Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

1. 

   alternatives, 22 Jun 2004 @ 8:11pm

   
   

   IBM had demonstrated 'human modems'

   IBM had a cig-case sized device that was able to be a 2400 BPS modem and would 'detect' when one wearer of the device would touch another wearer.
   
   The idea was 'to exchage business cards with just a handshake' VS the 'beaming' of a business card in the Newton/Palm model.
   
   With Bluetooth, the 'need' "went away"

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Dan, 23 Jun 2004 @ 7:00am

   
   

   Prior art!!!

   
   Wouldn't lightning be considered prior art? It definitely conducts power through the human body in some instances. And it's definitely been around longer than MS.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   BoilerBob, 23 Jun 2004 @ 7:38am

   
   

   Re: Prior art!!!

   Maybe BillG is Ben Franklin reincarnated. Just think about the simaliarities, they both wear glasses, they both innovate (well that's what Bill calls it) and they are both very popular with the ladies.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Mikester, 23 Jun 2004 @ 8:34am

   
   

   Enter the...

   Will it be the blue pill or the red pill?...

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   PhilTR, 23 Jun 2004 @ 10:30am

   
   

   No Subject Given

   Does that mean that M$ can tax every man, woman and child using this system to operate the appliances placed on or near the body or sue them for patent infringment?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Nate, 23 Jun 2004 @ 2:02pm

   
   

   Easter favorite

   Anybody remember those little chicks that you got at Easter that chirped when you were holding them in your hand? Your body completed the electrical circuit via metal contacts on the bottom to power the sound chip. Pretty much thinking that prior art is there.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2004 @ 2:10pm

   
   

   Re: No Subject Given

   Of course! What's wrong with that?

   [ link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   Håkon Styri, 24 Jun 2004 @ 2:30am

   
   

   Prior art

   At least for the informal discussion US patent 166,096 (aka the "animal tissue patent") would be a starting point.
   
   Why "animal tissue"?
   
   The patent office initially rejected this application (filed in 1874), on the grounds that one could not patent a circuit which included a person. The patent was accepted when the inventor, Elisha Gray, replaced the person with a reference to animal tissue.

   [ link to this | view in thread ]