for the PC edition left somewhat to be desired (those required satellite and cable cards still give me nightmares), the Xbox 360 might skip a lot of the more complicated initial setup for a far more user-friendly experience. Or so you would think, in theory.

  • PSX.

    PSX was the internal codename for the playstation, it was also the name of a DVR/Music/Movie/Set Top Box/PS2 combo in Japan for Satellite services.

    This is going to be a little interesting.

  • Been there, done that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RiotingPacifist ( 1228016 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:27PM (#28076369)

    I already did that on the original xbox

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Not only that.. but there has been a mythtv frontend [mythtv.org] for the Xbox for almost 10 years.

      Shouldn't that count for something in terms of prior art?

      Clearly Microsoft was not the first one to think about watching TV and switching between games and different types of media on a game console / general purpose computing platform.

  • Easier target candidate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:30PM (#28076395) Homepage Journal
    Putting fences all around Imaginationland. They could have no plan to build it, but want to make sure nobody else will.

    • I think patent trolls could be easily taken care of if they had to put up or shut up.

      If you've actually built a device with the idea then I'd have to pay, if not, screw you.

      I could patent cabling to devices together, would that get me the rights to shake down everybody who'd ever wired two pieces of crap together?

      I think not.

  • combination Xbox-Zune (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    > combination Xbox-Zune

    Who would want a brown game console that looks like a turd ?

  • I bet the idea is, Zune would have been a success if it wasn't for all the other (better) MP3-players out there. Especially IPods.

    Hey, MS? Just because there is no alternative, people still won't buy crap. That only works in markets you have cornered. Everywhere else, you gotta make what people want or they just won't buy it.

    • The Zune isn't/wasn't a bad device, in fact it had features that Ipods lacked for many years. It was just marketed poorly and could beat the Ipod's cool factor.

      • The Zune isn't/wasn't a bad device, in fact it had features that Ipods lacked for many years.

        But, were they features people actually wanted, or just some extra bells and whistles that only a few people will ever need, use, or even know about? I don't think in the years I've owned iPods I've ever felt there were features I wish it had.

        It was just marketed poorly and could beat the Ipod's cool factor.

        Geek-cool or cool-people cool? Because, quite frankly, they're very different.

        Cheers

        • I don't know about you, but the wireless syncing and game support was much better than the Ipod's until the touch came out. Those were great features, but even the best products fail with terrible ads and marketing.

          It was just marketed poorly and could beat the Ipod's cool factor.

          Geek-cool or cool-people cool? Because, quite frankly, they're very different.

          Don't hurt yourself thinking about this question, I realize it's very difficult.

          • I don't know about you, but the wireless syncing and game support was much better than the Ipod's until the touch came out.

            *shrug* If you think those are useful, glad you liked them. I have no interest in playing games on my music player, or my phone. :-P

            "Geek-cool or cool-people cool? Because, quite frankly, they're very different."

            Don't hurt yourself thinking about this question, I realize it's very difficult.

            No, seriously. Because the Zune never matched the cool factor of the iPod. Outside of the har

          • I dont think that wireless syncing is a killer feature for a mp3 player.

            Most people wouldnt be interested in it.

        • But, were they features people actually wanted, or just some extra bells and whistles that only a few people will ever need, use, or even know about? I don't think in the years I've owned iPods I've ever felt there were features I wish it had.

          I bought an 80-GB Zune because:

          1) The Zune software is FAR superior to iTunes. My Zune actually broke (the screen cracked) a few months ago, but I'm still using the Zune software to manage my collection-- iTunes is only used for my iPhone.

          2) The Zune has an FM radio an

      • The main problem with the Zune is that it was so pathetically late that all anyone could think of is "Oh look, an iPod clone made by MS that looks... brown". Thats what the public thought of it, had the Zune came out earlier it might have had a chance, but I would have to say that anyone looking at a Zune would have to think first that its an iPod clone. Thats what killed it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by A12m0v ( 1315511 )

        squirting is one feature idon't want

        except in my gf

  • including television (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Some years ago MS had a survey done that found that in most homes the computer and the TV were in the same room in the house. The conclusion they came to was that people wanted to watch TV on their computer.

    No!, Wrong!, people didn't have 22 room mansions with separate computer labs and home theatres. They have their stuff in one room because they only have one room, or one living room.

