[MikeB]

One particularly interesting aspect of Sony's chatbot is that it has an avatar, as well as a facial animation module. The diagrams in the patent show the chatbot as a small person who would be able to move and talk like a normal person. Rather than just a beep or a voice response, a visual avatar could pop up on PS5 users' televisions if they asked the chatbot a question.

https://gamerant.com/sony-ps5-chatbot-feature-patent/

[frankinstien]

Remember when Sony patented those nano-bot things that were supposed to enter your body through your nose and then connect to your brain so it could create VR in your head?  While the patent didn't have any real technology to work with it was what experts call a "Concept Patent". I hate patents, in general, they destroy competition and make it almost impossible for the little guy to jump into this magnificent process of improving human lives because the cost of copyright and patent infringement insurance is astronomical.  Patent trolls take advantage of this, they literally buy or submit concept patents and then hope someone, preferably a big company, to build something that comes close enough to sue them for patent infringement.  Another problem with patents is the potential of technology never reaching production. Think of a case where the cure for cancer is discovered but the company that developed it doesn't understand how to market it or integrate it into their business. Say that's impossible? Well the textbook case of that is Xerox during the 80s where Xerox pretty much invented the computer graphical user interface and the mouse pointer. They had no idea what to do with those inventions! Another case is Kodak, they came up with a new type of printing technique, again in the 80s, but didn't understand how to integrate it into their business model. Not until the mid-2000s did Kodak start to think about taking that invention off the shelf and actually producing something with it.

So the patent process needs to change. For one; patents should only be allowed for specific implementations, if someone comes up with a process that uses a different implementation despite the processes can be generalized as similar but not identical. Two; patents should reward those who are first but that should only happen if the inventor creates a market for the product within 5 years. After five years the inventor can extend their patent for another 3 years and after that, it's open season anyone can use the patented ideas.

This would improve competition and allow society to benefit from ideas yet still reward those that are first to concept and first to market. But the supreme court of the US actually did the opposite and allowed patents to extend for 20 years with no mandate to produce a market for the invention...