Microsoft Patent Monetizes Your TV Remote 234
theodp writes "Microsoft, reports GeekWire, is seeking a patent on monetizing the buttons of your TV remote. In its application for a patent on 'Control-based Content Pricing,' Microsoft explains how one can jack up the cable bill of those who dare fast-forward past a diaper commercial or replay a sports highlight. From the patent application: 'If a user initiates a navigation control input to advance past (e.g., skip over) an advertisement, the cost of a requested on-demand movie may be increased. Similarly, if a user initiates a replay of a sporting event, the user may be charged for the replay control input and for each subsequent view control input.'"
too late (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Same here, what I'd like to know is if they will use their other patented / patent application stuff to really ream it down your throat.
Eye tracking with a camera, monitor your "blood pressure, heart rate, etc." Maybe use it to show commercials for statins. I don't know.
I did my part to help Microsoft go under. I've boycotted their products since 2005, and haven't bought a single thing from them. I keep a copy of XP SP2 in a vm just in case, but it never gets used, and will be obsolete soon anyway...
Fortuna
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the Kinnect could be used to see if you are watching the advert.
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of a commercial break there will be a series of questions to see if you were paying attention.
Re:too late (Score:5, Interesting)
At the end of a commercial break there will be a series of questions to see if you were paying attention.
I can think of *so* many ways to leverage this kind of thinking:
i) shoes that detect when they're being put on, automatically debiting your chequing acct. for each use, and for each step taken in them.
ii) Shirts that detect when they're being buttoned up. Ditto for zippers. Add modifiers for when used long sleeved, or rolled up.
iii) sunglasses that charge per solar day.
iv) clothing that detects seasons and charges by the year.
v) & etc.
I'm glad I'm not going to live long enough to see that world. The rest of you are welcome to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:too late (Score:4, Interesting)
They did an across the board price increase, so I called and dropped a few packages so that I'm now paying less.
And after a few months, I find that I'm not missing the channels that I dropped.
The next price hike, I'll likely do the same thing.
I may not even wait that long. As the content to advertising ratio keeps getting worse, it makes me want to spend even less time in front of the tube.
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen to your subconscious and give up the cable!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
& etc.
"etc." means "et cetera". Using "&" before it means you don't know its meaning. Stop using it.
Re: (Score:3)
I want something like that for my ass, to count the kisses they'd have to give it for every idea like that.
Why the fuck does anyone think anyone will put up with that crap? After I bought something, it's mine, and whatever remote control you put in goes out the nanosecond I find out it's there.
When you want me to buy your crap, you better give me what I want. I don't give half a turd what you, the seller, want in your product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:too late (Score:4, Funny)
Then I for one am glad they don't build Pacemakers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft set back personal computing by, I would say. at least five years with their hanging on to Windows-for-DOS (ie the Win95/98/ME series) long after even entry level PCs were capable of running a half-decent OS in the form of WinNT (lets not even mention Unix/Xenix/Linux). Back in 1995 they could have produced a lightweight version of NT for popular use instead of the Win95 crap that they pushed for another 5 ye
Re: (Score:3)
I skipped this article.
And now you owe Slashdot double your subscription rate, filthy pirate.
On a more serious note, if someone is already paying for TV, who the fuck thinks they should pay again?
Oh, right, content providers. And, of course, Microsoft (can I say Micro$oft this time, seems appropriate).
I guess I can't complain, being a Linux user with no cable TV (nor any torrents, Hulu, Netflix, etc.) In fact, I can almost chuckle at it and hope it drives more customers away. One can hope...
Re:too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, pay for cable, watch commercials, we are double paying for everything, and all for re-runs and rehashes of old shows. I think it's time to quit TV and go totally internet.
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
But the powers that be are trying to turn the internet into TV. So where does that leave us?
Re:too late (Score:4, Insightful)
The more they nickel and dime us, the more people will be driven to much more convenient methods of distribution - i.e. piracy.
I am finding less and less companies that I am willing to give my money.
