Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents Businesses Your Rights Online

Amazon Seeks 1-Nod Ordering Patent 194

Posted by timothy
from the sold-to-the-gentleman-with-the-slight-facial-tic dept.
theodp writes "Amazon.com is famous for its patented 1-Click ordering system. But what about 1-Nod ordering? Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is seeking a patent on a system that would let people make purchases with a nod, a smile, or even a raise of the eyebrow. Bezos' invention — 'Movement Recognition as Input Mechanism' — envisions a computing device that could interpret certain facial expressions and enhance or potentially replace conventional input devices such as keypads and touch screens."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Seeks 1-Nod Ordering Patent

Comments Filter:
  • by cjonslashdot (904508) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @09:20AM (#32468282)
    I wonder if it would be possible to mount a class action lawsuit against the Patent Office, listing a volume of inappropriate software patents, and challenging them all based on the same allegation of incorrect application of patent case law. The plaintiffs could be the industry of software authors who are prevented from using the "methods" in these specious patents.
  • by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Saturday June 05, 2010 @10:07AM (#32468460) Homepage Journal

    Please do that.

    But you'll have to come up with a metric for "innovation", because the number of patents registered is what governments use today ... We know sucks, but come up with a better one.

  • Suggested prior art (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, 2010 @10:26AM (#32468560)

    In patents, it's just the claims that count (that's what the monopoly is on).

    For most of the claims, the "Mind Reading Machines" display at the Royal Society Summer Exhibition 2006, and associated papers from University of Cambridge, seems like prior art. It analysed facial expressions to infer affective state, charting estimates (on the user interface) of how likely it was that the user was expressing interest, confusion, etc. (So, lots of changing the UI based on analysing video images and motion of parts of someone's face, threshholds, etc)

    Various eye-tracking devices seem like prior art for other claims. For instance, there are plenty of applications for controlling a mouse or selecting text via eye-tracking.

    A publication from Japan, which detected a user moving his gaze from one screen to another and highlighted the mouse location on the destination screen, seems to be prior art for a few of the ones that use the orientation with respect to the device.

    It's quite possible that later "dependent claims" down the list might get through -- but they are likely to be so constrained as to have little effect.

APL hackers do it in the quad.

Working...