For example this patent for a virtual reality headset capable of linking to an exterior device such as an iPhone or Mac filed in 2008. . .
Posted on 07/23/2015 10:54:31 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Ten Apple patents that may or may not see the light of day.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Thanks to Freeper Covenantor for the heads up. . .
WoW! Some of these patents go “all the way back to 2010!” How prescient and cutting edge? I’d never have thought about a lot of these if it hadn’t been for the hundreds of sci-fi movies I’ve seen over t he last 50 years. Opportunistic claim staking is what I’d describe some of these as.
#10 _is_ the Watch.
I would like the all-glass iPhone.
And, I would like the ear buds. Since I only hear on one ear [I’m completely deaf in the other] getting ear buds is a PITA.
I have to troll for mono-ear buds.
Science Fiction films are not truly considered prior "art" by definition in patent law. Just because H.G. Wells wrote the Time Machine, and Arthur C. Clarke described communications satellites, and Robert Heinlein described the Water Bed, does not mean they invented them. . . because they did not actually show HOW they could be accomplished. Actually, George O. Smith predated Arthur C. Clarke's communication's Satellite in the 1940s in "Venus Equilateral". . . but he also did not show how to get them up there. Invention is NOT about being the first to come up with an idea and in fact ideas are really not patentable. Means to accomplish ideas are. . . and what they will do and how they will be used in reference to actual devices.
Samsung found this out when they tried to show that "2001: a Space Odyssey" showed something that looked like an iPad in a couple of scenes. . . but that "art" was not "prior art" to anyone in the field that produced the iPad in 2010 because it could NOT be duplicated by anyone IN the field. What was shown in "2001: a Space Odyssey" required almost a room full of technology below the display screens that were actually part of the desk to accomplish the FX in the film.
In other words, Science Fiction merely saying "what if someone can do this" in fiction is not the same as actually filing a patent that shows how to do it.
Apple was heavily involved in the making of this ad for Corning and its followup:
Funny the first time I say, funny still. Thanks.
Yes. First official claim and documentation supplants all prior ideas.. Great. Wildly innovative of them, huh? The bottom line is that a lot these of these “ideas” are no older than 2010. You can search and explain all you want, but you can’t put enough lipstick or perfume on the reality of what this shows. I have lots of Apple stuff. But I know what this is.
Read what I said. Ideas are not patentable. Techniques for implementing ideas are patentable. What is your problem with that? Google has a patent on a Virtual Reality System. Microsoft has a patent on a Virtual Reality System. They all use a different technique for accomplishing the SAME IDEA. No conflict in the patents. . . and those patents probably reference those patents. No lipstick, no perfume. There was a Virtual Reality system back in the late 1980s. . . it gave people headaches who used it. I am certain that all of these patents reference the patent on that one. What is your problem?
You obviously have a much bigger personal stake in this than I do. Without being as invested as you (however you actually might be) with Apple, I can see good business practice, maneuvering foresight and a host of other reasons why these “all the way back to 2010” documentations were filed.
You protest too much and your arguments just don’t add up. Even though I like their products, I’m just not that invested them to spend my days and nights championing all things Apple to the extreme.
Gaffer, my points have been about PATENT LAW, not about Apple. The reason these are about Apple's patents since 2008, is that they were selected by The Telegraph UK. There are many more thousands of Apple Patents they could have selected.
Now, in what Science Fiction films have you seen haptic feed back styluses, auto orienting falling iPhones that flip like a cat to protect the screen, or a flexible iPhone? I will grant you that i just saw a transparent phone in a Sci-Fi flick just the other day and Apple itself participated in making "A Day Made of Glass" with Corning Glass company in 2011 with transparent iPhone lookalikes featured prominently. . . and frequently I've seen the Virtual Reality head sets in films, but the rest are not there.
There, I've addressed Apple's specific inventions listed in the slide show to cover "my bigger personal stake," but that does not invalidate the principles I covered about patent law.
You really have confused me with somebody that gives a hoot, frankly....I’m just not that invested in this.
No confusion. You're the poster on this thread who posted three comments complaining about Apple's patents with specious arguments not cogent to patent law or even the one's shown in the article. That seemed to show that you gave a hoot.
That's the one I was thinking about. It gave about half the users headaches. Too slow a refresh rate and difficulty in focus matching between eyes.
They actually had entire cockpits built for the "pilots" to control the robots with multiple views provided by large screens showing 180º views, and rear views provided in monitors. The cockpits were mounted on hydraulics which provided motion like airplane trainers, and subwoofers were strategically placed to provide visceral explosion sounds when you were hit by the missiles of the opponents and the blows of their fists were transmitted by both the subwoofers and the hydraulics. THAT was way cool.
It cost $7 per ten minute session. You went against the other players, each shooting and attacking each other with lasers, missiles, and fists, or even boulders. . . in the virtual reality playing field.
One Amiga maintained the virtual environment and an individual Amiga's per player handled each Robot while another Amiga "refereed" the interactions between the Giant robot fighters. The physics in the VR were properly adjusted for the speed things fell from he proper heights, etc. . . and if your robot was running, it took appropriate force to stop. Inertia existed.
At the end of the session each player got a read out of what he did during the session. . . and there were on screen control panels and Pistol Grip and foot pedal controllers. The screen showed readouts of condition and power, as well as armaments and power levels of each. It was a lot of fun. We went through about $70 each. You could select the level at which the computer helped you fight your robot, or you could elect to be an expert pilot (not for the faint of heart, and forgo computer help completely and take care of everything yourself. IF so, you'd be very busy, aiming, taking care of movement, etc. In amateur mode, you just pointed the robot where you wanted to go and the computer took care of walking or running there and you could concentrate on aiming and firing. Some of the regulars were EXPERTS! You didn't survive long against them! Every other session was beginners only, though.
There was definitely a learning curve. The Doc took the name Gandalf, I was Bolo. . . and in his first session the print out said:
SEVEN SECONDS: Player Gandalf shoots off his right leg." LOL!
I won't say how badly I did in the first session. . . suffice to say, it was worse.
The virtual reality world was remarkable for that era.
Unfortunately, the franchise did not survive the bankruptcy of Commodore as there was nothing available from other computer makers that could handle the software or the VR in multitasking mode or work in tandem so well. They tried Microsoft and Apple, but they were too jerky. . . and froze too often.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.