Re: (Score:2)
Because "they" aren't working together. The cableco doesn't give a shit about what you're watching and the content providers don't give a shit where their feed is hitting your eyes.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no real problem with that. I'd rather watch a show where everyone's using the products of a particular brand, and not be interrupted for an ad, than watch a show which is constantly being interrupted for ads but has only generic products used. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome (and the status quo) is we get both.
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh hey, while we come up with a plan for what to do, let's go to Subway and get the new cheesy melty Philly Sub."
"Oh man, that sounds delicious."
"YEAH I KNOW and It's only $5!"
"Wow, that's such a great idea!"
Switch to a scene of them at subway unwrapping their sub.
"Oh, it's so good. What did you get?"
"I got the $5 club. It's got..."
"That's great, so what's the plan?"
Not even exaggerating. They had an episode too where one of the characters escaped a kidnapping just because h
Re: (Score:3)
Chuck did the super-obvious product placements on purpose; it was part of the humor (as well as actually being a product placement). Usually it worked, sometimes it didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Future? Have you watched TV lately? This is very pervasive already.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. I'll put a nickel in an envelope and send it COD.
well fuck you! (Score:3, Insightful)
and you realy expect people dont find ways to steal media content from the web?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:well fuck you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, they're certainly not doing anything to discourage it when they roll out stupid bullshit like this...
You know an industry is fucked up to the core when customers are treated like adversaries right off the bat. I won't shop in a store where I'm made to feel like a thief the moment I walk in the door, and that's precisely what all this crap does. As a corollary to that, I'm extremely short on sympathy for those that do treat their customers that way and end up with large portions of the population comfortable with ripping them off.
A survey [slashdot.org] a few months ago found that 70% of people in the U.S. think it's reasonable to share music with family and friends. Now, the RIAA will stamp their feet and gnash their teeth at that, but the fact of the matter is, the majority of the people of this country do not see a problem with it. They can choose to ignore this and throw billions of dollars at court costs and all the other bullshit related to music piracy, or they can start more closely examining why it is that so many people out there don't have any moral compunction trading music back and forth in the first place. I suppose one could say "Well, that just proves that most people are thieves...." but still, when that many people openly do something that is technically illegal, maybe it's time to start examining those laws. If laws are passed that make the vast majority of the population "criminals", then there's obviously something wrong with the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The well publicized examples where we see individuals as opposed to corps benefitting from copyright are few, and tend to be for people like Rowling, who engender little sympathy due to their wealth.
If more individual small scale copyright holders were on display, the public might care more.
Re:well fuck you! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I pay for pay-per-view, then yes, I feel kinda entitled to watch the damn movie without them meddling with it. When I buy a DVD, I feel kinda entitled to watch the damn thing without first having to clean the kitchen to avoid the unskipable ads.
Get the idea?
When you sell me a product, I feel damn well entitled to use it!
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to the free market: Supply & demand.
There is a demand, thus a supply appears. Let's weigh the choices of pirating. Free high quality commercial free content I can watch instantly as many times as I want. No DRM. Any digital content ever produced can be obtained
OR
a cable service I pay too much for, with pre-set schedules, commercials louder than the program (which I'm now paying to watch) that I can't fast forward, pause, or rewind (unless I pay for it) and the content is locked into my cable box
Re: (Score:2)
...which brings up an interesting question of how something like this could be considered novel enough to be patent worth when any Myth user could replciate this Microsoft atrocity with some shell scripting.
let's be consistent (Score:5, Funny)
Does the patent cover giving the customer a refund if she pushes the "off" button?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, no, no, the service is to supply you with the opportunity to watch these shows as streamed. Fast forwarding... woah. That is skipping ahead, dear boy/girl/thing. That is using excess media enjoyment entertainment. Why, user, you are stealing when you fast forward. You should be glad we aren't suing you for theft instead of offering you an instant settlement.
In fact, by turning off your television you are wasting entertainment that could have gone elsewhere. Refund, dear boy/girl/thing? You should
Re:let's be consistent (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't get it. Pushing the off button is equivalent to skipping all of the advertising, so you will have to pay even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...
Both of you pay....
Nope...
It's the American way after all.
