Old Microsoft Patent Suddenly Makes Sense. o.O

[SeventhSigil]

New news is informative, yes, but sometimes old news can help as well; articles about this popped up in around 2012, suggesting MS had filed for the patent about a year ago. I haven't been able to find any confirmation as to whether or not it was finalized, but still...

http://kotaku.com/5958307/this-kinect-patent-is-terrifying-wants-to-charge-you-for-license-violation

The gist of it was that Microsoft filed for a patent that, though not mentioning the Kinect by name, spoke of using a camera- one capable of separating individuals from the background- to determine how many people were consuming the content, as it were, such as a pay per view fight. You would purchase a license permitting a certain number of people, or certain number of total 'views,' and if something happened to disrupt it- like your long-lost brother barges into the room, filthy and wearing the pelt of a bear- the camera would detect his presence, determine that the maximum number of permitted people has been exceeded, and... well, seek remuneration. Whether it just means automatically adding another charge to your credit card, or shutting off the content UNTIL you pay the extra dough, who knows. There's also talk about judging age by physical size and locking off certain content if the subject is deemed too young, which unfortunately means very short people might never get to use the system to watch porn.

But, hey, companies file patents all the time on tech they don't necessarily intend to use, such as Sony. And it's not like there was anything to worry about at the time, because the odds of the 360 being used in this fashion, ever, were pretty abysmal. For one, the Kinect never really took off on the market, meaning fewer people had it than didn't, and I imagine making it a requirement for pay per view would have lost the providers more revenue than they'd have gained. Besides, even in the event you DID own a Kinect, you could unplug it at any time, which would have made it trickier for MS to find a way to ensure it was actually keeping proper watch. So, between low market penetration and optional use, there's definitely no reason to pan-

...oh wait.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too? I mean, it's not selling great and the Kinect 2.0 or whatever it's called is optional too. Also, what were they going to do with it- make it so that only 3 people could watch the game or something? How would that benefit Microsoft in any way?

 

[faefrost]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too? I mean, it's not selling great and the Kinect 2.0 or whatever it's called is optional too. Also, what were they going to do with it- make it so that only 3 people could watch the game or something? How would that benefit Microsoft in any way?

I think you are misunderstanding what Microsoft means by optional? What they mean is you don't actually have to use it to control the system. You don't have to talk at it or wave your arms at it. But in order for the system to work. To boot up. It has to be there. And if its there it will be listening and watching.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too? I mean, it's not selling great and the Kinect 2.0 or whatever it's called is optional too. Also, what were they going to do with it- make it so that only 3 people could watch the game or something? How would that benefit Microsoft in any way?

Like Faefrost said, Although it has been said that you can turn the Kinect off, It must remain physically connected to the system to work. So even if the off button really does turn it off completely, they could still get away with requiring it to be on to access pay-per-view, since they know there is no way somebody could own and operate a console without it plugged in. As for market penetration, the fact that it is prepackaged means that literally 100% of all One owners will have it; doesn't get much more penetrating than that.

 

[J Tyran]

What happens if people just angle it so it only picks up one person in its field of view? Sounds daft, noone would buy one if this tech actually worked anyway.

 

[CriticalMiss]

What happens if people just angle it so it only picks up one person in its field of view? Sounds daft, noone would buy one if this tech actually worked anyway.

Doesn't it have a 180 field of view? You'd have to point it at the ceiling or something. You could always hook up your Xbone to more than one TV and have the Kinect in a different room to everyone.

 

[barbzilla]

I brought this up ages ago when they announced that the kinect was mandatory and sold with every X1. The thing is, it won't be super effective. There are issues with room sizes, layouts, and peripheral view size. Not to mention one could quite easily set up a dummy or some such thing in an out of the way location and point the kinect at that. Now, just because it won't be super effective, doesn't mean MSFT won't try. They've already shown that they will try whatever just floats through their collective heads up there, so it wouldn't surprise me to see this feature used at some point in the near future.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too?

Optional is a relative term. Microsoft's statements clarifying the Kinect have explained that whilst you can disable the control options, the Kinect is only off when the console itself is also off, if you're using it, Kinect 2.0 is on and it's plugged in or the console won't function. If you want the Kinnect to be non-functional, break out some sticky tape for the lens.

