[Swordmaker]

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?

[Gaffer]

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.

[amigatec]

I believe the first VR system that came out, ran on the Amiga 3000 Tower.