Slashdot Mirror
Apple Wins Patent For Head-Mounted Display Tech
redletterdave writes "It appears that Google is no longer alone in exploring the realm of wearable tech solutions. Apple was granted a patent on Thursday in relation to 'peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays.' While Google Glass places a piece of smartglass right above the user's eye, Apple's solution uses two peripheral lights to show two different images to each eye 'to create an enhanced viewing experience for the user.' Apple's patent also attempts to address the biggest problems with head-mounted displays (HMDs), particularly tunnel vision and motion sickness."
Its a good thing the Military has been using this technology since the 70's or Apple would be trying to ban the importation of any device using anything that even resembled their solution based on nothing more than the same of the corners.
It looks to me like they stole technology from the F35 helmet system.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
http://www.treknologic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/thegame.jpg
They haven't been alone for some time now - that is to say, since before they even mentioned what they may or may not have been working on.
Google's glasses aren't HMDs, though.
The Rift would be an HMD that'd warrant a further look;
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=138&t=14777
As for Apple's patent - it's pretty much 'ambilight for HMDs'. There's a wee bit more to it, of course, but if painting with the same broad brush that Apple uses when asserting their patents, the aforementioned description fits the bill.
You dont understand! Apple is using TWO displays, unlike the one used by the military in helicopters. TWO! Clearly patent worthy.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
fuck apple
Why, because Apple found and patented a better solution long before Google could?
Apple gets far more out of their R&D budget than Google.
Get over it.
Hey, I just applied for a patent for using THREE displays!!!
NOW THAT'S INNOVATION !!!
Reread TFA. Then, if necessary, take a look at the patent. Then read the article you linked to. Reflect on the fact that, while the two systems try to achieve the same goal, they obviously do so in very different ways.
In fact, don't even bother with all that. Just reread the summary, and look at the photo in the wikipedia page you sent. That should be enough to make it clear, to anyone who is paying even a little bit of attention, that the military's tech does not use "two peripheral lights to show two different images to each eye." Then, finally, for the good of /.ers everywhere, realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Wow, I'm surprised nobody outside of the military had thought of a steroscopic HMD before.
This is truly non-trivial, and unprecedented.
Ahh yes it seems that their R&D budget is hell bent on greasing the palms of govt. departments... I mean filing paperwork and paying uspto fees.
I wonder if they can merge their Legals, Acquisitions and R&D department all into one, cuts out middle management overhead and means they can wipe the actual "development" aspect as it was never needed anyway.
RLA = Research, Litigate or Acquire. The development as we all know becomes mute.
By the time any decent HMD's appear and are commoditized, or inexpensive enough for the casual consumer, truely powerful head mounted computers will be possible. Why bother designing a good HMD when you can skip this step and create the first computer built-in to a HMD that looks like nothing more than a pair of Wayfarers?
The Admin and the Engineer
Clearly! Apple is making great strides in putting the 'augmented' in the 'augmented reality' penises these things will be used solely for.
Is this anything like the MomCorp. EyePhone?
It looks to me like they stole technology from the F35 helmet system.
Unless Apple has a real time machine in the Reality Distortion Field, this is unlikely.
Filed: October 13, 2006
The F35 helmets are not fully functional yet and BAE has been contracted to fix them as VSI's original design is inadequate.. VSI didn't have a working model until 2010.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple is using TWO displays
Huh?! TWO displays??
Shining two beams of lights does not make "TWO displays"
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
How do you figure?
Google has working prototypes in the wild, Apple has a piece of paper.
Phone me when Apple releases vehicles that drive themselves, then talk about how much farther their R&D dollars carry them.
I hope they actually build it. It would be the most amazing ever.
Apple may well have many working prototypes at this stage, but they'd never let you know it the way google does. They don't like to release details of hardware until they're ready to ship.
Hey, I just applied for a patent for using THREE displays!!!
NOW THAT'S INNOVATION !!!