Re: (Score:3)
How such a system could look like has been presented in Charlie Brookers "Black Mirror - 15 Million Credits". I think that ought to count as prior art. I'm still in favor of the patent though - having ideas like that patented at least makes them more expensive to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but the system we have in place today has nothing to do with capitalism anymore.
Re:let's be consistent (Score:4, Funny)
Or do I get paid if I fast forward through the movie to get to the ads because they have better script, acting and are overall more entertaining?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... considering how useless the average commenters are today, I wouldn't notice much of a difference.
Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, I do not have a TV and dropped that waste of time about 8 years ago. Never missed it since then.
With the amount of stupidity that idiot box pours out these days, that sheer amorality of this patent does not surprise me. The source does not either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder whether the patent applies to _that_ situation? Probably does with the over-broad patents granted today.
Re:Fortunately I don't habe a TV remote (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I already pay for Radio having an Internet-capable PC. (The amount of stupidity I encountered when I asked them what they meant by "Media Player" and that I was unable to find a "play radio" function in Linux was incredible.) They wanted to introduce that for TV as well here, but that would have caused a major upheaval and probably abolishment of the institution that collects these fees (and wastes about half of them).
Re: (Score:2)
I dropped TV completely. I was using a TV card in my PC before, so the foot is still intact ;-)
I do download some series to watch on my PC, but that is it.
See also (Score:3, Informative)
Now where have I heard this idea before... Ah, right! [smbc-comics.com]
Though to be fair, the patent seems to have come first (Filing date: Mar 19, 2004, Issue date: Nov 22, 2011, WTF.) Great minds think alike?
I will always make sure... (Score:4, Interesting)
...that my TV is receive-only. No pay-TV, no on-demand, just unencrypted broadcasts. If you can't deliver that, I will just stop watching. Your move.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of pushback on stuff like this has nothing whatsoever with tinfoil and everything with some businesses attempting to foist needless complexity upon the consumer with no benefit to the consumer whatsoever.
All in the name of monetization.
Gawd, the spellcheck did not flag that bit of stupid business jargon as a "not-word."
jeg opgiv
--
BMO - monetize the eschaton.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us never bothered to get an ATSC tuner since the switch to digital TV in 2009.
What's the point?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
That might work as long as the TV is the only system connected with a variable power uptake, but given the amount of electronics, from TV to PC to game consoles, to stereos... that have very variable power consumption, I guess trying to determine the TV program from the power consumption will be kinda hard.
Maybe MS will help us out here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe MS will help us out here (Score:4, Insightful)
If they get the patent they can charge so much for the license that none of the media companies will buy it.
I think the favour they're doing us is thus: making it so onerous to watch TV that people simply turn it off, cancel their cable, and suddenly realize that they don't even miss it.
Mediaroom (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that easy.
I guess that what they really want is to make you pay according to the usefulness to you.
Theoretically, you will pay for a good as long as its price gives you more usefulness than the same money spent in any other good (say books / internet / going out). Of course, the tricky point is determining that point.
Right now, consumers who only have a small interest in TV just don't get suscribed. In the other hand, users which could not live without their favorite series pay the same that people who
fsck you microsoft! (Score:3)
So if I burp in a restaurant (Score:2)
are they going to charge me twice and if they do, is Microsoft going to sue them for patient infringement?
Black Mirror (Score:2)
Anyone else thinking of the second episode of Black Mirror [wikipedia.org]? Hey Microsoft, let me give you a hint: that story was intended as a joke or dystopia, not an ideal to strive for.
Re: (Score:2)
yep, this is the first thing i thought of.
RESUME VIEWING
RESUME VIEWING
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - I was looking for a clip of it on Youtube to post here - but they don't have any - a shame because that programme had a great many quotable moments.
Yet another reason to torrent TV shows (Score:2, Offtopic)
I don't even own a TV any more -- my computer is my media center. I became addicted to PVR technology in the US when I had DirecTV with TiVO.
When I moved back to Canada, torrents took the place of the TiVO. I'd become addicted to the idea of watching shows when I want to, instead of on some arbitrary schedule. I expected I'd watch more TV seeing as I could watch it whenever I want, but instead what happened is I started watching less -- a lot less.
