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.

8 of 55 comments (clear)

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

    eyePhone anyone?

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

    This doubles as birth control device as well.

    --
    Monstar L
    1. 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!
  3. Re: Probably just to prevent accessory competitors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    Plus it has beats audio.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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...