Trying different approaches that yield different pros and cons... yes, that it is exactly what innovation is. Thanks for explaining how patents actually do spur innovation, even though that was completely unintentional.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is using TWO displays
Huh?! TWO displays??
Shining two beams of lights does not make "TWO displays"
And?
Since when has logic, common sense and reasoning been a mitigating factor in the granting of patents?
The patent system is just another abusive business tool used to stifle competition.
What a waste of a patient. The HMD technology displayed in there seems fairly rudimentary. No mention of 3D tech which would of been my first thought of holding any real use to the experience of HMD (if someone can find it good for them let me know).
It takes care of motion but so did Google Glasses and it was published publicly first, so that takes care of that about who did what first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-mounted_display takes care of the existence of HMD's before. NB to fanboys pay close attention to the manufacturers section these guys did it first okay not Apple okay even if they acquire one of these companies.
There are by the looks 4 different methods applied for viewing OLED, LED, Laser, LCoS I'm certain Apple didn't invent these either, someone else can cite this as its not worth the digging.
That leaves the concept of splitting it between two displays for each eye. Pretty sure it was thought of before, you know cause we have two of them... wait wait, yes the first point raised in "Performance parameters" under the Wikipedia article linked above.
You better watch out Google, Apple is coming for you.
They are NOT happy with Project Glass, and will sue it out of existence.
Serves you right for innovating Google. Remember, only Apple has the right to innovate, and it is not actually innovation unless Apple does it.
Unless it has a little i at the front of the name, it is a total peice of crap that does not deserve to ever see the light of day.
yes i see the typo .....
the patent office is full of morons, fuck them
Apple's patent here is for a stereoscopic direct view head mount display, in other words having nothing to do with the current prototype implementation of Project Glass, which is a prism-based overlay display for a single eye. Followers on G+ also noted that the Nintendo VirtualBoy is suspiciously prior-artish.
It only works on people with heads that have rounded corners.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
at least you know apple will make something tasteful and not overly nerdy like the dorkulus bullshit google and microsoft will put out.
So how different is this from a retinal display system? (Too lazy to read the patent application itself, which I suspect will be filled with vague descriptions and drawings that give the barest hint as to what it's all about.)
I have just filed the on-line paperwork to patent farting in the key of C. I will have my attorneys Trickem, Dickem and Duckem sniffing around for any violators of my patent.
Maybe if Apple's ludicrous patent streak will be ludicrous enough and go on for long enough it will cause lawmakers to question the current state of the patent system?
Sigh. Another AC that can't read past the first paragraph.
Scroll All The Way down and read about the F35 helmet system and notice two projection heads.
Two. Count them. They project on the back side of the full face mask.
Its s full HUD in a Helmet, because the plane doesn't have a
UD.
Go fan boy somewhere else.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
or maybe cause they just patented something thats been in use since the fucking 70's in the US military?
The patent is basically this: If we provide color to the edges of the display surface outside of the main video area, users will find it appealing. No direction is provided on how to do this in the many variety of HMD types which can be a far more challengine engineering problem.
Apple has now patented stereovision... what's next, depth perception?
I'm sorry, but you obviously have no idea what is being claimed here. Here is what the patent summary says:
If you would actually read the patent you'd notice that Apple is well aware of other head mounted display technologies (they list them in the patent). As the title says, this is a "Peripheral treatment for head-mounted displays" to prevent motion sickness and increase the length of time such a device can be used.
Its a good thing the Military has been using this technology since the 70's
The patent is for the implementation not the idea.
It looks to me like they stole technology from the F35 helmet system.
The F35 helmet (1) is not yet combat ready and (2) is not mass market consumer tech.
The problems with the current Vision Systems International helmet-mounted display led Lockheed Martin to issue a draft specification for proposals for an alternative on 1 March 2011. The alternative system will be based on Anvis-9 night vision goggles.It will be supplied by BAE systems. The BAE system does not yet include all the features of the VSI helmet and if successful will have the remaining features incorporated. Use of the BAE system would also require a cockpit redesign.
