Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents Glasses-Free 3D Projector
angry tapir writes "Apple has been awarded a US patent for a display system that would allow multiple viewers to see a high-quality 3D image projected on a screen without the need for special glasses, regardless of where they are sitting. Entertainment is far from the only field in which 3D can enhance the viewing experience: others include medical diagnostics, flight simulation, air traffic control, battlefield simulation, weather diagnostics, advertising and education, according to Apple's US patent 7,843,449 for a 3D display system."
According to a better article Apple applied for the patent in 2006 but has yet to actually build any products that use the idea. Conveniently others have done the work and build products (google news search). This looks like some patent trolling from Apple.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
"Dude, you know what would be really awesome?"
"What?"
"If there was a display system that would allow multiple viewers to see a high-quality 3D image projected on a screen without the need for special glasses, regardless of where they are sitting."
"Dude... that would be totally awesome."
"We should totally invent that someday"
"Lets patent it just in case someone really does it!"
"Yeah!"
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
......II ffoorr oonnee wweellccoommee oouurr nneeww 33DD oovveerrlloorrddss
Here's a good read on the subject.
Sexton, I. and Suramn, P. "Stereoscopic and autostereoscopic display systems." Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE 16:3 (1999). pg. 85-99.
The parent method of the approach they're using is parallax barrier autostereoscopy, which is covered in patents going back to 1901...
If this was for a specific method or idea, we'll I'd expect to see a working display now. Unfortunately the patent is full of all kinds of obtuse language (they often are to sneak them by the examiners) so it is hard to see what they are saying but it does not look like a "Here's a specific way to make a no glasses 3D display," it looks more like a general "Well you might have a display with some angles of reflection and you might send light at them at certain angles to make 3D," kind of thing.
So certainly does smell of patent trolling. In Apple's case I would imagine the idea isn't a "Make everyone pay us royalties," thing I would imagine it is a "Force people to sell only to us." Someone develops a 3D display that needs no glasses and fits the loose patent definitions. Apple goes after them and says "We'll sue the crap out of you if you sell to anyone but us!" Apple then can roll out the "Only 3D computer/tablet/phone/fridge magnet in the world!" and claim it as "innovation."
Same kind of deal as with their mag safe connector. That one Apple invented, far as I know, but they won't license it to anyone, not to other computer makers, not even for people to make accessories for the Mac (and have sued people for it). They want to be able to claim it as a "special" feature, not because they put a bunch of R&D in and want to make money licensing a new technology to the world.
So that's my bet. They hope someone else will develop a 3D display (as a practical matter Apple has no display development and manufacturing arm, they buy their panels from LG.displays, and just make the final monitor like Dell and others do) and then be able to grab it as their exclusive via their patent.
I really favour a "Use it or lose it," provision for patents. You should have to either develop the technology, or license it to someone else in a non-trivial amount of time or the patent goes away. None of this "I'm patenting an idea so when someone else does the hard work it is mine," bullshit. You have a legit invention you want to make money off of? I'm all good with that. You want someone else to do the hard work of the inventing and creation? Screw you.
Also, the headline is horrible: "Apple Patents Glasses-Free 3D Projector"
The innovation is the surface onto which a slightly modified projector projects. There isn't much to the projector itself. Besides, most of the patent's paperwork is describing the surface - not the projector.
See the idea of a patent wasn't ever really that you'd keep an invention all for yourself. It was that you'd license the technology for your invention to others, so you made money for the work and creativity of creating it, and everyone benefits. Patent trolls often needn't buy patents, they just make their own. They come up with stupid patents and then sue people for licensing fees. The problem is not that they have bought or sold a patent, it is that their patent is bullshit.
A "no licensing" thing for patents would be bad because it could reduce competition and even prevent products from coming to market. So say I work on some amazing new display technology and patent it. Wonderful stuff, going to change how things are done. However after that, I decide that I'm just not willing to go in to production of it. Too much money to start up, etc, etc, I'm just not interested. If I can't sell or license the tech, it then languishes until my patent expires. However if I can license it, no problem. I invent it and then license it out to existing display companies. I'm compensated for my work inventing it, they bring it to the mass market.
