Advertisement
Does anybody know anything about 6,368,268? The claims read
1) A device that shows images and simulataneously drives a stimulator (nominally sexual by the specification, but implicitly broader by dependent claim 6, specifying that the stimulation device have at least a sexual function)
8) A remote control stimulator with a hand-held controller
17) two intereconnected stimulation devices, though I find the wording obtuse.
25) An automated system driving a simultaneous image display and stimulator
38) A computer controlled stimulator
39) A remotely controlled stimulator with video
40) A stimulator connected to a server (as in an internet feed).
None of these ideas were even vaguely novel in 1998. Mondo 2000 had a comprehensive issue on teledildonics in 1991 or so and by 1998 products embodying many of them were on the market, though maybe not yet in Joplin MO and Lubbock TX. Is there any history on this? Maybe EFF should add it to the list for patent busting www.eff.org/patent/
1) A device that shows images and simulataneously drives a stimulator (nominally sexual by the specification, but implicitly broader by dependent claim 6, specifying that the stimulation device have at least a sexual function)
8) A remote control stimulator with a hand-held controller
17) two intereconnected stimulation devices, though I find the wording obtuse.
25) An automated system driving a simultaneous image display and stimulator
38) A computer controlled stimulator
39) A remotely controlled stimulator with video
40) A stimulator connected to a server (as in an internet feed).
None of these ideas were even vaguely novel in 1998. Mondo 2000 had a comprehensive issue on teledildonics in 1991 or so and by 1998 products embodying many of them were on the market, though maybe not yet in Joplin MO and Lubbock TX. Is there any history on this? Maybe EFF should add it to the list for patent busting www.eff.org/patent/
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Patent 6,368,268
Thu, October 19, 2006 - 12:12 PMDave, well aware of this as I was the first on the net with a commercial teledildonic device. The patent is owned by trolls. Other players in the field license it such as www.sinulate.com . I really can't say much on the subject as I am in it to deep but for further information do read up on my pal Violet Blue's crusade against the trolls here: www.tinynibbles.com/blogarch...s_yo.html and Slashdot who does teaches open source teledilonics at www.slashdong.org
Companies like the folks that have this patent and companies like Acacia really piss me off. Add them to the list and throw them up against the wall. -
-
Re: Patent 6,368,268
Thu, October 26, 2006 - 9:45 PMVB's post misses the concept of eBay vs. MercExchange. She's wonderful, but her blog would be so much better with an editor... The ruling does help reduce the value to patent holding companies particularly of weak patents and marginally of strong patents. I think the most amusing thing about Kennedy's opinion is the "an injunction may not serve the public interest.” It is an accurate and fair read of the Article I section 8 clause 8, something that seems never to come up in discussion of copyright for some reason...
Anyway, too bad it is being licensed, that hurts the invalidity argument, but good that the holder isn't practicing it.
-David -
-
Re: Patent 6,368,268
Fri, October 27, 2006 - 11:42 AMIndeed.
It is too bad, this whole 'science' of teledildonics is so simple that a patent on it just stiffles any growth.
It's too bad the guys at Sinulate did not have the balls to go it on their own. They are engineers and think like engineers. The folks at HIghjoy really 'get it' and they did not license that absurb patent. They built it out with a excelent toy (the best rabbit vibe on the market IMHO), a community, and other web services.
You got me going back to reread the whole damn patent as it's been a couple of years. Off to the bathroom for some light reading.... -
-
Re: Patent 6,368,268
Sat, October 28, 2006 - 12:45 PMOK, now I'm concerned. Patents as bathroom reading? I mean I enjoy a good patent as much as anyone..
But then again, in this case, the metaphoric proximity of effluent is apropos....
-
-
-