In 2011, Lockheed granted VSI a contract to fix the vibration, jitter, night-vision and sensor display problems in their helmet-mounted display. The improved displays are expected to be delivered in third quarter of 2013.
F-35 Helmet-mounted display system
The military has been using side projection techniques for quite a while and if that's not enough for you lumus http://www.lumusvision.com/ has actually built a product (about 5 years ago) and not just sat around shouting "we are so smart we could do this if we tried so give us a patent"; and world augmented reality has been commercialised by Google for a long time. I honestly don't understand what brain dead iFanatics they have working at the patent office, and how hypocritical apple can be when they steal such vital truly genius tech while aggressively suing over things as simple as 'slide to unlock'.
Rocket Surgeon.
yeah apple found it all right they did a google search and found this mob http://www.lumusvision.com/ who have been doing it for 5 years then they plastered a fake google goggles ontop and tahdah you have apple innovation, and have they built anything, i doubt it, what apple has given us is 150% worthless and nothing half us haven't already thought about ourselves. It's companies like apple that are what's wrong with this world.
Rocket Surgeon.
Apple's solution uses two peripheral lights to show two different images to each eye 'to create an enhanced viewing experience for the user.
All I thought of when I read that was that episode of Star Trek TNG where that addictive game shows up from Risa and everyone on the ship is playing it while the Enterprise is about to be stolen out from underneath them, except Wesley and Data.
I spent hours playing DOOM on a HMD in 1996, at a trade fair (it was one of the exhibits in our stall).
I just had an idea that could save the US taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Unmanned patent offices.
Just have a machine at the door that stamps "approved" on everything that comes in.
What happened to Steve Mann's prior art from the 1980s until today?
could it be?
Patent Whoring is a legitimate revenue generator taught at some of this country's finest Institutes of Advanced How to be a Business Asshole Studies.
Thank you.
Your Apple Care Team
I know that you are joking, but the military has been using dual eye displays for quite some time.
The patent is for a way of "lighting" the fringe of the phyxical glass display and giving it a colored hue. Typically an HMD does not present a display that covers the full field of view of the physical glass that it is projected onto, so the image is projected in the center of the field of view and the periphery contains no image. The patent claims that this is uncomfortable and distracting to the user so they are patent the idea of providing a colored hue to the periphery of the physical surface so that it blends nicely with the computer driven display.
Of course, they are not patenting a specific method for accomplishing this despite the fact that each HMD would present its own issues and engineering challenges in accomplishing this. They make claims like it increases comfort and "may decrease" the occurence of motion sickness. The figures in the patent are total bullshit put in to make the patent look more impressive and complex than it really is.
Apple was granted a total of 22 patents today. Among those are a patent for detecting water damage and even two for playlists.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57467270-37/apple-adds-playlist-and-mobile-features-to-patent-list/
Seriously, playlists? I've used playlists since 1997 via Winamp. This is nuts.
I hate to put on the tinfoil hat, but I can't think of any other explanation than corruption as to why Apple gets every patent rubber stamped regardless of obvious prior art.
Google's glasses are
Head-mounted. Check.
Displays. Check.
Ergo they are HMDs. (Or more accurately they incorporate a HMD, they also incorporate a considerable number of other unrelated technologies) The field is quite broad and covers a wide range of technologies and applications from VR helmets to augmented reality systems that project a laser-generated image directly onto your retina so that it's always in focus regardless of your current focal distance.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A HMD with other tech incorporated is still a HMD, it's just not a stand-alone system. Just like an iMac is still a computer. And a monitor. You're right though, Google glasses will likely be the first consumer HMD to see any sort of success, and they're exactly that. And the computer part will only continue to get faster and cheaper while the displays evolve - why buy a standalone HMD when another $20 will get you the computer as well. You still want a well-designed HMD though, just like you want a well-designed monitor - the "smart" part is just a tacked-on accessory.