For some reason, once I broke the mentality of "slav
A better way of advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing advertisers don't seem to understand is that I actually like catching a new ad when I watch TV at a friend's place. Many of them are very artistic, cute, and funny.
But even a good joke told 5-6 times per day wears thin.
It's the broadcast time that is the majority of the expense for most advertisements, not the creation of the content. Stop torturing people with the same joke 50-60 times per week for a month at a time, and maybe they'll stop skipping over the ads. Show a new ad each day, or at least once a week.
But stop trying to hammer your "message" into us by repeating yourself ad-nauseum at full volume dozens of times per week. All you're doing is pissing off people and forcing them to use torrents and PVRs to escape your tripe.
Modern advertising is as annoying and effective as a two or three year old yelling "Mommie, mommie, mommie, can we..." over and over for three hours straight, trying to wear down their parents.
It's my money in the end. I'm not going to spend it on your products or give it to you just because you nag like a child. In fact, I'm likely to use your competitor's product because they're not insulting my intelligence and harassing me.
Re: (Score:2)
That goes for the companies that set up "newsletters" as well. I can't tell you how many "newsletters" I've subscribed to over the years to keep tabs on a companies products, only to be inundated by weekly "specials" trying to sell me their old stuff, which I've already bought if I wanted it. Needless to say, I've unsubscribed to every single one of those email lists within a month.
Give me information about new products in your newsletter, not a regurgitated nag to buy last year's model.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we dropped our cable (again) about 6 months ago for several reasons.
The first reason was that there was quite literally nothing I wanted to watch on the channels available. The shows I *do* want to watch are not broadcast here
The second reason was that at ~$99/mo for basic cable, internet and home telephone through Shaw it was priced well beyond reasonable. When we signed up they gave us 6 months at almost half that price. When that expired we cancelled.
The third reason was that when you watch a TV sh
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a basic 1.5Mbit DSL or cable link from SaskTel or Access Cable here in Saskatchewan pretty much anywhere in the province for $25/month, roughly the same price as a land line. Sure I pay for a $60/month upgraded link, but that's because I need upload capacity for work, not because I needed faster downloads or couldn't stream video and audio just fine at 1.5Mbit.
Faster services are meant
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't actually timed it, but my gut tells me your 25% statistic is very conservative, I'd swear advertising time is closer to 40%. Maybe not but it sure feels like it, particularly on some channels. One thing I'm sure of, commercial breaks keep growing longer year after year.
What the hell am I paying for anyway- to watch freakin' commercials?? I'm probably wrong, but wasn't the original idea of cable to watch TV without having to watch advertisements
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of Wrigley field.
This "advertising problem" is nothing new really.
It aint the "World Series" because it's supposed to be the world championship...
Oh, companies... (Score:3)
Might be a "Good Thing"... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about it this way: If anyone does try to implement this type of thing, they have to pay Micro$oft for the Patent.
Now, if they don't wish to put such a financial burden on a system such as this, (thus increasing its cost, and reducing its appeal to the end user), they'd opt to leave such a feature out.
Active DISCOURAGEMENT of a Bad Idea by Patenting it, so they can actually DENY it to folks, and the right to Sue if anyone actually Infringes!
Big Oil has been doing this for years, tho: Buying up high fuel efficiency ideas, patenting them, and Denying them to anyone, and suing them into the ground if they try to bypass their patent.
Not that I'm For such a "feature" on any system I'd subscribe to. This would be a decent way to head such a heinous money-grab off at the pass!
Maybe "Uncle Bills' Kids" aren't as bad as we all thought...
That, or I'm simply seeing a possibility that others are far more likely to Implement than avoid...
In THAT case, say Hello to rampant 'Product Placement' as revenue! After all, I don't see ANYONE wanting a system like this anywhere near their wallet!
Replay advertisement for free TV? (Score:2, Funny)
So if you replay the advertisement instead of skipping it, you should be charged less for the movie. Yay!
Dogbert Static Network (Score:2)
I'd pay for the DSN [dilbert.com] channel in addition to my regular ones, and switch to it during the commercials. And leave it to Dogbert to handle Microsoft or whoever the content provider of the advertized channel is.