That is the reason for patents, the reason to not just get rid of them. They can be real important in two situations:
1) A person or small company makes a big invention. Patents keep big companies form stealing it from them and profiting off the work of others. Like if a 5 man company invented an amazing new wireless communications device that is cheap to make and effective. However since they are small, they produce them for $50 each. Motorola, being huge, can do it for $20 each. With no patents Motorola just takes their work and goes for it, and they get crushed being unable to compete.
2) A development that takes massive amounts of money. There is tech that takes many millions, even billions occasionally in research. A company will pour a ton of money and years of work in to something because it is worth it. But it is only worth it if they can make that R&D back. Suppose a company invents a new battery with 100x the capacity of current lithium batteries that is cheap to produce. They spend $250 million doing it, and in quantity the batteries cost only $1 per cell to make. Ok well they need to sell those for like $3-4 per cell or so, maybe more, to recoup their $250 million. Remember until they've cleared that, they are making zero dollars total on the product. However a competitor? Well they could sell the cells for $2, maybe even $1.50 each. They have only the production cost, so as long as they cover that the rest is unit profit. Without patents, they could do that.
The problem with patents currently isn't that they exist or can be licensed. It is that they are too broad, granted for too many things, and many of them are way too obvious. Parents are supposed to be for new, non-obvious things that took a lot of effort and/or creativity to make, not for any and everything. They are important to encouraging and supporting R&D, they just are too easy to abuse as it stands.
No it doesn't. From the description in the article Apple has something much more sophisticated. It apparently is smart enough to know where the individuals are sitting and makes accommodations for that. Rather than requiring an individual to sit in a particular place like all the other systems like this do. If they've managed to pull that off, I'll have to be the first one to tip my hat to their innovation. And I'm rare to do that as they're usually more evolutionary than revolutionary. But this would be a significant step forward in the technology.
I haven't read the patent, but it appears to be far more than just what you're describing. What they've done is hooked it up to a computer which can apparently adjust the effect based upon the location of the viewers in the room. Which is in and of itself worthy of a patent if they've succeeded in doing so.
could this actually be innovative technology from Apple?
i'm kind of impressed.
Nope, the Death Star has prior art.
The Death Star has non-enabling prior art. If you wanted to patent "1. A method of projecting a 3D image, comprising: (a) projecting a 3D image so it appears in free space," the Death Star would be just fine. But as soon as you start including additional elements about how you do that, Star Wars ceases to enable one of skill in the art to make and use the system.
Here's a good read on the subject.
Sexton, I. and Suramn, P. "Stereoscopic and autostereoscopic display systems." Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE 16:3 (1999). pg. 85-99.
The parent method of the approach they're using is parallax barrier autostereoscopy, which is covered in patents going back to 1901...
Oh?
1. A method of displaying three-dimensional images, comprising:
providing a projection screen having a spatial filter defining a predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function;
determining the left and right eye locations of at least one observer in proximity with the projection screen;
projecting left and right sub-images of a three-dimensional image toward the projection screen; and
angularly and intensity modulating the left and right sub-images respectively in coordination with the predetermined angularly-responsive reflective surface function to define respective discrete light paths that respectively direct the left and right sub-images to reflect from the projection screen to the respective left and right eye locations to provide a three-dimensional viewing experience.
I don't know that you're going to find systems in 1901 that determine eye locations of viewers and dynamically modify images to match the eye locations. But, since you're so certain, link away!
Whooosh
Actually, the educational value of explaining a reason why a seemingly anticipatory reference can't be used to reject a claim far outweighs the humor value of the joke - especially in a place like Slashdot where everyone thinks they're an expert on rejecting patents, but few truly know what they're talking about.