Ideally though what we'll get is awesome hi-res VR-capable "smart HMD" that has an auxiliary input, just as we now have smart TVs that still have extra inputs - because no matter how "smart" your glasses get, your stand-alone rig without comparable power, size, weight, or thermal restrictions will still be far more powerful, and why would you want to buy a separate pair of VR glasses for that when you already have a kick-ass pair of augmented-reality glasses that just need a blackout-shield or dark room to do VR?. Sure, *eventually* your glasses will be able to hold a computer more powerful than you could possibly use, but that's probably decades away yet, at least, and the first generation S-HMD's are likely to starting to hit the streets within the next few years.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
How long before either Apple or Microsoft buy Kopin? I believe Kopin has most of the US patents covering wearable screens. Check out the industrial version they're shipping with Motorola Solutions this year : http://www.mygoldeni.com
The figures in the patent are total bullshit put in to make the patent look more impressive and complex than it really is.
If I publish a scientific paper, and in my paper I back it up with a lot of bullshit figures
Not long after the publication someone else will discover my bullshit figure and I will suffer all the negative consequences that I deserve
On the other hand, if I file for a patent, and back up my patent filing with a lot of bullshit figures
When my patent is granted, I got my patent and enjoy all the patent royalties that it generates.
As long as my patent does not infringe on others patent, legally speaking, nobody can do anything
That is what is wrong with the patent system
And that is why the patent office must either go through a total overhaul or shut down altogether
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The iPatch!
it might increase the number of homosexuals who notice the wearer
"It takes care of motion but so did Google Glasses and it was published publicly first, so that takes care of that about who did what first."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8pQVDyaLo
Here are the next steps for Apple:
(1) Wait until Google Glass comes out, take it apart and learn about the technology, build a patent fence around it. Optionally, hire away a few key people from Google to help in that effort.
(2) Buy some failing startup that creates augmented reality hardware. Gussy up the failing product with some shiny, market the hell out of it, pretend Apple invented it.
(3) Start suing everybody (including Google) for violating Apple's patents and designs.
Please! Please start an innovation consortium and develop this technology together. Than to each his own products based on whatever vision you might have. This way, we all benefit: the companies invest in innovation and unleash all the R&D prowess they both have, technology gets developed faster for lower prices and the general public can see nice products everywhere.
And with the money you save on laywers, you can release them in all nice hip colours.
(PS there is even more advantages: the patent offices can stop wasting time on obvious developments, Apple's image gets a little better, the judicial system gets time for real criminals and patent trolls are left alone in the rain)
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
Fuck it, we're doing FIVE displays!
They're all supposed to be.
Does that mean Samsung are OK if they create their rounded corners by making square ones & then filing them down?
Since when have patents been market-sector specific?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I seem to remember another Apple patent that did something very interesting. It had most (all?) of the electronics, lasers and what not on a separate unit that presumably would be worn on the belt (or I guess hand held).
Then, it would deliver the images VIA FIBER OPTICS (I guess like an endoscope) up to the "glasses" where presumably they would be displayed. This would (presumably) keep the weight and bulkiness of the glasses down although it introduces a cable. Still since having a cable hasn't kept millions of iPod/iPhone users from their iconic white earbuds, that may not be a serious impediment to its adoption. (Would the cable be white? Would it be called "eye buds"?)
So perhaps the iPhone X will have a little fiber optic jack (combined somehow with a copper wire so audio can be delivered).. Of course there might be a warning "Do not look into optical port with remaining eye!".
I don't know if this patent complements the previous one or represents another approach.
I think if this patent really works then apple will surely give a good fight to rivals.
The EyePhone.
There are *FOUR* lights.
Spears are low-tech items for mounting heads...
This just in, Apple sues government over patent infringement for allowing public to use two eyes to see.