One up on Apple (Score:2)
just get a dish and don't hook it to the phone lin (Score:2)
just get a dish and don't hook it to the phone line.
Both dish and directv don't force you to hook there boxes to the internet or the phone line any more.
This is great! (Score:2)
So this means they're going to give me the option to pay a little extra and automatically skip commercials right? Right...?
Who needs cable ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more abuse, and expense, from cable companies? Why do people put up with up?
You can watch practically anything on the internet. Not to mention services like netflix, hulu, or amazon, for about $8 a month. I have heard of people paying $190 a month for comcast.
Also, I think there are ways to get HDTV from broadcast signals.
Go to a sports bar for those special events (Score:2)
Or just don't watch sports, it's a total waste of time.
As if posting on slashdot is more productive.
Lame (Score:2)
Alternate motive? (Score:5, Funny)
Just no (Score:3)
No... I'm going to give you the same answer to this type of garbage that I alway's have:
READ your TOS - as far as I can tell, and that some laywer friends of mine can tell, and unless there is something specifically stating this in YOUR TOS, You are NOT liable for 'skipping advertising of any kind' when you sign your agreement with your local broadcasting company.
The advert's are nothing more than a nuisance to most people, and do absolutely nothing except provide for 'snack/bathroom break' time during the show. As far as 'advertisers/distributors /producers' aiming to make thier money back by violating your eyeballs, tough luck, they didn't pay directly for that privelege.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: Terms Of Service are subject to change. And who reads them anyway?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and figure that most people who watch the WWE [wwe.com] or NASCAR [nascar.com] pay-per-view programs aren't particularly well versed in contract law.
next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)
...we'll start getting "Drive by Rewinds"
A bunch of geeks high on red-bull and cheesy puffs in a 4x4 armed to the teeth with universal remote controls.
Driving the suburbs, Sega beats blaring from their iPhones, aiming their remo's at the houses pressing the rewind button.
Costing the poor householder $$$ in MS rewind fees...
My friend did this... (Score:2)
it's things like this... (Score:2)
It comes down to this: If hitting the forward and back buttons are going to start costing me money, I'll find a way to view content where that doesn't apply. The content providers don't yet understand, even after
Only one proper response to this: (Score:2)
TV Caused my Blindness (Score:2)
I still can't get the last thing I saw on tv out of mind. It was such a blinding confusion of color and screeching sound that I'm now permanently blind from it. Can the Queen save God?
Although we still have a cable box, the only reason the TV is even used is for the local news so we'll be dropping that soon. Hell I don't watch it and haven't really missed it in the last 10 years because there's nothing intligent on and I'd rather read a good book.
Re: (Score:2)
No! It cannot be! If they refuse to buy our crap, it can only mean that they're stealing it!
Don't tell me you never heard that derailed train of logic before...
Re:Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads
You mean like slashdot subscriptions?
Re: (Score:2)
why would anyone use a service that forced them to pay to skip ads
You mean like slashdot subscriptions?
Wait, slashdot has ads?
Re:Pointless, will not work without a monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, if you participate regularly, SlashDot gives you the option to skip ads even without being a paying subscriber. Because of that, I don't block their ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. The checkbox is there, but I don't tick it. I'm so used to ads on the internet by now that my brain edits them out, so I simply don't see them.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree with that. I never even noticed slashdot has ads until I was presented with that option to turn them off and finally noticed one. I have yet to actually use that option. Perhaps we can get a statistic on how many readers have that options and have left the ads running?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
how about justifying constitutionality in patents (Score:2)
The US constitution gives Congress the power to grant patents to "promote science and the useful arts". How do patents like this promote either? Note that "business" is not an art-that falls under interstate commerce regulation (clearly not mentioned in the section describing justification for patents).
I, for one, would love to see the courts start throwing out abuses of the law happening all over the place that don't meet a plain reading of the constitution as it was understood by the rgular voters who r
Re: (Score:2)
This insanity makes any sort of "disconnected" media experience have more value. It doesn't have to be piracy. It could be a conventional DVD player.
You don't have to pirate in order to accumulate a media stockpile that allows you to turn your back on this sort of crap.