Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patents Head-Mounted iPhone

Posted by Soulskill on from the short-step-to-a-literal-eyephone dept.

mpicpp sends word of a patent newly awarded to Apple, #8,957,835, which describes a head-mounted apparatus that uses an iPhone (or iPod) as a display. The device "temporarily integrates or merges both mechanically and electronically a head-mounted device with a portable electronic device." It sounds a bit like Samsung's Gear VR headset, and many outlets are reporting it as being a virtual reality device. However, the patent itself doesn't mention VR, and it was filed in 2008, long before the VR rush of the past few years. That said, Apple has recently been trying to hire engineers with experience developing VR-related software, so it's something they could be evaluating.

33 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Given the prior art, my guess is the patent is designed to prevent companies that make iphone accessories from making their own. E.g. if you want a VR headset for an iphone, you gotta pay Apple a 400% markup for a piece of plastic.

    1. Re: Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Plus it has beats audio.

    2. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's that aspect, but it's also so that if Apple ever does make a product like this (they probably won't) it will be far more difficult for some other company with an overly broad patent similar to this to sue them.

      If the case were to go to court, all Apple would need to do is point at their own patent in claim that the patent office obviously thought their implementation was different enough from whatever company X has (Apple's patent might even list Company X as prior art. The actual patent has) and then company X has to argue that Apple's patent is invalid or it will have a really difficult time getting any damages.

      The patent system has turned into an arms race where it's far better to simply patent something you might never produce just because on the off chance that you do, someone else probably has a patent that's similar enough to sue you over it. Basically the cost of filing for the patent is less expensive than the cost of dealing with the legal costs if you don't have one.

    3. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

      This is not iPhone specific. FTFPatent:

      "In accordance with the invention, a head-mounted display system and method of operation are provided in which the system can allow users to couple and decouple a portable electronic device with a head-mounted device. The portable electronic device may for example be physically and/or operatively coupled and decoupled with the head-mounted device. In some embodiments, the two devices may be considered temporarily integrated. "

      It appears to patent any holder ("a head-mounted device") of any portable device worn on one's head that's providing a "display".

      --
      4wdloop
    4. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      Given the prior art,

      Which "prior art"? Anything that came out before this very patent was widely derided back in early April 2010? E.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/01/apple_headmount_patent/, http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/04/apple-contemplates-head-mounted-iphone-display-america-cringes/

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    5. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i was gonna say how does this even get a patent??

      Moto and samsung have these for their phones as well. is this one of those "with an iphone" - just like the "on a comupter" patents that should never get out to begin with?????

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It appears to patent any holder ("a head-mounted device") of any portable device worn on one's head that's providing a "display".

      So, you know all those pictures of the guys with cell phones taped to their head?

      This is pretty much the same idea.

      Seriously, I don't think this is patentable. Well, I'm sure it is, because the patent office are just rubber stamping stuff.

      The portable electronic device may for example be physically and/or operatively coupled and decoupled with the head-mounted device. In some embodiments, the two devices may be considered temporarily integrated.

      So, it may or may not change how it functions .. they may or may not be integrated ... essentially the "invention" is a display mounted in front of your face which might do something extra ... or it might not, but in the future we could make it really cool so we're really just patenting the concept as a placeholder.

      Yup, the USPTO are a bunch of chimps signing off on anything as long as the check cleared.

      Describing a helmet mounted HUD which slaves to a piece of portable electronics isn't an "invention" ... it's an example of stuff we've seen in sci-fi.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re: Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Is Dre gonna have to kill a bitch?

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      looking at stereographic images on pda's goes way, way back further than that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      you know what the problem is with the "everyone else is an arsehole so i have to be an arsehole too" excuse?

      the problem is that you're still an arsehole. and a lame excuse is still just a lame fucking excuse.

    10. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by organgtool · · Score: 1

      There's that aspect, but it's also so that if Apple ever does make a product like this (they probably won't) it will be far more difficult for some other company with an overly broad patent similar to this to sue them.

