Patent by nintendo

[v0rt3x]

Dunno if this was posted already or what. Nothing big or hardware related but a neat little patent regarding voice communication... If it has been posted please lock.

A multi-player networked video game playing system including for example video game consoles analyzes speech to vary the font size and/or color of associated text displayed to other users. If the amplitude of the voice is high, the text displayed to other users is displayed in a larger than normal font. If the voice sounds stressed or is aggressive words are used, the text displayed to other users is displayed using a special font such as red color. Other analysis may be performed on the speech in context to vary the font size, color, font type and/or other display attributes.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...s1=nintendo.AS.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo

 

[pc999]

This should be interesting for DS (I assume it is for DS as it would consume much less BW).

 

[Guden Oden]

It's actually possible to patent bullshit like this? On behalf of nintendo, I'm embarrassed!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm going to patent USING DIFFERENT fonts and colours to communicate extra meaning to typed text. Like no-one's thought of that before...

When is the Patent System going to stop granting patents to unpatentable ideas?!

 

[darkblu]

muahahahahaa....

 

[speng]

When is the Patent System going to stop granting patents to unpatentable ideas?!

Hehe,

I think the novel part of the patent has to do with the sound amplitude of the voice and it's translation to a visual communication mechanism (words). Not the representation of tired = italics, and angry = red.

Speng.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

An idea isn't patentable. You need a new physical invention, or actual piece of something. In the case of software patents I think again it's only algorithms that can be patented (not sure on software patents). You can't patent an idea like "using user input to control what appears on screen of a computer device". Well, you're not supposed to be able to... It's blatantly obvious that where you have an input device, it can be used for any degree of control of the software.

________

"Patent Application GB183095-06

A computing device communicates feedback to the user in the form of alphanumeric text, comprised of an assemblage of patterned dots or pixels assembled on a display device. Depending on the distance of the user from the display device, the text so represented might be too small to be comfortably viewed.

The invention pertains to enabling more comfortable use. It provides on screen a graphical element (5) that can be interacted with by a user controlled graphical pointing element (16). The graphical element (5) is termed a Vertical Slider. In response to the user changing the vertical position of the Vertical Slider (see Patent Application GB173085-06 for means by whch a user can interact with a displayed graphic) the font drawing system upscales the pattern of dots, thereby making the font larger and clearer to view from a distance."

________

"Patent Application GB183096-06

A computing device communicates feedback to the user in the form of small graphical images, comprised of an assemblage of patterned dots or pixels assembled on a display device, termed Icons. Depending on the distance of the user from the display device, the graphic so represented might be too small to be comfortably viewed.

The invention pertains to enabling more comfortable use. It provides on screen a graphical element (5) that can be interacted with by a user controlled graphical pointing element (16). The graphical element (5) is termed a Vertical Slider. In response to the user changing the vertical position of the Vertical Slider (see Patent Application GB173085-06 for means by whch a user can interact with a displayed graphic) the Icon drawing system upscales the pattern of dots, thereby making the Icon larger and clearer to view from a distance."

________

This can go on forever

 

[pc999]

An idea isn't patentable. You need a new physical invention, or actual piece of something.

In that case how did Sony had patented that thing to creat visual data on cortex, or something like? that had not any device till today, as long as we know...

 

[Bobbler]

I think it's not necessarily that you have to have a physical invention... it's that you have an implementation of an idea. Implementations are what you patent, not necessarily the idea behind them (the concept of creating graphics on the screen isn't patentable, but doing it a certain way is).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In that case how did Sony had patented that thing to creat visual data on cortex, or something like? that had not any deice till today, as long as we know...

You don't need a working implementation, but you do need a method to achieve your invention. Saying 'We patent beaming info straight to the cortex' isn't good enough. You have to explain the technology used to achieve this... "We patent the idea of using a compressed stream of Gluons at alternating Delta frequencies, targetted at sensory nodes of the brain." IIRC the Sony Patent referring to cortex stuff was reading brain waves and linking them as input, though that patent again may be a bunk patent. Most patents are. The patent offices get paid money for granting patents, not denying them. Neither are they troubled when a patent is challenged. Hence they gain everything by granting all patents, gain nothing by adhering to the principles of patents, and lose nothing but ignoring the rules. It's just a bit of paper that nets a few grand a year for doing nothing. The more of those you sign, the better. That's the only explanation I can find as to why the clear and obvious rules of Patents aren't being followed by the offices in charge of them.

 

[Ty]

That's the only explanation I can find as to why the clear and obvious rules of Patents aren't being followed by the offices in charge of them.

It's also a lack of resources (qualified man power).

 

[Teasy]

Companies patents absolutely everything now, big deal, get back to the point of the thread.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There is no point to the thread! Except maybe we'll be seeing a game that changes the font based on audio input. Is that really 'Console Technology'? I guess one could try and squeeze a discussion of what audio processing you can apply to an audio stream to extract information like changes in emotion out of this...

 

[Teasy]

There is no point to the thread! Except maybe we'll be seeing a game that changes the font based on audio input.

So you're saying that there is no point to the thread... except the point of the thread?

 

[London Geezer]

So you're saying that there is no point to the thread... except the point of the thread?

which point? the point that you can make a point by writing your point in different colours and fonts?