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."
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.
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
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'
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.
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.
Stereoscopes have only been around for nearly 200 years. Who could possibly have thought "stereoscope, but with a phone"? /sarcasm
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