Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Motorola Patent Uses Neck Tattoo As Microphone

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the zaps-user-when-visiting-bing dept.

Patents 51

nk497 writes "A Motorola Mobility patent application proposes using an 'electronic skin tattoo' as a smartphone microphone and wireless transceiver. The temporary tattoo would also include a 'power supply configured to receive energizing signals from a personal area network,' according to the filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office. It would be applied to 'a throat region of a body' — otherwise known as the neck. Motorola thinks the technology would be ideal for noisy environments, such as large stadiums and busy streets, or in emergency situations."

cancel ×

51 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OCTattoos (3, Informative)

xenoc_1 (140817) | about 9 months ago | (#45379661)

Peter F. Hamilton's OCTattos from his Commonwealth Saga become reality.

Re:OCTattoos (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 9 months ago | (#45379717)

Peter F. Hamilton's OCTattos from his Commonwealth Saga become reality.

At one time I would have preferred neural nanonics. But I'm not so sure any more. The way things are going we'd end up with thought police.

Re:OCTattoos (1)

xhrit (915936) | about 9 months ago | (#45379963)

More like Rick Priestley's Skinplants & Electoos from Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader, circa 1987.

Here is a picture of the tatoo (1)

deviated_prevert (1146403) | about 9 months ago | (#45379699)

666

Re:Here is a picture of the tatoo (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45383117)

It might as well be, this creates the possibility of sending your personal privacy square to hell.
What idiot wants to use this? Turn your body into a broadcasting station that anyone with some gumption could tap at will.
Way to go Motorola, do you still have the taste of ass on your lips? Did the NSA buy you dinner first? Go Die.

In the patent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379705)

They use a tramp stamp as a speaker.

Re:In the patent... (2)

game kid (805301) | about 9 months ago | (#45379759)

You might be on to something. If a loud female causes males to..."yield" more, then a tattooed spank amplifier may well add to that and leave her utterly drenched.

Re:In the patent... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#45379785)

Considering where they are usually located, I'm NOT interested in listening to THAT music!

Re:In the patent... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45383159)

One on each cheek and your headphones become an asshat. You know you wanna...

Re:In the patent... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45383143)

Gives new depth and possibility to the joke about telling the fellatrix to " speak into this microphone".

lolwut? (-1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 9 months ago | (#45379715)

So they ripped off one of the plot devices in the reimaged Total Recall, amongst others. Wow. Such originality.

Re:lolwut? (1)

holostarr (2709675) | about 9 months ago | (#45379829)

The technology might have been envisioned artistically by others, but the actual mechanics of such system is certainly patent worthy.

Re:lolwut? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45380073)

A wireless version of 1940's tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone

A tattoo, by definitiion, is ink within a layer of the skin. The USPTO is broken.

Re:lolwut? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45383189)

Yeah jeez who'd a thought of embedding a micro piezo element in ink, I'm so overwhelmed, aren't they the company that invented fire as well?
Perhaps I should patent the middle finger as a communications device and give them a call...

Obviously incompatible with . . . (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 9 months ago | (#45379719)

. . . neckbeards . . .

Re:Obviously incompatible with . . . (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 9 months ago | (#45379739)

I was thinking, for the Slashdot crowd, it could be a tattoo of a neckbeard...

personal area network? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 9 months ago | (#45379729)

Time to learn to type with my dick.

Re:personal area network? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 9 months ago | (#45383235)

It's easy, Cheech and Chong beat Motorola to that patent. http://www.last.fm/music/Cheech+&+Chong/_/Acupuncture [www.last.fm]
Wonderful demonstration of playing a xylophone by only stimulating a few nerves.
I'm pretty sure it's an open patent, so get out your pincushion and go to town....

This is just plain sick. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379745)

There's not much else to say.

Re:This is just plain sick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379797)

There's not much else to say.

Why is it sick?