      So Apple filed a spaghetti-against-the-wall patent for a device they're likely not even interested in making and now anyone who would hope to make such a device has to take on the risk that Apple may sue them. How exactly is this promoting the progress of the Arts and Sciences?

    11. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If it's a novel way of fastening a phone to your head, it should be patentable. If it's just the idea, or an overly general implementation, it shouldn't be. I haven't read the claims, so I have no idea. (The claims are the part of the patent that matter. The quote in TFS sounds like it came from a more general description, which has no legal force.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Prior art still matters. First-to-file is a way of saying who gets a patent. It replaced first-to-invent, in which the courts would have to sift through evidence to decide who gets the patent.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by laird · · Score: 1

      The patent was filed in 2008 - it just took until now to issue. So some lawsuit might hinge on _when_ in 2008 Apple and Motorola filed these patents. :-)

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    14. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by laird · · Score: 1

      First to file doesn't mean that you can ignore prior art. It means that if two different inventors patent the same invention, the first filing "wins". But if someone else invented the same thing, and publicly disclosed it but didn't file a patent, before either of those patents, then it would be prior art.

      --
      Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
    15. Re:Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by MouseR · · Score: 1

      IANAL but that's not what I understood from what my patent attorney described.

      You probably need a doctorate to be able to read this but USPTO defines Prior Art Machiavellicaly.

      A slightly more consumable description is here.

  2. Shut up and take my money... by Foochee · · Score: 3, Funny

    eyePhone anyone?

  3. Dual use by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    This doubles as birth control device as well.

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:Dual use by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      wrong head

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    2. Re:Dual use by cygnwolf · · Score: 2

      Don't think that matters, if the wrong head looks like a dick, the other one isn't getting any attention....

      --
      Free Pie! The Pie is Also Evil!
  4. Cardboard? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they're just patenting it so nobody can use the idea. That might actually be a worthwhile patent, in that case.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Cardboard? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, Google Cardboard came out in 2014 and the patent was filed in 2008.

  5. Prior Art by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Rubber Bands cover this "innovation"

  6. Brilliant! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Because a microwave RF transmitter strapped directly to your head is the only way to fry.. err fly?

  7. Just checking the date. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Yes it is 2015. .... Still 2015 now too.

    How the heck does it take 7 years to approve a patent, especially when the approval decisions are of such low quality.

    1. Re:Just checking the date. by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

      How the heck does it take 7 years to approve a patent, especially when the approval decisions are of such low quality.

      You must not have tried to apply for any patents. I'm still being awarded patents for work I did with my previous employer whom I left 7 years ago The patent application date was in 2004.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  8. Already been done... by matbury · · Score: 2

    They'll have to prove that they came up with the idea before these people:

    http://data.coolnicks.co.uk/pi...

    http://funnypictures.up.seesaa...

    etc...

    1. Re:Already been done... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Here's prior art to your argument: http://www.perou.co.uk/photos/2085.jpg

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  9. LOL ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Troll

    Dorks .... iiiiinnnnn .... spaaaaaaccce!!!

    Oh god, if anybody I know ever straps their iphone in front of their face with some dorky looking headgear ... the mocking shall be swift and relentless.

    Suddenly I'm picturing the dock-tacular iPhone HUD consisting of three iPhones, and I might pee myself laughing at the thought of it.

    You would have to mock strangers for wearing what I'm visualizing. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  10. Like the TV hat? by Dillenger69 · · Score: 1

    tv hat

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Like the TV hat? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      This is both stupid and cool.

  11. Yep, nobody but Apple makes iPhone accessories by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Except for a thousand fucking companies.

  12. Re:Finally! by Wovel · · Score: 1

    Well google just made some cardboard that would fold up to resemble the diagram in this patent 6 years after Apple filed it.... So really it took Google 6 years to try and rip it off and they only used cardboard because they thought it was silly.