Comments on: The 6 Sex Tech Companies Facing Lawsuits for Patent Infringement

By: WATCHINGYOU NOW

WATCHINGYOU NOW — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:36:00 +0000

The first over the internet devices were used by ifriends live cam models about 15 years ago. Referred to then as CyberDildonics. These communicated not with a socket but actually used a chat room type of plug in that allowed a user to control four boxes in the shape of a square and choose patterns and colors which in turn could allow changes in the energy flow from the batteries to the device.. The battery power of the toy the model would use, in this communication between the viewer and the mode’s toyl, could be manipulated via the toy’s “eye,. Basically this extra service that ifriends featured which was a battery operated vibrator that had a power interrupt and would decrease and could be controlled when connected via a small photoelectric eye. The eye would then allow pulses of power based upon what the “eye” saw. So a more intense darker color for example would then allow more power to the toy and the vibration increased. The four boxes could be set to pulse patterns and there by controlled over the internet by the viewer making waves of high and low pulses. Or rhythmic pulses . The models could charge more for this ability and the viewer had some control over the model and what kind of manipulation she would get. There were a few different available types of devices. One was an actual penis looking vibrator that would enlarge by an inch and retract which would also be manipulated. Basically the pace of the thrusts and the intensity of the vibration could be controlled or so was the idea. The person who invented this idea actually is the first idea that used an internet connection. So the company suing everyone is actually just a more advanced copy cat of someone elses idea anyway. The patent does seem at first glance to be a bit abstract for the technology guidelines. However it does not mention the use of other types of connections such as attaching a remote controlled device to the screen via wireless technology so I think there may be room to invalidate their claim.

By: Jenna Owsianik

Jenna Owsianik — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 07:44:00 +0000

In reply to Mira Manda.

That’s a really interesting point. I’m not sure of such legislation, but the U.S. Code says that conditions for patentability are novelty and non-obvious subject matter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-10

The route Comingle is going down, from what I know, is to say the patent isn’t for a novel invention and they have been looking for prior art to prove this: https://futureofsex.net/remote-sex/comingle-seeks-prior-art-and-is-raising-funds-for-patent-defense-case/ So far it looks like they have found some descriptions and images of what looks to be prior art for this “teledildonics” patent, but I’m not sure what a judge would say.

By: Mira Manda

Mira Manda — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:55:00 +0000

Isn’t there some sort of legislation that prohibits “nonsense” patents in the united States?

The whole IoT market would be dead if that was possible with other “device-classes” like fridges or heating — nobody would ever accept that somebody gets a patent for ” that communicates over the internet”

Reading this patent it becomes obvious that it has no other substance than describing that a (motorized) device is connected to a computer via some sort of serial communication outlet and then controlled by a software that incorporates an internet socket — how can this be patent-worthy?

Isn’t it possible that the above mentioned companies team up to try and find a judge who declares this patent void?