Microsoft Seeks 1-Click(er) Patent 86
theodp writes "Assuming things go patent reformer Microsoft's way, answering multiple choice, true/false, or yes/no questions in a classroom could soon constitute patent infringement. Microsoft's just-published patent application for its Adaptive Clicker Technique describes how 'multiple different types of clickers' can be used by students to answer questions posed by teachers. The interaction provided by its 'invention', explains Microsoft, 'increases attention and enhances learning.' Microsoft's Interactive Classroom Add-In for Office (video) provides polling features that allow students to 'answer and respond through their individual OneNote notebooks, hand-held clickers, or computers, and the results display in the [PowerPoint] presentation.' So, did Bill Gates mention to Oprah that the education revolution will be patented?"
Re:old tech (Score:4, Interesting)
Has your class been doing this with more than one type of clicker device? When I initially read the summary, I thought that there was tons of prior art. Haven't game shows been using clicker techology for years to poll what the audience things ("Who Wants to be Millionaire?" for example). The distinguishing feature here might be more than one type of clicker. I'm not sure where that distinction would come in handy, however. Any ideas?
A system called DISCOURSE had this in the 90's (Score:4, Interesting)
In Minnesota an in classroom system called DISCOURSE had this in the early 90's -- should be an easy patent to knock down.
Re:Don't forget to read the claims (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Don't forget to read the claims (Score:5, Interesting)
would a slashdot poll be an example of prior art?
Or even who wants to be a millionaire ask the audience.
The only positive about software patents such as this. Is as an example to show European politicians why we don't want software patents in Europe.
Re:Don't forget to read the claims (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1977/78, I worked on a system called PEAC. It was developed for CTW (Childrens Television Workshop), and used for Sesame Street production (among other programs).
A number of clicker boxes were plugged into a charging/syncing station. All of the clickers could be synchronized by a single button press. They were then disseminated into an audience. Both demographic questions (are you male/female, what is your age, etc.) were collected, and then polling data for the program was collected (like/dislike on a scale of 1 to 5, for example).
Afterwards, the clickers were put back into the syncing station, and the data was transferred to an Apple ][. If the material was sourced from a video tape, a secondary audio channel was written to the tape, with time marks.
The time marks were fed into the Apple ][ audio controller, and the floppy based demographic and polling data was then set up to produce interactive cross-tabulations, color swash (called "mondrian" analysis), and other investigative approaches. The bulk of the analysis software was written in Apple ][ Integer BASIC, along with machine code routines for actually performing the cross tabulation.
The Apple ][ was chosen because it supported "color" graphics, audio input, and floppy discs.
The system was delivered in 1977/78.
I don't know when it was decommissioned. But, I imagine it wasn't unique (well, the time synchronization made the "user interface" simple -- just fast forward, rewind and play on the video tape deck! The audio channel was composed of many short independent "files", each recording a time-stamp; and, I have never seen the "mondrian" style display for analysis again, but maybe it was a bust). But the patent is deliberatly vague about that end of things, anyway.
Now, honestly, we would have liked to use RF, infrared, or "mobile device" clickers. Instead, we had to develop our own stand-alone clicker device (and, honestly, I don't know if you can run 30 IR clickers in a classroom at the same time!). RF would have been an option -- but we put storage into each clicker, and synchronized the lot in the charging station. But, the need for clicker synchronization was a weak point, and we recognized that (back then). We could have used low frequency FM (47Mhz required a license, and cell and "wifi" didn't exist). So, low power 88Mhz was an option. Still, not as reliable as the hard-sync approach.
Another problem (back then) was that available AFFORDABLE computers would have been hard-pressed to reliably support 30 concurrent clickers. We would also have needed to add a processing layer in to support that. With a sync box, each clicker could be read out and converted to floppy in turn.
We did think of it. It was documented. Question is, does the paper from back then even exist? We never considered it patentable material.