Does that mean Samsung are OK if they create their rounded corners by making square ones & then filing them down?
There is a difference between a functional patent and a design one. Also the round corners was one of many points in Apple's suit. People can disagree whether Apple's design is unique enough for protection but distilling their entire case to one aspect misses the point.
Since when have patents been market-sector specific?
Patents can be use specific. That's been part of the problem of the system in the computer age where an older patent can be filed as a new function to be used on a computer and the new patent is valid.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There is obviously a model whereby you can get a patent for anything. For the patent office to make a thorough and accurate examination of every patent application is ludicrous. They let you have pretty much any trivial patent and push the problem on to the courts. The Seventh US District Court just bitch-slapped Apple and Google over trivial patents that they already held and were using for litigation claims. The judge, a well respected legal scholar who's opinion carries a lot of weight in the legal field, said that all software patents are implicitly void (ruling with prejudice). The story is hidden behind the magnificent WSJ pay-wall, but they will let you read it coming in from Google (Google: Silly Apple Google).
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Do you have a newsletter?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
The Drosophila Melanogaster Associtation of America claims their members have been using 750 eyes now for several hundred million years and have filed claims with the US 2nd District Court to seek remedy against Apple's recent patent.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
A patent is like a "First Post!" in the business world. There is a huge financial advantage to SPAM the system.
It is mostly filed by trolls, but sometimes there are "Insightful Post".
All the Google cum dripping from everyones mouth.
So, Google has been making a push for heads-up display computing devices ( I like to call them stupidity enhancers ). Google has tonnes of money and supposedly a never ending supply of "smart" people working diligently on new ideas.
In light of how litigious Apple has become and how aggressively Apple publicly pursuing to "destroy Google", why on earth would Google allow ANY market intrusion for heads-up display devices by Apple?
I mean if I were Google I would have flooded the patent office with applications that cover almost every conceivable concept, idea, or use of a heads up display, whether projecting images on to glass, directly on the eyeball, or future-proofing their patents by using language such as "any form of display, projection, or substrate".
You know damn well that Apple never conceived of a heads up display until Google announced their Glass initiative, so if I where in charge of Google I would have gotten all my ducks in a row and filed a shitload of patents prior to the announcement to stave off copy-cat tech.
This just smacks of irresponsible management. Allowing Apple any intrusion into heads up display will cause another technology war (we are deep into World War 3 for smartphones BTW). If Google fails in this market then its solely because of a lack of adequate foresight by their chief officer's. I can't believe any executive at any of the big tech companies allowing any market penetration by Apple, especially for new emerging tech.
Yeah, it would be nice if companies could partner and innovate together to create the best possible consumer experience, that WAS the whole point of patents in the first place. Patents were invented to proliferate cooperation in innovation by having companies reveal their tech secrets allowing other companies to build off of them. The opposite of a patent is a trade secret where companies do not share their ideas. But today patents have been twisted into an arsenal of IP weapons used to stifle competition and as a consequence innovation.
So, if you are a CEO in that kind of marketplace, why on earth would you not cover your ass and patent everything to do with new technology you are trying to bring to market?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Didn't they do the exact same thing in tanks and submarines for gunners?
FTFY
Why is this stuff patentable? We applied to do an SBIR (which we lost) to provide a glasses-based repair manual reference for fighter plane repair crews in the field to help lead them through repairs. In 1989.
Stuff that projects on the inside of your glasses, or directly into your eyeballs, one eye, two eyes, or two eyes binocular, has been around as an idea since before I was even born, in science fiction.
There is no mysterious thing developed here. People just had to plug together already-existing technology.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Displays
Sure, we could go to four displays next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a brighter backlight and call it the Mach3SuperTurbo HUD. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
--James M. Kilts CEO and President, The Gillette Company
...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
What does it matter if its fully functional or not? Since when is having all the bugs out a criteria for getting a patent?
