Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Could Have "Broad Ramifications" For VR Headsets
An anonymous reader writes Filed in 2008, published in 2013, and legally granted to Apple this week, the company's patent for a 'Head-mounted display apparatus for retaining a portable electronic device with display' could have "broad ramifications" for mobile VR headsets like Samsung's Gear VR and Google Cardboard, says patent attorney Eric Greenbaum. "This Apple HMD patent is significant. I would say it introduces potential litigation risks for companies that have or are planning to release a mobile device HMD," he said. "There is no duty for Apple to make or sell an HMD. They can sit on this patent and use it strategically either by enforcing it against potential infringers, licensing it, or using it as leverage in forming strategic partnerships."
Me thinks Chinese copies will resolve this issue completely.
This really shows how much these corporations really want their customers to be happy. and get all the best they possible could offer. .....
As long as Apple in this case makes money or bangs it's competitor's in behind wearing the classes.
It has no problems if it's customers (we, the people on earth, etc) never ever get to wear these devices.
So what you're saying is that you are inserting your own personal bias into a process where you are supposed to be making objective purchasing decisions on behalf of a school district.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
for HMD's, VR goggles, displays, etc, HOW THE FUCK did crApple manage to get a patent on this?!?
Like anything Apple patents, it's someone else's work and vision.
Simply put, VR headsets (displays mounted in such a way as to be placed in front of a person's eyes) have been visualized and built for decades.
Lawnmower Man anyone?
Google doesn't sell Google Cardbaord. Google involvement is just apps. Instead you buy a kit made of cardboard from some vendor for a few dollars. The kit probably doesn't violate the patent anyway because it doesn't physically connect to the phone.
By narrowing the patent to specifically cover using a mobile device, such as an iPhone, mounted in a VR headset. There is hardly prior art for that.
"It holds a smart phone in front of your eyes" isn't enough to enforce a patent. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing patent applications where the thing being claimed isn't a design at all, but a vague description of a whole class of products that share some basic characteristics.
head?
This is really a poor-man's solution. Needing a latest greatest cell-phone to show-off (of course, not simply being able to pay for it, but monthly through the carrier), and wanting some VR. Not minding the big disadvantage of having the complete weight of the cell-phone strapped to their head, and display quality diminished by the touch input layer.
Displays aren't exactly the cheapest part of a cell-phone, however, a purpose-built device will definitely be more user-friendly - and cheaper than the cell-phone with the same display.
A patent on something that serves 3rd world needs is somewhere between useless (can't earn much from them), or outright cruel (preventing them from accessing cheap technology).
That they are granted a patient to use a "mobile" device with a typically non-mobile VR headset.
My last rough count of ruined kickstarter projects is 4. Few things are sadder than a multibillion dollar international company serving cease and desist letters to fledgling startups who operated in good faith with due diligence. Ahh apple, will you use your 6+ to capture the exact moment you broke that 22yr old business owners heart?
He's realized that Apple's legal actions ultimately harm the tech environment of the school, putting the students' future competitiveness potentially at risk. Continuing to fund such activities betrays the students' educational interests.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And there is hardly any "inventiveness" in it either. Such a patent should never have been granted, and the applicant should have fined a significantly for this.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Would't the VR head set be a mobile device anyways?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
To infringe, an infringer would have to produce a product that had every element of the claim listed below. Leave one thing off and you are clear of infringement. 1. A head-mounted device that is worn on a user's head and configured to integrate with a removable portable electronic device, comprising: a frame comprising a cavity that is configured to physically receive and carry the removable portable electronic device, wherein the frame places a display screen of the portable electronic device in front of the user's eyes, and wherein the display screen of the portable electronic device acts as the primary display screen of the head-mounted device such that the display screen of the portable electronic device is primarily used to view image based content when the head-mounted display device is worn on the user's head; a detection mechanism configured to alter the portable electronic device based on whether the removable portable electronic device is mounted on the frame; and an optical subassembly operative to: receive at least one image frame from the display screen of the portable electronic device, wherein the at least one image frame comprises the image based content; and adjust the image based content based at least in part on relative sizes of the display and the display screen of the portable electronic device.
Eloquent words can mask much mischief. Judge Mayer
You mean this story?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
As part of the patent, they would have to define what they mean by "mobile device". To avoid prior art, it has to mean something that hasn't been patented or implemented already.
If I understand patents correctly the supporting claims don't matter it's the parent claims. Break one part of the parent and the rest falls apart.
Part of claim 1 the only parent claim...
"a detection mechanism configured to alter the portable electronic device based on whether the removable portable electronic device is mounted on the frame"
That's easy... Mount the display in the headset. Push a on screen button launching VR mode. Device changes to VR mode. Take off the headset, touch the screen - since you won't be touching it while watching it, and device comes out of VR mode. It's not like you need to be that lazy to have it automatically start when put in.
