I was quite surprised to see that Microsoft had come up with the idea of a “family-aware clock” with a hand for each member of the family that points at their location. See, I remember reading about that clock before – there’s one in the Weasley’s house, remember?

The Weasley's clock Microsoft's clock

It had nine golden hands, and each of them was engraved with one of the Weasley family’s names. There were no numerals around the face, but descriptions of where each family member might be. “Home,” “school,” and “work” were there, but there was also “travelling,” “lost,” “hospital,” “prison,” and, in the position where the number twelve would be on a normal clock, “mortal peril.” (The Goblet of Fire, Chapter ten)

I wonder whether publishing an idea in a book gives J. K. Rowling legal rights to the idea? Though clearly the Weasley’s clock uses magic rather than location data from mobile phones to plot the wherabouts of the family. This is the kind of ambient device I’d be happy to own. Imagine how calm you’d feel when your child had been gone a little too long but you could see at a glance that she wasn’t in mortal peril?

I read about the clock at Textually.org, where there was a link to a Harry-Potter-ignorant article. A search quickly found plenty of Harry Potter fans surprised at Microsoft’s not mentioning the rather obvious source of their idea. Seeing how the Microsoft version has even copied the design of the movie clock, I’m going to assume the journalist misrepresented this rather than that Microsoft would actually claim to have come up with the idea independently.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “family-awareness clock

  1. secret admirer

    Microsoft? Isn’t that the company that wrote Harry Potter?

  2. David

    I think unfortunately merely speculating about a technolgy doesn’t give one the rights to it. Otherwise Arthur Clarke would have invented geosynchronus satellites among other things.

    Still, if that is where they got it some kind of salutation would seem in order.

  3. tormodh

    I suspect there are lots of cases where ‘the scientists’ have been reading some fiction and thought; “Ooooh, that’s neat. How can I make it work in the real world?”

    All ideas need to be just that; ideas. Someone creative needs to get an Idea, and someone – possibly the same person needs to sit down and find out how to make it. Preferably before anyone manages to tell him that it is impossible. 🙂

  4. Eirik

    This is a question of patent rights versus copyright, I would think. The copyright to the sentences quoted in your posting is automatically granted to the author, whereas Rowling would have to apply for a patent for the exclusive rights to the concept of a family-aware clock. In my opinion there is nothing unfortunate about this: imagine a world in which everyone who utters something in public has the exclusive right to any idea contained int their utterances. As for Arthur C. Clarke, he never claimed in seriousness to have invented the geosynchronous satellite, nor did he say that he was the first to get the idea. What he does say, though, is that he was one of the first (if not _the_ first) to point out in public (in “Wireless World” magazine, 1945) that a simple fact of physics could turn out to be very useful if spaceships were ever invented (they did not exist at the time).

    Maybe Microsoft should give Rowling some sort of credit, but this presupposes that she actually was the first one to come up with this idea. I haven’t seen any proof that she did, so in this case I am willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt… 🙂

  5. Stephen

    “In 1982 the examination of Paul Usherís Patent Application for a Dog Doorbell cited as ëprior artí the publication of the same invention on the front page of the Beano ñ Dennis the Menace had built one for Gnasher!”

    http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/archive/st_rights6_patent.html

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.