IBM Patents Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Movies

from the choose-this dept

Wed, Sep 15th 2010 2:34pm — Mike Masnick

theodp writes "Thirty-three years ago, the Choose Your Own Adventure series of kids books was introduced. But that didn't stop the USPTO from granting IBM U.S. Patent No. 7,784,069 for Selecting Divergent Storylines Using Branching Techniques, fancy lawyer-speak for choose-your-own-adventure movies. Nice to see the USPTO recognize purported patent reformer Big Blue for its 'invention' - never mind that there's already an app for that!"

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: choose your own adventure, movies, patents

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

MissingFrame, 15 Sep 2010 @ 2:40pm

Dragon's Lair
The Dragon's Lair videogame was a laserdisc choose-the-path movie, 1983.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re: Dragon's Lair
  Better yet, Infocom was founded in '79.
  
  Where do I apply to be a patent examiner? Sounds like a cushy job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 7:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Dragon's Lair
    I wonder how much IBM paid these patent examiners to approve this patent. I can be rich!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re: Dragon's Lair
  Beat me to it! Yeah, Dragon's Lair already did this. The design engineers on that classic appear to have missed the boat on patenting a rather OBVIOUS TECHNOLOGY. That's probably what they thought at the time, if they even entertained the idea of a patent...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 2:49pm

Prior art
I have a Harry Potter movie on HD-DVD that had a game on it where you could chose your path to get out of the woods. Does that count as prior art?

@MissingFrame:
I remember those. I don't think it was Dragon's Lair, but I remember laserdisc games like that in high school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very Bad Panda (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 3:53pm

The Sounds like Scourge of Worlds
The movie/game The Scourge of Worlds: A Dungeons & Dragons Adventure was released on DVD on June 10, 2003. IBM filed for this patent on December 1, 2003. Co-winky-dink? Hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jjmsan, 15 Sep 2010 @ 3:53pm

Friday's and Monday's
I wonder if there is an increase in patent approvals on Friday afternoon with a corresponding decrease on Monday mornings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 4:39pm

Ok, theodp sends 2 ridiculous patents, both happen to be filed by IBM. You have no commentary on either, just the quote (I am sure it has nothing to the banner ad).

Granted you generally add very little to "theodp writes" entries if anything at all, these ones just look peculiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 4:53pm

USA are going crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re:
  you say that as if it's new.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not That Chris (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 5:58pm

I knew I'd seen something like this before, and it took a minute to find it: Mr. Payback, released in 1995.

Not a game, an actual theater-based movie where the audience was given an electronic pad and "voted" on the action the characters would take. According to the trivia blurb, the audience was even allowed to see the movie several times to pick different paths.

My question at this point is: When you get to be a patent examiner, do they provide it for you or do those heartless government bastards make you buy your own?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is bliss, 15 Sep 2010 @ 6:34pm

Read the actual claim language .... this is far more complicated than simply voting on an action a character would take.

A method for selecting a logical branch in a storyline among a plurality of available storyline branches on a computing device, based on voters' votes, comprising: obtaining and accumulating, the votes from the voters on a computing device for at least one of the plurality of available storyline branches, during the presentation of the storyline; selectively excluding votes, using the computing device, based on voter characteristics from the accumulated votes for a specific storyline branch; multiplying, using the computing device, at least one received vote by a weight factor based on voter characteristics, the weighting factor being based on at least ticket pricing; calculating, using the computing device, a total for the accumulated and weighted votes; and determining, using the computing device, a winning tally that corresponds to one of the plurality of available storyline branches; selecting and presenting, using the computing device, at least one of the available storyline branches with the winning tally as a future storyline branch during the presentation of the storyline, and generating, using the computing device, a media version matrix specifying a selected storyline having a particular set of logical branches selected by the voting for later use and retrieval, by recording each selected corresponding storyline branch of the plurality of available storyline branches on the computing device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re:
  Agreed. This is not a patent on choose-your-own-adventure movies. The patent is about allowing a group of people to vote to choose the adventure, more specifically it relates to allowing some votes to count more than other votes and calculating the weight of each vote.
  
  Mike missed or failed to mention that this type of system could allow for tiered ticket pricing at the movie theater, where you pay more to have more influence over the story. This type of system could also encourage people to see a movie more than one time in the theater as each showing may have a slightly different story. Mike goes on and on about changing business models. Here is an attempt to create a reason to buy and techdirt dismisses it as obvious and bad for innovation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 7:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And what exactly about applying a voting system that has been around for decades to a CYOA method that has been around for decades is not obvious?
    
    Oh, right. Nothing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 7:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I agree. How much R&D did IBM have to invest to implement this? The answer, none. This is not patent worthy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 7:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (err, to come up with it *)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you read the patent?
      
      Did I say it was a good patent?
      
      The point was that the title of the article is misleading. This is not a patent the covers the concept of CYOA movies. Patents do not cover concepts, patents cover a specific method. There is a lot more to the patent than simply CYOA, more than CYOA+voting. More interesting than the patent is the attempt to give movie goers a reason to buy, a reason to pay more and a reason to buy again.
      
      This patent won't hold anything back. It won't prevent other from doing something similar.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Did you read the patent?" - Yes. Did you? Why are we asking silly questions?
        
        "Did I say it was a good patent?" - No. Of course you didn't, as that is your typical mode of useless replies. You did however imply that the patent was not obvious by whining about Mike's dismissal of the obvious patent. Oops.
        