If I'm right Samsung / Google I just saved you both some trouble. If I'm wrong then please tell me where so I'll learn something.
I rigged my old VFX1 with a couple of webcams taped to the outside and a desktop in a backpack. It was a very silly augmented reality setup.
Mobile as any backpack, except for the power cord.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I have seen gag pictures on the web of portable TVs strapped to people's heads for years now. same thing, just sleeker. I don't think you can patent "sleeker."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Fails the "obvious" test though. Same way VR is/will be used with PCs, consoles, and other devices that are, essentially, computers (and that can also be used for communications). A laptop computer is a "mobile device". So's a tablet. Either of which can easily be used to communicate with others. Anyway, pairing VR with a smaller "computer" (like a smart phone) is simply too obvious to be patentable. William Gibson was pairing VR with "mobile" devices 30 years ago (cyberspace "deck", anyone?!?).
This patent is bogus and should be revoked. Whoever approved it should be fired.
What the hell gives them the right to patent either the technology or the design?
Money.
Every claim is based on the first one, which specifically states its a holder for a portable device, like an iPod Touch or iPhone.
As long as the VR goggles have their own built in screen, there is no way it is infringing.
It was filed in 2008, but there were already others publicly using smartphones the 'google cardboard' way, so there is prior art, and therefore I already find it very weird Apple was awarded the patent.. Seems like they (again) give the patent officer one hell of a bribe....
This explains why Google came out with cardboard. To make it clear, just how stupid this patent is.
Would't the VR head set be a mobile device anyways?
No, we were all expected to have the VR headset plugged into an ENIAC ....
Common sense about what is and isn't obvious went out the door long ago at the PATENTly Absurd OFFICE
insert tab A into slot B
Ah, but that's the beauty of vague patents ... a system and methodology for doing something we've had for decades in the real world, but with a computer/cell phone goes a long way to conceal what you're saying is "I'm going to strap this sucker in front of my face and call it an invention".
As written, the patent says little more than "duct taping a small display to your hat, but in the future we might add some functionality".
I'm betting in the 80's someone rigged up something to hold one of those portable TVs ... and oddly enough, that was a mobile device.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How in the world did Apple get to this first? No one before 2008 thought to do this? Seriously?
Sure, strapping a Palm 3 to my head would probably just cause a headache, but no one at Palm or Microsoft or Sony or Samsung or Motorola thought enough of this to file a throwaway patent?
"You're wearing it wrong"
You mean Nintendo didn't patent this with Virtual Boy?
I remember wearing a headset at cebit a few decades ago. So what they claim is that shortening the cable to the computer and shrinking it the electronics is patent worthy.This patent is too obvious and will fail in court.
Make a collar that rests on your shoulders instead of attaching to the head. Would work just as well and your shoulders are better equipped to handle bearing extra weight for an extended period of time than your neck is. Add a mechanism so that it rotates with your head and you are good.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
iPads, Chromebooks, Android tablets, Nooks AND Laptops in one school district?
Folks, we have met the real Bastard Operator From Hell.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The only reason they patented it is so that if they do make an actual product, it's harder for any patent trolls to sue them.
It's very likely that there are dozens of incredibly similar patents floating around out there, but the fact that Apple has been granted a patent for their implementation means that it's far more difficult for someone else to sue them because Apple can always point to their own patent as proof that the patent office obviously considered their implementation different enough and therefore unlikely to infringe.
It really doesn't matter though as I don't think Apple will actually bring this to market. They've got patents for hundreds of other things that have never seen the light of day, but when you're a billion dollar company, spending a little bit of time and money to potentially stop any lawsuits targeting your company are worth it.
Meh.
I'm worried that every SIM on the planet may be backdoored.
https://firstlook.org/theinter...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Unless you're somehow manufacturing the head mount and display together, every display used in a head mounted apparatus was initially separate, and was inserted into it. What exactly is the invention here? The idea of assembling pieces together?
If this is patentable then you could get a one-click patent as well. Oh, wait.......
Its Apple they have made billions on patenting and stealing others and claiming they did it first.
Theoretically this patent covers the ability to insert and remove the display from the headset, as well as detection of the display so that it can switch into HMD mode. I'm not saying it's new tech or that they deserve the patent but it is unique from the VR and older HMD headsets that I'm familiar with that have it built in. I'm not sure if this would cover other ways of inserting the display and if there are loopholes to get around it but that's what it is.
The virtual boy was a "portable" device, sure, maybe (but not really). But it was not a harness in which is mounted a mobile device, which is what this patent covers.
Actually, there's plenty of prior art... and it's known to the public. There are even patents. Someone at Apple may have seen the patents, modified them for the iPhone, and gotten them published. http://www.roadtovr.com/samsun...
