Subject: Absurd patent...

From: Peter Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 92 14:41:59 -0500

James Helman <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>The patent (4,988,981 which issued last January) is NOT on glove
>devices, but on VR *systems* using input devices to measure body part
>flexure.  Basically, it patents the use of such an input device (e.g.
>a glove) driving a cursor which emulates flexure (e.g. a virtual hand)
>capable of interacting with a virtual object.  It covers a lot of VR.
>
>One of the principal claims:
>
>13. An apparatus for controlling a computer display of the type having
>    a virtual object depicted thereon that is used for communicating
>    and interfacing with a computer program comprising:
>
>    flex sensing means disposed in close proximity to a part of the
>    body of the user, for sensing flexure of the associated part of
>    the body of the user; and
>
>    cursor display means, coupled to the flex sensing means and to the
>    computer display, for displaying a cursor emulating the flexure of
>    the part of the body, the cursor being capable of interactivity
>    acting upon the virtual object to allow communication and
>    interaction between the user and the computer program.
>

It seems to me that this covers just about every input device
imaginable.  I input right now by flexing my fingers over the keyboard
in specific patterns which are detected by a series of sensors in a
QWERTY configuration.  In a moment I will flex my fingers and elbow
and that will be detected by a device which records the flexion
relative to a known fixed location known as a "mouse pad".  The only
devices not covered that come to my mind immediately are eye position
(rotation is not flexion) and the detection of electrical brain
activity.

I don't buy the bit about "close proximity" as being sufficiently
clear so as to distinguish a keyboard or mouse from a glove or a suit.
I also don't believe the second bit about the cursor is sufficiently
clear either.  Anything inside a computer is a "virtual reality" since
it is not tangible and the characters on the screen are objects that I
can manipulate that emulate the flexing of my digits.  Proof: XXX,
what flexing did I just repeat three times?  You know exactly what I
did and how many times and it is perfectly repeatable.  I can create
and delete these objects at will and they certainly allow
communication between me and computer programs.  Sure, a ASCII
terminal is not what *we* envision as VR but where is the difference
spelled out in legalese?

The only way I can see out of this sort of patenting/copyrighting
stupidity (see the Mark Williams Co.'s patent on byte ordering during
data transmission for example, or Apple's "look and feel") is to
completely ignore the legal system, spread PD programs that violate
the claims as far and as wide and as fast as possible until the court
system says enough of trying to prosecute every individual on the
planet who owns a computer and forces more reasonable standards as to
what is an original idea.  Not a pretty picture (even/especially to
a Libertarian :-)) but it seems to be the only option?

peter
[email-masked]