    The idea of a combination TV/computer/gaming/VCR is also based on everyone having their own computer, or probably several,

    • Or you could buy two monitors, watch TV on one, play on the other.

      • Or you could buy two monitors, watch TV on one, play on the other.

        Why stop at two? I've always wanted one of those big wall-o-monitor dealios you see on TV. :-P

        Cheers

    • Sarah: "Mum, why can't I watch TV?"
      Mum: "Well, the TV/Computer/Game Console is broken."

      or:

      Sarah: "I want to watch TV."
      David: "I want to play Halo 10."
      Mum: "Sorry, but I'm using the TV/Computer/Gaming Console at the moment to write up my report."

    • The idea of a combination TV/computer/gaming/VCR is also based on everyone having their own computer, or probably several, and not having to share.

      That's the mindset that PC game publishers appear to work from. Often, the PC version of a video game won't have a split- or otherwise shared-screen option for HTPC owners even if the console versions have it. More often, party games just don't get ported to PC at all.

  • Actually just applications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:45PM (#28076503)

    These are actually just published applications, not patents (you can tell because the number starts with the publication year, whereas patent numbers are just serial numbers in increasing order roughly by date of issuance).

    What's interesting is that the first one linked is specifically limited to a game console, while the second one sounds as though a MythTV box with MythGame/MAME would read on most, if not all, of the claims (whether under anticipation or obviousness depends on whether you consider a MythTV box with MythGame to be a game console).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Znork ( 31774 )

      whether under anticipation or obviousness depends on whether you consider a MythTV box with MythGame to be a game console

      Of course, you've been able to run mythfrontend on an Xbox for many years, and I'd say the Xbox might qualify as a game console. Maybe that's what they're trying to get around by explicitly stating something about the dashboards 'nativeness' to the console.

      I cant see anything that doesn't have at least one, if not two decades of prior art, and/or isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't been li

      • They never really define "native", though, so one could say that as long as the code is written as "native" for the processor (i.e., it's compiled into directly machine-executable code and not running on a Java VM or something like that), then it's "native".

  • I suppose MS wants another monopolized industry to fall back on if Keith Curtis' theories turn out to be right.

  • Prior art everywhere (Score:3, Informative)

    by DavoMan ( 759653 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:50PM (#28076537)
    How can you award a patent for something so ambiguous?

    Dude I think a 'multimedia PC' (computer with CDROM or one that can play video) from the 1990's is enough to qualify as prior art here.

    Furthermore what about the old computers that plugged into the TV? They were a do-everything device for the telly equipped with:
    * A media drive that handled music (cassette tape),
    * They downloaded new media (modem),
    * AND did video in various crazy analogue ways (tv tuner).
    • The patent title isn't the patent. It's a general description of what the invention does. You can have a dozen different patents for a device to make toast and marmalade. When you look into the patent, you'll see an abstract. This is still just a general description of how it works. The claims are a little more meaningful but really the invention is described in the description. If there's prior art for a device that works in that way, then it's invalid but it could be valid even if there's another ap

  • invention vs innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24, 2009 @01:53PM (#28076563)

    When America stopped Inventing and started Innovating was the beginning of the decline. When Bell created the telephone it was an Invention. When the RIAA finds a new way to sue people its an Innovation. Creating a new lifsaving medication, Invention. Offering crippled versions of Windows at different price points, Innovation.

    Innovation is a term lawers and marketing goons use to glorify their often nauseating and sometimes unethical practices.

    Regarding the article. It's not an invention with a product in mind. It's ammunition for their arsenal of potential patent litigation intended to coerce compliance from competitors. In a word, an innovation. Not news, move along.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AnalPerfume ( 1356177 )
      I wonder how much it'd knock off US multi-nationals stock prices if the rest of the world decided overnight that patents were a bad idea and scraped them altogether, wiping all existing patents into oblivion. How many large US companies rely on their patents to control their markets, or bully competitors? If their patent portfolio is wiped out in every other area except the US, what happens?

      This is a hypothetical nightmare for some patent trolls which they will lobby tooth and nail to ensure never comes to
      • There is some support for your argument in history. The X-Ray machine, for example, was never patented. This allowed the device to be made easily and in great quantities and allowed for the widespread adoption of it.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by psicop ( 229507 )

          So THAT's why it costs several thousand dollars to use free technology and it's related invented technologies...