        Fun fact that you, of course, conveniently ignore: Nothing is stopping IBM from offering this excitingly non-obvious and totally innovative concept (which is exactly what the patent covers, oops!)...without a patent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 9:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        None of the examples of CYOA movies in the comments include all of the elements in the patent. If the all of the claims of the patent, used together, are so obvious then why is it not being done already? Because its not obvious, oops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 11:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It has been done, since the 70's at least and it was done countless times in one form or another, if that is not an obvious find then we do have a problem and probably you suffer from Dunning–Kruger effect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Show me one example that uses all of the elements described in the patent. Just one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Sep 2010 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Combining the obvious is not patent-worthy. At least it shouldn't be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem is that the question of obviousness is tricky. Reminds me of this techdirt article:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml
        
        You really need to read further than the title to understand a patent and exactly what it covers. Most of the comments here on techdirt seem to assume that all patent examiners are complete idiots.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Sep 2010 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most of them are. This one in particular.
        
        Voting for outcome has been kicked around at least since Dragon's Lair came out. Probably earlier. The problem has always been implementation, which I don't see addressed here.
        
        The sole "innovation" in this patent is to weigh some votes differently. Well, hell's bells, who'd have thought that a *particular form of voting* was patent worthy in this situation?
        
        Some moron with a rubber stamp and a government job, aside.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 11:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is wrong with you, people showed the exact same concepts used over and over again and you are saying it is not?
        
        Brain blindness?(just to be nice my first thought was not that light)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You obviously did not read the patent. Again, its not a patent on CYOA movies, its a particular way to go about some things related to CYOA movies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Sep 2010 @ 4:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, we read the patent. It's a particular *type* of voting to determine the outcome of CYOA movies. I suppose it's non-obvious in the sense of who would think that wasn't obvious and file for a patent?
        
        Scott L. Jarrett, patent examiner, should be ashamed of himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously? Did you just use that failure of logical reasoning? Now I know why you're so afraid of supporting an argument: you are terrible at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 11:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/03225710210.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lolocafera (profile), 17 Sep 2010 @ 5:18am
  
  Re:
  That sounds interesting. I will go and develop another method to do exactly the same things, and patent it too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2010 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Right, thats how the system works. Go ahead and do a search for mouse trap patents - you'll find lots of them. There is no patent on the concept of trapping a mouse, just like there is no patent on the concept of CYOA movies. There is more than one way to reach a goal. You are free to come up with your own unique method of dealing with CYOA movies and you are free to patent that method, it just has to be different than whatever prior art there may be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:01pm

Slashdot comment says it best
Reposted from the comments on Slashdot:

by alvinrod (889928)
on Wednesday September 15, @09:01PM (#33595068)

I suggest that everyone view this talk [swpat.org] regarding patents and open source software. It focuses on how open source developers can maneuver around patents, but also provides a lot of information regarding how patents can be better understood. After viewing this presentation, I've realized how moronic a lot of posts on Slashdot regarding patents truly are.

After watching the video and examining the patent [uspto.gov] it seems rather trivial to dance around it. It's a completely stupid thing to patent, but it isn't going to impede anyone who develops something similar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:03pm
  
  Re: Slashdot comment says it best
  Link to talk:
  http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan Carroll, 15 Sep 2010 @ 9:02pm

Weathered Underground: A Choose Your Own Adventure movie
Good point, this article is misleading. Check out Weathered Underground, a choose your own adventure movie that features the music of Saturna and tons of other great music!!

http://saturna.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/wu-cmj/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2010 @ 9:17pm

Youtube implementation of the thing.

Look at the "Joker vs. Batman" or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/user/PatrickBoivin#p/c/22201739CD623706

This patent is just ridiculous, everyone on earth thought about it and there is hundreds of implementations there is nothing unique or innovative.

But my guess is, those details doesn't matter companies are just exploiting the holes the system gives them, because if they don't someone else will so they keep turning out more and more weak patents and they keep getting accepted.

I almost believe they want to humiliate the patent office.

Remember those days when people could brag about having a patent? Those who do today will be called names for doing so, because it is not hard anymore, it is not impressive it is just damn stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  If its so easy then show me your patents. There are bad patents but obtaining them is not as easy as you think. Please go ahead and prove me wrong by obtaining your own bad patent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 16 Sep 2010 @ 5:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "There are bad patents but obtaining them is not as easy as you think."
    
    What point do you think you're making, exactly?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2010 @ 7:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "because it is not hard anymore"
      
      Prove it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 17 Sep 2010 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, e.g., above.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2010 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Software examples are no covered by the patent. Home viewing is not what the patent is about. Which example specifically are you referring to?
        
        The examples presented here do not relate to the patent. Since you claim to have read it you should know that. I can only assume that you have a reading comprehension problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 20 Sep 2010 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are you talking about? I no home viewing covered by the patent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Harrison, 16 Sep 2010 @ 3:16am

Quantum effects....
Surely, if the Multiple Divergent Realities model of Quantum Physics turns out to be correct, then EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE has a plurality of available story lines, and it's only chance that any given viewer happens to end up in the one (s)he actually sees :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
staff, 17 Sep 2010 @ 12:23pm

misdirection
With a backlog of about 700,000 patent applications, it's not about the patents that issue. It's about those that don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]