 

[Miss G.]

Not to mention one could quite easily set up a dummy or some such thing in an out of the way location and point the kinect at that.

How would a dummy work if the kinect spy-cam can recognize your face, read heart rates and see in infrared etc? For all you know it might think you're dead and pause everything you're working on until you reveal yourself to be alive and still able to pay.

 

[barbzilla]

Not to mention one could quite easily set up a dummy or some such thing in an out of the way location and point the kinect at that.

How would a dummy work if the kinect spy-cam can recognize your face, read heart rates and see in infrared etc? For all you know it might think you're dead and pause everything you're working on until you reveal yourself to be alive and still able to pay.

Because the kinect has those features, doesn't mean it will utilize them for every function. The point I am making is that there are plenty of ways to get around it, but I don't think it will stop MSFT from trying to implement it.

 

[Miss G.]

Not to mention one could quite easily set up a dummy or some such thing in an out of the way location and point the kinect at that.

How would a dummy work if the kinect spy-cam can recognize your face, read heart rates and see in infrared etc? For all you know it might think you're dead and pause everything you're working on until you reveal yourself to be alive and still able to pay.

Because the kinect has those features, doesn't mean it will utilize them for every function. The point I am making is that there are plenty of ways to get around it, but I don't think it will stop MSFT from trying to implement it.

Ok. I still think it's sad that someone who actually wants to buy this thing will have to put some effort in feeling safe around it, as its a strange concept for a luxury item, like one of those books in the Harry Potter universe that could bite or maul you if you're not careful.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Can't you just wrap the kinnect in layers of bubble wrap and gaffe tape?

 

[barbzilla]

Not to mention one could quite easily set up a dummy or some such thing in an out of the way location and point the kinect at that.

How would a dummy work if the kinect spy-cam can recognize your face, read heart rates and see in infrared etc? For all you know it might think you're dead and pause everything you're working on until you reveal yourself to be alive and still able to pay.

Because the kinect has those features, doesn't mean it will utilize them for every function. The point I am making is that there are plenty of ways to get around it, but I don't think it will stop MSFT from trying to implement it.

Ok. I still think it's sad that someone who actually wants to buy this thing will have to put some effort in feeling safe around it, as its a strange concept for a luxury item, like one of those books in the Harry Potter universe that could bite or maul you if you're not careful.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think it is stupid that they even placed that patent, if it was any closer to 1984 it wouldn't have gone through because that patent is already issued.

 

[Miss G.]

Can't you just wrap the kinnect in layers of bubble wrap and gaffe tape?

Why is it acceptable that you have to do that in the first place? Shouldn't a luxury item provide its owner with as much reasons to want it as possible (since its by definition superfluous) without the inconvenience or at least come with so many pros the cons are negligible? If your first thought is to hide from it in your own home like it came with its own stalker attached then something is wrong, very wrong.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Can't you just wrap the kinnect in layers of bubble wrap and gaffe tape?

Why is it acceptable that you have to do that in the first place? Shouldn't a luxury item provide its owner with as much reasons to want it as possible (since its by definition superfluous) without the inconvenience or at least come with so many pros the cons are negligible? If your first thought is to hide from it in your own home like it came with its own stalker attached then something is wrong, very wrong.

I'd imagine a simple piece of tape or turning the camera to face a wall or something would suffice.
But yeah, this is the kind of bubble-headed bullshit I've come to expect from big media now.

They just can't leave the customer alone post-payment; there has to be some further scheme attached now.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Can't you just wrap the kinnect in layers of bubble wrap and gaffe tape?

Why is it acceptable that you have to do that in the first place? Shouldn't a luxury item provide its owner with as much reasons to want it as possible (since its by definition superfluous) without the inconvenience or at least come with so many pros the cons are negligible? If your first thought is to hide from it in your own home like it came with its own stalker attached then something is wrong, very wrong.

I'd imagine a simple piece of tape or turning the camera to face a wall or something would suffice.
But yeah, this is the kind of bubble-headed bullshit I've come to expect from big media now.

They just can't leave the customer alone post-payment; there has to be some further scheme attached now.

