Microsoft Patent Reveals Future Multi-Component Gaming System

[iMav]

Microsoft's next game machine may be multi-faceted with console and handheld interdependence

A filing to the U.S. Patent Office may reveal what Microsoft has planned for its gaming platform after Xbox 360. The patent describes a multi-component gaming system that incorporates both handheld devices and console devices by wired and wireless connections.
The patent’s abstract describes the system as a process "to take advantage of another gaming component's processing capabilities and memory capacity, each gaming component is capable of utilizing another gaming component to process gaming applications."

Should the hardware permit, each gaming component is capable of rendering audio and video information provided by another gaming component. Also, a gaming component is capable of utilizing another gaming component as an adjunct processor to increase system speed. System memory may also be shared among the devices.
The patent also makes claim of the system having at least one gaming console device and handheld device in a master and slave relationship, both capable of running compatible operating systems. Video may also be rendered by one device and outputted to another.
With Microsoft’s ever-expanding reach into consumer electronics and software to power them, the company’s next goal may be to have a wide array of devices work together to perform a single goal – and if this patent application is of any indication, video games could be where we first see it.
For example, Microsoft’s multi-component game system could incorporate PDA or other mobile devices running Windows Mobile as a communication tool, or simply as a secondary mini-display. The Zune could be a source for video game custom soundtracks, or as another small screen. Perhaps where the most potential will be, however, is in a relationship with the PC. With the proposed system’s ability to band together processing capability and memory capacity, Microsoft’s next-generation console could be one with true hardware evolution possibilities.
The patent was filed on October 14, 2005 – just over a month before the November 22, 2005 launch of the Xbox 360. Microsoft has made it no secret that it is currently working on the successor to the Xbox 360.
European Xbox boss Chris Lewis last year responded to questions of the next console by saying, “Of course we're thinking about [the next Xbox]. We're constantly thinking about the next thing, we have to. It's my point about complacency - you can't sit back on your laurels in this business - the consumer won't let you, the developers certainly won't let us. So that's happening right now.”







Source

[desai_amogh]

so u mean with the new m$ console u can connect any wifi enabled device togeter to the console & us its speed for gaming ???
im not a game phreak .... but how much a pda will contribute towards the speed??

[iMav]

well a pda mite not be able to boost the speeds of a xbox ... but what iv noticed since the past 2 yrs is that MS is trying to integrate everything .... something like wherever u r u have ur games, vdos, audio everything along with and Windows Live, zune xbox and now this i think thats what MS's actual goal is ... integration of everything ....

[aryayush]

... like Apple. :ducks:

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by aryayush

... like Apple. :ducks:

Troll alert, who fed the troll

Apple doesn't have a gaming console,not even a tablet PC or a PDA. Microsoft does.

[iMav]

hey arya in all fairness u cant say that abt apple .... apple's macs are hardly used ... the only thing apple sells is the ipod cant integrate the whole house using a pmp

[aryayush]

I just wanted to complete you last line:
"now this i think thats what MS's actual goal is ... integration of everything" ... like Apple.

Apple has always been after integration starting from the first Mac. Yes, they do not have a whole slew of products that can integrate with each other to make up the digital home but whatever products they do have and those they plan to launch in future are all perfectly integrated with each other.

The Mac itself is an example of almost perfect integration between the hardware and software. And after that, all other products like the iPod, Apple TV and iPhone are designed to integrate perfectly with any computer.

[iMav]

blah blah blah .... everything was apple's idea ... bill gates ne toih kuch socha hi nahi that is why he has a console, pmp, more than half computers using some version of his OS, more than half offices using his suites, almost every presentation made using powerpoint ... par nahi .... apple ne sab socha ... MS ne kiya .... there was a certain book written by i think steve jobs' and then bill gates copied it and made it his and rreleased by the name of the road ahead

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by mAV3

blah blah blah .... everything was apple's idea ... bill gates ne toih kuch socha hi nahi that is why he has a console, pmp, more than half computers using some version of his OS, more than half offices using his suites, almost every presentation made using powerpoint ... par nahi .... apple ne sab socha ... MS ne kiya .... there was a certain book written by i think steve jobs' and then bill gates copied it and made it his and rreleased by the name of the road ahead

lolz.....U have angered the followers of El Jobso man, now hide somewhere.

Apple has always been after integration starting from the first Mac. Yes, they do not have a whole slew of products that can integrate with each other to make up the digital home but whatever products they do have and those they plan to launch in future are all perfectly integrated with each other.

The Mac itself is an example of almost perfect integration between the hardware and software. And after that, all other products like the iPod, Apple TV and iPhone are designed to integrate perfectly with any computer

Yup, integration of the iCult I would say. Limiting the user to there own products only. There are so many examples of Apple limiting the user choices so that user use Apple products only & nothing else.

iTunes + iPod only

Shake + Mac only

Final cut pro + Mac Only

MS has everything integrated & others manufacturers can come in the inegration easily. Example, WMP11 which syncs with so many media players even my K750i while iTunes only integrates to iPod

[praka123]

Now if someone developed a game console similar to this will get sued?!!!!
the software patent system- needs long before shouldve died.but yeah,US laws are made for eating every ones rights if u got money u can sue.