-]Phreak Out[-
It seems to me that the only real bit of inventiveness is to have a way for the phone to automatically detect that it has been inserted into the holder (and presumably switch to a different operating mode).
I don't think Google Cardboard does this, but it's an obvious incremental step.
I saw a chart that says the app store made like a hundred thousand jobs and has given billions and billions to developers. also apple made an entirely new programming language and is giving that away. I would say they have done a lot.
It seems to me that several devices from the Garage VR days would predate this patent.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Webkit. They've also been a major contributor to LLVM. Both very important open source projects.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
if I point my viewmaster at an electric light is that a problem? guess I stick to my kerosene lamp then.
Let's not be too tough on this AC. Combing viruses and spyware out of Windows will build the characters of these children and prepare them for a business world in which they are issued the cheapest, crappiest office PCs the bean counters will spring for.
Because you're a fucking idiot? Who did you think worked on WebKit? They also wrote Grand Central Dispatch and released it as open source. They bought CUPS and continued its development. They even contributed to USB3 - Apple was the largest corporate contributor to USB3 outside of Intel - this is why you have the reversible connector for USB3.1.
Any evidence?
Stereoscopes have only been around for nearly 200 years. Who could possibly have thought "stereoscope, but with a phone"? /sarcasm
Your mistake is that your forgetting that most people already OWN the cellphone for other uses.
So it's only the surrounding container that needs to be bought.
That can be made a LOT cheaper than one with the display. Of course it's likely to offer slightly less value/features but it is probably good enough for a lot of people who can't afford yet another device but would be happy to use one they already paid for in another way that covers most of the functionality they need.
In the same way - no photographer would dream of using a cellphone camera to do a photoshoot. You can't swap lenses, the shutter is tiny, you can't shoot in raw. It's a terrible camera. Yet for millions of users, it's replaced buying any other kind since it's already there, in your pocket, and for taking a few holiday snaps it's "good enough".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Webkit.
Apple is ONLY a contributor to webkit, it was not their code originally. Webkit was originally developed by the KDE project, it's the original renderer for the Konqueror browser, it was adopted by both Safari and Google chrome from that origin and both have contributed significantly back to the parent project.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
From that link:
The Mobile Handset Exploitation Team (MHET), whose existence has never before been disclosed
Nope, can't think what their target could possible be. Probably they DNA test people's dogs...
OK, I swear the text in that quote changed while I was copying and pasting it from "target" to "existence"... and the original...
Either I'm going senile, or the NSA want me to think I'm going senile...
History suggests otherwise. Apple uses patents to stop people competing with it by degrading their products or getting them banned. They also use them as bargaining chips when they need to licence patents for their own use, because in the past they found that design patents are pretty much worthless and other companies expect cash payments instead.
Don't forget that Apple is part of the Rockstar group. They use patents for evil, not just for self defence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So no blaming Apple for applying for the patent to protect themselves in case it gets granted to someone else. But as usual, definitely blaming PTO for granting a patent for something so obvious. Don't they even read their own basic rule?
I think hes saying he has gone over the numbers and the long term costs/benefits and has come to the conclusion it is not in their best interest to be locked into the apple ecosystem.
anyone who is not already in any ecosystem yet and does the math would come up with the same conclusion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I saw a chart that says the app store made like a hundred thousand jobs and has given billions and billions to developers.
Using those exact same numbers you could claim that apple took 30% of the profits from the developers mouths while other app stores do no such thing.
If the apple app store did not exist, the majority of those "jobs" would still exist, on android, WP and BB
gotta love statistics right!??!?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The only reason they patented it is so that if they do make an actual product, it's harder for any patent trolls to sue them.
If only they hadnt shown themselves to be litigious over things like rounded corners in the past, you might have something there
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
apple invented the app ecosystem. if apple didn't have an app store then maybe there woudl still be a play store but it would only have chinese malware.
actually the "app ecosystem" only came into play to compete with google. At first, there were no 3rd party apps in IOS it was limited to large players (the exact same way it was with feature phones prior to IOS)
it wasnt until the google app store (now known as google play) started to take off that apple allowed 3rd party apps
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
except the apple app store opened in July 2008, and the android store opened in Sep 2008 so unless youre benjamin buttons then the apple app store came first.
The full Safari engine is inside of iPhone. And so, you can write amazing Web 2.0 and Ajax apps that look exactly and behave exactly like apps on the iPhone. And these apps can integrate perfectly with iPhone services. They can make a call, they can send an email, they can look up a location on Google Maps. And guess what? There’s no SDK that you need! You’ve got everything you need if you know how to write apps using the most modern web standards to write amazing apps for the iPhone today. So developers, we think we’ve got a very sweet story for you. You can begin building your iPhone apps today.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same