I'm not apologising, just providing a sudo solution.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Can't you just wrap the kinnect in layers of bubble wrap and gaffe tape?

Why is it acceptable that you have to do that in the first place? Shouldn't a luxury item provide its owner with as much reasons to want it as possible (since its by definition superfluous) without the inconvenience or at least come with so many pros the cons are negligible? If your first thought is to hide from it in your own home like it came with its own stalker attached then something is wrong, very wrong.

I'd imagine a simple piece of tape or turning the camera to face a wall or something would suffice.
But yeah, this is the kind of bubble-headed bullshit I've come to expect from big media now.

They just can't leave the customer alone post-payment; there has to be some further scheme attached now.

In the case of tape, or the wall, I would have to hazard a guess that it would require the detection of whatever number of people was specified on the purchase, or at least one person. xP Just a guess. This could well just be a patent they wanted to hold onto, as God knows every company as a few weird ones, but my suspicions are definitely sharpened by the fact that the Kinect was literally designed not to be removable. Package it with everything, fine, okay, but when you can't even unplug it and store it in the closet, that just starts drifting into really weird territory. o.o It's why I chuckle every time someone accuses me of overreacting, or not listening to the facts, cause Microsoft provides very FEW facts to listen to, and they're mixed in with the positive PR spin.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm not apologising, just providing a sudo solution.

Er, I...didn't say you were apologizing?
*confused dragon is confused*

In the case of tape, or the wall, I would have to hazard a guess that it would require the detection of whatever number of people was specified on the purchase, or at least one person. xP Just a guess. This could well just be a patent they wanted to hold onto, as God knows every company as a few weird ones, but my suspicions are definitely sharpened by the fact that the Kinect was literally designed not to be removable. Package it with everything, fine, okay, but when you can't even unplug it and store it in the closet, that just starts drifting into really weird territory. o.o It's why I chuckle every time someone accuses me of overreacting, or not listening to the facts, cause Microsoft provides very FEW facts to listen to, and they're mixed in with the positive PR spin.

You know, in the last few years, I've sat through and read a large number of arguments and assertions in the gaming world that "normally" fall under the "Tin Foil Hat" category.

Yet, the sad thing is that some of those are actually becoming reality.
People PAID money to develop this tech. People PAID to patent it. It obviously has significant value to someone.

And knowing that, it suddenly makes sense why Microsoft would forcibly fuse a device onto their new console despite it being rejected by a vast majority of their market. Fucking NOBODY I know plays games via Kinect.

 

[SeventhSigil]

I'm not apologising, just providing a sudo solution.

Er, I...didn't say you were apologizing?
*confused dragon is confused*

In the case of tape, or the wall, I would have to hazard a guess that it would require the detection of whatever number of people was specified on the purchase, or at least one person. xP Just a guess. This could well just be a patent they wanted to hold onto, as God knows every company as a few weird ones, but my suspicions are definitely sharpened by the fact that the Kinect was literally designed not to be removable. Package it with everything, fine, okay, but when you can't even unplug it and store it in the closet, that just starts drifting into really weird territory. o.o It's why I chuckle every time someone accuses me of overreacting, or not listening to the facts, cause Microsoft provides very FEW facts to listen to, and they're mixed in with the positive PR spin.

You know, in the last few years, I've sat through and read a large number of arguments and assertions in the gaming world that "normally" fall under the "Tin Foil Hat" category.

Yet, the sad thing is that some of those are actually becoming reality.
People PAID money to develop this tech. People PAID to patent it. It obviously has significant value to someone.

And knowing that, it suddenly makes sense why Microsoft would forcibly fuse a device onto their new console despite it being rejected by a vast majority of their market. Fucking NOBODY I know plays games via Kinect.

Oh, believe me, I was called a tin foil hat wearer by someone when I brought this very matter up by an MS supporter.

The idiot clearly didn't bother reading it, because the @($#& patent link is in most of the articles, which I promptly threw in his face. So. Much. SATISFACTION.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20120278904.PGNR.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I'm not apologising, just providing a sudo solution.

Er, I...didn't say you were apologizing?
*confused dragon is confused*

That must have been pre emptiving flames