IBM's I'm-Sorry-Dave-I'm-Afraid-I-Can't-Do-That Patent
from the a-patent-odyssey dept
theodp writes "Astronaut Dave Bowman may have found the HAL-9000 more believable had the Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer been equipped with the technology described in IBM's new patent for Generating paralinguistic phenomena via markup in text-to-speech synthesis. In the patent, IBM describes how you can dupe others into believing they're dealing with a real, live human being by using markup language to feign sadness, anger, laughter, filled pauses (uh, um), breaths, coughs and hesitations (mmm). Here's an example that shows how to make a more lovable HAL: <prosody style="bad news">I'm cough sorry Dave sigh, I'm afraid I can't do that.<prosody>"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents, text-to-speech
Companies: ibm
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sorry Dave
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Patent?!
I've been doing this for many years (in one form or another since the 80's). I call prior art.
Just more proof that you can patent anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IBM Patents a long tradition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IBM Patents a long tradition
Erik Moore sayeth:
Yes, but they haven't been doing it according to the method and system for doing it as described in the patent, wherein the first claim precedes the second claim which is followed by the third claim, all carefully laid out in exacting detail. The patent is for a completely new way of doing things, not like the traditional old way at all. All those who have traditionally been doing it all along had better watch out: they may be infringing on this patent!
To those people advocating interfering in the patent process, I say: if you don't allow patents like this, then why should inventors continue to think up such ideas? It takes real genius to come up with genuinely new ideas worth patenting. Then to discover that other people have been doing the same thing--that just goes to show how the important the idea was in the first place, that everybody can't help themselves but be infringing the patent all along. That shows how important patents are to the economy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IBM Patents a long tradition
Actually, linguists, playwrights and novelists would not be infringing. Read the claims and you will understand why.
I also note that Leapfrog v. Fisher-Price was not considered when the claims were examined. Essentially, the computer was programmed to do what had previous been done by humans in person and on recorded media, and by authors in text. It seems like merely adapting what had been done previously in print and by humans to a new technology was exactly the teaching of Leapfrog.
Similarly, since feigning of emotion is a mental process and does not create a "transformation," these claims also seem to be covered by Bilski. However, the claims were allowed before Bilski was decided, so Bilski would not have been a factor during prosecution, but surely would in any court case.
I also think the examiner gave up a little too quickly after IBM responded to the one and only office action in this case.
If I was an investor and patents could be invested in, I would not be investing in this one. I think it is imminently challengeable. Of course, IBM could also have filed for this one as a defensive patent rather than an offensive patent, and they may allow the patent to expire when the three and a half year maintenance fee comes due.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Give me your answer do!
I'm half crazy,
All for the love of you!
It won't be a stylish marriage,
I can't afford a carriage,
But you'll look sweet on the seat
Of a bicycle built for two...</prosody>
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.loquendo.com/en/demos/interactive_tts_demo.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]