  • <sarcasm>Does this mean that if they get a flurry of pop ups like IE used to do, that it'll be flicking channels so fast that it works like a strobe light on epilepsy sufferers?<sarcasm>
  • You mean they're gonna start supporting XBMC?

  • Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @02:29PM (#28076857) Homepage

    So, they're either trying to patent the general-purpose computer, or they're trying to say that merging your home theatre into one single component is a unique invention.

    I mean, you've been able to watch TV, movies, play music, and play games on a Mac for, what, 10+ years now? And you can easily make a PC do all of this as well (most of it right out of the box). And by changing the settings on my amplifier, I can choose between music, movies, video games, and the radio.

    All they're doing is taking functionality which has been available individually, as well as already integrated into the function of a computer, and adding one more thing -- being a gaming console. None of these sound like they should be patentable -- you can't take something people do all of the time, and patent the idea of doing it all in one box. That makes no sense to me.

    Have patents really devolved to "take what we can already do, put it in a box that also plays video games" and have that somehow be an innovation??

    I would argue that the entire computer industry (Microsoft included) has produced enough prior art as to seemingly completely invalidate this entire patent.

    Cheers

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wjh31 ( 1372867 )
      well i guess it's slightly better than add a clock

    • Have patents really devolved to "take what we can already do, put it in a box that also plays video games" and have that somehow be an innovation??

      Yes.

  • patent 20080167127 covers switching a gaming console between various media, including television, video, music, and games

    Wow, that sounds just like a remote control.

  • It's only my opinion, obviously - but I've always felt that combo devices may be adequate in what they do, never do any one thing really well. Printer/Fax/Copiers, phone/cameras, etc. just don't seem to excel. Plus there's the obvious issue with having to replace all functions when any single one stops working - like those old TV/VCR combos.

    In this specific instance, I wouldn't personally think Microsoft to be capable of designing a slick enough TV recording system (yes I've seen Media PCs) for this to be a

  • If MS gives the xbox cable hosting capabilities, and partners with a cable provider like Comcast so that they offer the Xbox as the rent-a-cable-box solution, they would make an absolute killing.
    • The return rate would probably end up being too high. Even though MS /finally/ fixed the RRoD in newer consoles doesn't mean that it would work for a cable box. Most people don't mind being without a 360 for a week or two, on the other hand the masses would be quite ticked off at MS or the cable company if they couldn't watch TV for a week.

  • Patents suck (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lord Lode ( 1290856 ) on Sunday May 24, 2009 @03:31PM (#28077333)
    It's official. If you can patent these things, patents have become truly useless and sucky. Devices that are both TV and gaming device are so old. Even cellular phones do it. Oh and PC's of course. Useless. Lawyers are truly, really, degrading human progress.

    • > If you can patent these things, patents have become truly useless and sucky.

      These aren't patents. They are patent applications.

      > Devices that are both TV and gaming device are so old. Even cellular phones do it. Oh
      > and PC's of course.

      Did you read the claims? If not you have no idea what they are trying to patent.

      > Lawyers are truly, really, degrading human progress.

      It's the politicians that make the laws, not the lawyers.

  • There were tv addons for existing games consoles years ago... I believe the sega genesis had one available for it, and the ps3 certainly does.

  • Hm, let's see... they are going to be raving chair-throwing anti-competitive ass-holes like the OS market? What else would you possibly expect? Why would they be any different? They see a market that they can take over, so they go for it.

  • There's nothing new here. The UltimateTV folks are working on XBOX360 to take over where the PS3 left off: make an affordable "everything" machine for your TV. Microsoft has a golden opportunity to truly achieve where Sony horribly failed.

  • What a foolish endear for Microsoft to pursue. The Gaming console market is not the set-top box market, not yet. The reason the ps3 failed and bankrupted Sony Computer Entertainment division is because they added $150 dollars worth of development costs and hardware to each unit to try to be more then a game console. Most gamers don't care, and everyone else doesn't want to buy a game machine for it's add-on uses.
    I can see the thinking, expand on the 360 market, add new features, use what you alre
  • Apple, Intel, Microsoft & Sony are already on my "No purchase" list, so these patents just validate my list. End over population, patent eating with tools.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close