But do they have a working model? (5, Insightful)

rollingcalf (605357) | about 9 months ago | (#45379747)

Without a working model, all they have is words and diagrams on paper that might not work in practice. But that piece of paper gives them the right to sue somebody else who implements the concept and makes it work.

They need to bring back the working model requirement. If there is no working model, grant the patent provisionally. Don't let the patent holder sue before they have a working model, and if they don't build a working model by a specific deadline (say 5 years) the patent goes up for auction, with proceeds going to the patent owner. Or they can sell the patent before the 5 years are up. The new owner must have a working model before they can sue.

That way inventors can still get paid for a useful invention even if they don't have the resources to build the working model themselves.

Re:But do they have a working model? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379821)

> If there is no working model, grant the patent provisionally.

No. Of they can't demonstrate their idea, it shouldn't be patentable. You should have to have a working prototype or no patent. And I want to say a $10k fine.

Re:But do they have a working model? (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 9 months ago | (#45379853)

Or a fine based on your company's annual revenue.

Re:But do they have a working model? (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | about 9 months ago | (#45379959)

Under the rule I proposed, the patent holder can't sue before the working model is demonstrated. While the patent is provisional, its 20-year expiration clock is ticking, the information is public, and others can't be sued for infringing it. So there would be advantages to the public and disadvantages to the patent holder for acquiring a patent before the working model is ready.

Re:But do they have a working model? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#45381767)

what actually happens is nowadays is that first someone patents the idea.

then someone patents how the idea is probably practical.

then someone actually makes the scifi idea of the first thing ACTUALLY work and ends up paying the prior two patent holders who had no fucking idea whatsoever about how to make it work.

the patent system is _supposed_ on paper be set up so that based on this patent Nokia, Sony or whoever COULD ACTUALLY BUILD THE THING - not just the inventors themselves, but anyone sufficiently competent in the trade. only then should the patent be valid - the patent is supposed to be instructions on how to build the damn thing and when even the inventors can't build it then obviously the patent should never have been granted! the whole point of the patent system isn't just to provide protection for the invention but to spread the invention!

like the original car patent for example. fucking 4(or 3, benz) wheels and a motor isn't an invention. putting the pieces and bits together so that it actually works is the invention(daimler, benz).

Re:But do they have a working model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379975)

Then prior art becomes irrelevant, and that seriously breaks the patent system.

Re:But do they have a working model? (1)

rollingcalf (605357) | about 9 months ago | (#45384811)

No. If there is prior art, don't grant the patent, with or without a working model.

Re:But do they have a working model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45385279)

Of they can't demonstrate their idea, it shouldn't be patentable.

That's a sane view. There could be advantages to your parent's complicated proposal, though: the patent might end sooner, and nearby creative process could benefit from reading the patent sooner. I think the overall goal should be to increase the number of people who can do useful compensated work in science, and to spread information more widely. My intuition is that your simple proposal will do that better than the complicated one, but you could imagine the complicated one plausibly being better wrt highly-secretive companies with large research departments like the google.

Re:But do they have a working model? (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#45379923)

Indeed. Are the patent trolls now going to scour Sci-Fi books and start patenting the ideas in the fiction?

You know... You may be on to something... (1)

denzacar (181829) | about 9 months ago | (#45382399)

How about going through Sci-Fi books and patenting EVERYTHING left and right - androids to zappers?
And just letting them run out.

Most of those things won't be nowhere near a working model for centuries - and should they one day be invented they'd automagically be in public domain due to their patents having already run out.

Re:You know... You may be on to something... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 9 months ago | (#45389161)

I wonder if Scientology has patented "technology" from L Ron's books?

An actual patent or a pipedream one? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#45379777)

I.e. one where they have at least kinda-sorta-maybe some prototype, or is it one of those that are currently so en vogue, i.e. one of the kind that some markedroid had too much coke one day and came to the revelation that this would be just too cool and we should patent it before someone else does?