The F35 helmet was designed, prototyped, contracted for, built, and put into production BEFORE the F35 was even built because they knew all along the F35 was not going to incorporate a cockpit HUD.
Big heavy clunky mock-ups were used on the F35 simulator years before the first plane rolled off the assembly line. (You don't seriously think the Airforce would go to production without a built in HUD betting that one would come along eventually do you?)
Further the F35 wasn't the first such rear projection helmet.
The idea was already out there when Apple filed its patent.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not yet combat ready doesn't matter a bit. Why are you throwing that out there?
That it needs fixes and refinement means nothing.
It designed and built, that that is Prior Art.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
This sounds exactly like the color-changing LEDs that were used in flat panel televisions to project light onto the wall surrounding a wall-mounted television, except of course it's in a head-mounted display. Is that really worthy of a patent? Besides, I would rather have a head-mounted display with a single screen that wrapped all the way around the width of the user's peripheral vision. Stereoscopic images could be displayed by splitting the screen in the center and sending different images to each side, but the continuity of the screen itself would provide a more realistic field of view.
A patent takes a while to file. Filing on Oct 13, 2006 means that they worked on the design prior to that date. Apple is known for their secrecy so we don't know how long they worked on it. It could have been years. The first flight of the F35 (without the helmet) was Dec 2006. Details on how the helmet worked would not likely have been available the public as it was still classified.
Even if Apple came up with exactly with the same design (which I doubt reading the patent), it's highly unlikely that they "stole" it from the F35 unless they had spies in the F35 program.
Big heavy clunky mock-ups were used on the F35 simulator years before the first plane rolled off the assembly line. (You don't seriously think the Airforce would go to production without a built in HUD betting that one would come along eventually do you?)
A mockup!= functioning unit. I can make a mockup of a holographic UI system but that doesn't mean I can patent it. Remember the patent was granted recently. The first flight of the F35 was on Dec 2006. The test pilots did not test the new helmets, only the overall flight characteristics of the airplane.
The idea was already out there when Apple filed its patent.
Aren't you admitting that Apple didn't steal this from the F35 if it had been previously done.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Prior art is prior art.
It doesn't require a fully functional device.
Mockups were functional to some degree, simply not capable of being fitted into the airplane. Prior Art.
You seem to have skipped over this line:
"You don't seriously think the Airforce would go to production without a built in HUD betting that one would come along eventually do you?"
Further, the airforce got this idea from somewhere. It was out there in a proposal or design document. Prior Art.
You simply can not hand waive away the fact that nobody decides to leave out a major functional piece of an airplane cocpit (the HUD) without already having a better solution in hand. Prior art.
Oh, and did I mention: PRIOR ART.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Prior art is prior art.
From the patent: References cited:
6064353
6185045
6657302
7938546
2004/0036700
2005/0255912
2006/0081793
2006/0120247
20070046776
2009/0175536
The display(s) and optics are typically embedded in a helmet, glasses . . . Military, police, and firefighters use HMDs to display relevant tactical information, such as maps or thermal imaging data.
Please tell me which one Apple missed.
"You don't seriously think the Airforce would go to production without a built in HUD betting that one would come along eventually do you?"
You skipped over these facts: Filing date: Oct 13, 2006. First flight: Dec 2006. Details of any helmet would not be public. How can Apple "steal" something that wasn't public unless they had spies at VSI ?
Also I provided to you a link which says that VSI didn't get a helmet semi-working until 2010. This means VSI's design could have been changing the entire time. So Apple stole something that may not have even existed in 2006.
Remember, the plane is in production but not all external components are ready. This has been one of the problems of the F35 program. They are behind schedule on what is to be delivered. The target date is 2016.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If Apple goes the route of a wearable display like Google Glasses, what will they call it? The iEye?!
It looks to me like they stole technology from the F35 helmet system.
Mind telling us how they reverse engineered top-secret military technology?