The Basics

Copyright protects authors but doesn't hurt any honest person. Patents, in contrast, are 20-year monopolies that the government grants on broad and general ideas. Patents are potential weapons against all of us.

Click here if you don't know what a patent is, or to refresh your memory. Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.
Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).


"The Company believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections, as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software developments." Oracle Corporation Patent Policy

If copyright is all that authors and publishers need, why do some additionally ask for patents? Because they have bad intentions that they try to conceal: 1. The patent professionals want more money and influence. Copyright is free, so you don't need patent offices and lawyers to obtain it. Those potentially make money on writing and processing patent applications, and on patent litigations. A fast-growing branch of the "patent mafia" specializes on squeezing money out of the innocent by alleging patent violations.
2. Some large corporations want a powerful weapon against small but innovative competitors, or against open-source software. What they dislike about copyright is that it only helps against criminals. They want a legal instrument with which they can harm honest people.
We still have the chance to prevent this! We must exercise our democratic rights. There are politicians that purposely support those bad intentions. There are others that haven't understood yet. On this website you'll find plenty of opportunities to influence political decisions and the public opinion.
Click here to see some broad and trivial ideas that have already been patented

Patents As Weapons

Often, patents are compared to weapons - for good reasons. When a gun goes over the counter, the seller and the buyer will always say that it's only for protection. In reality, many guns are used to bully, to rob and plunder, or even to wage wars. Patents can be used in similar ways.

Each patent is a means to prohibit that others apply certain knowledge for 20 years. That's why patents have ever less to do with true innovation, and ever more with the blocking of market segments. For instance, there are so many patents on all aspects of Internet telephony that it's almost impossible to write an Internet telephony program without "violating" a number of related patents. If you're a software company, or just a software user, then patents can be pointed at you like a gun. The patent holder can shoot at you, or at the users of your software. Sometimes he'll do that right away. Usually he'll force you to pay protection money, or to stay out of a market he wants to own. Even if you're not sure whether the gun is loaded, you can't risk your life to find out.

"Patents are being used as an offensive measure. [...] If you don't have any patents, you don't have any weapons in your armoury." John MacPhail, Partner, Baker & McKenzie
(one of the world's largest law firms)

A patent holder can be ruthless and selfish, and he has practically no legal obligations to society. If someone owns a patent, he can insist on his exclusive right. There is no requirement by the law that he has to be reasonable. It's like if you own a house: It's your choice whether you let anybody in. You don't have to admit anyone to your house if you don't want. You don't need to state a reason if you let some enter and keep others out. If someone is ready to pay for entering your house, then you can ask for 10 million Euros. It's unlikely that anyone would pay that amount, yet you may ask. There is no legal limit because you can always resort to your right to not let anybody in at all. With patents, it's just like that. Actually, if you own a piece of land, you still have more obligations to society than a patent holder. You can't even buy property that would block a vital traffic artery in a big city. With patents, that happens all the time, and then it takes years and vast amounts of money to have that patent annulled, if that is possible at all. There is a whole "shop of horrors" of terrible patents that were upheld by even the highest courts, such as the infamous GIF patents. Even if you face a patent that you think you can get invalidated, do you have the time and the financial strength to embark on that long journey? In the meantime, your product may already be taken out of the market, and your customers will be concerned about your viability. Your revenue streams will be disrupted, so you may even win the lawsuit and still lose as a business (unless your company is very large).

"Patents are intelligent bombs." Harvard Business Review

A single patent can put an entire company out of business, overnight. It can happen to the most honorable company that never stole anything from anybody. The injustice is that a patent is an absolute right against everyone else, for up to 20 years. Only because someone was first to register some idea at a patent office, no one else can implement the same idea without his permission. The patent holder can then decide if he gives anyone that permission. He may extend a license to some but not to others, and he can do so for any reason or no reason. If you tell him that you desparately need the license because otherwise your product doesn't work anymore, then that has no legal meaning. The patent holder can still demand any amount of money, and if you don't pay, he can insist on his exclusive right. So your choice is to pay, or he'll take your product out of the market.
It doesn't matter at all if you can prove that you had the idea totally independently. Even worse, that patented idea can be something as simple as a progress bar or a shopping trolley.
Click to read about the problem of worldwide patent inflation

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html
^^ a must read before being proud of M$ for patenting ur head!.

[gxsaurav]

I agree to prakka about software patents system should be scrapped but hardware patent system should be there.

[Harvik780]

Don't u guys think it's a dumb idea,i mean why would a guy want to run a game faster on a portable gaming system while it already is designed for it.Does this mean that by using more power u can increase the resolution and have better graphics but for that u need to connect to a display that supports higher resolution.Won't i play a better game on the console which already supports better resolution.I doubt if it's dumb,since it's an idea from Microsoft it should be a good idea.