"...or in emergency situations." (2)

Skiron (735617) | about 9 months ago | (#45379793)

When people can't connect to facebook, I guess

prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379803)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat_microphone

Patent.. (1)

houbou (1097327) | about 9 months ago | (#45379823)

without a product is pretty useless.. I could watch the last 20 yrs worth of sci-fi and patent a crap load of ideas with theoretical concepts, but, no implementation means nothing.

Mmmm, new tech (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 9 months ago | (#45379831)

How would this affect your Essence rating?

I mean, as a magic user I'm conflicted. The spirits like tattoos but not so much cyberware, and this sounds like both.

Noise Tolerance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45379883)

Modern speech codecs [bbn.com] can be much more noise-tolerant now (working purely in the frequency domain) so throat mics might not have have much of a future anyway I think.

Interesting how the article doesn't have Google (1)

waspleg (316038) | about 9 months ago | (#45379915)

On it except for one very brief mention in the 2nd to last paragraph unlike The Register article [theregister.co.uk] calling it a Google patent... which since they own Motorola, it is. Slippery slopes indeed. From the article I'm linking, the patent filing [uspto.gov] .

mandatory (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 9 months ago | (#45379939)

This should be mandatory for all politicians, preists, police, and running for office candidates.

seo (0)

shimul1990 (3413815) | about 9 months ago | (#45380109)

I want to know more about seo please anybody help me please..............

seo (0)

shimul1990 (3413815) | about 9 months ago | (#45380143)

I want to learn more about seo please anybody can help me????????????

Spam. You're doing it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45380231)

I don't think you'll get paid unless you include the spam link.

Pedantically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45380187)

It would be applied to 'a throat region of a body' — otherwise known as the neck

...the throat is just part of the neck. The terms aren't synonymous.

Key Word: Application (2)

Gith (2778139) | about 9 months ago | (#45380315)

The key word here is Patent APPLICATION. A very small percentage of patent applications are actually approved by the USPTO.

What is next... Earrings ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45380339)

What is next... Earrings ? but because of previous art I wonder if the "patent" is void here.
With earrings all will looks like "Pirates of the wifi's neighbors in deep web on route of silk road"

Re: What is next... Earrings ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45381735)

wifi's neighbors... or Wife of the n... mmmh

against the word of G-d (-1, Flamebait)

Swampash (1131503) | about 9 months ago | (#45380347)

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

Re:OFF the Lawn NOW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45381129)

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28

Keep in mind it just finished saying:
"You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard." - Leviticus 19:27

And later commands you:
"You shall rise before the aged, and defer to the old"
So get off my damn lawn

Re:against the word of G-d (2)

Anaerin (905998) | about 9 months ago | (#45381553)

How on earth did this get +2 "Interesting"? The ravings of a madman (Really! No mixed-fibre clothing! No shellfish! No shaving of any part of the head! And Heathens are perfectly fine to buy as slaves. And let's not forget "An eye for an eye") whose ideas of morality and correctness were way out of line when the "Good Book" was written (4-legged insects are unclean! As is pretty much everything else, ever!) has precisely what bearing on our lives?

If you want to live by the rules Leviticus (and most of the rest of the Old Testament) dictates, do feel free. I'm sure such draconian dictates will ensure you die an early death as you struggle to deal with impossible to live up to standards, "Original Sin", and pre-medieval healthcare (Really! Even Obamacare is better than the crap in Leviticus for dealing with illness!).

Of course, there is always the possibility that you are merely trying to force your ideals down everyone else's throat, and grabbing the very first passage from the very worst parts of John's Book of Ravings that enables you to take a supposedly pious and "Enlightened" stance on something that has been socially acceptable since at least 800BC.

Or you're a troll, using a quasi-religious stance to get a rise out of the /. community. In which case, well done. You got me.

Re: against the word of G-d (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45384627)

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Leviticus_19

Apple's new product: (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 9 months ago | (#45381589)

iSkin

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>