Apple Awarded Patent For Head-Mounted iPhone VR Display

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Oh crap, here come the lawsuits. :eek:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Tuesday granted Apple U.S. Patent No. 8,957,835, entitled "Head-Mounted Display Apparatus for Retaining a Portable Electronic Device with Display." It describes a portable electronic device that could have an iPhone inserted into it and worn on the user's head.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, really? After Samsung already released theris Apple somehow gets a patent for the exact same thing?
 
MrCaffeineX said:
The patent system can take some time to process the applications. What is that, 7 years?
Click to expand...

Yep. Not only that, but this patent application was published in April, 2010, so Samsung had plenty of notice that Apple had a patent pending.

Tons of the hate for the patent system is rooted in the fact that people don't understand how truly slow the patent office moves. Prior art rejections are not looked at in the context of the present, they are looked at with respect to the date of the invention. This is why obviousness rejections are always worded "it would have been obvious," not "it is obvious."
 
I suspect that they have patented this to prevent their customers - and more importantly, their products - from being used in such a dorky ass way. This can't possibly look good.
 
mi7chy said:
Patent thief and troll strikes again. Samsung has a patent on HMD from 2005.

http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/gear-vr-how-samsung-makes-virtual-reality-a-reality/
Click to expand...

So not only did Samsung come up with and actually patent the idea first, they were also first to market. Wait, and just how much money has Apple been sitting on all these years? And what did they do with it? They bought a company that makes headphones that make you look like a wannabe trendy dumbass instead of investing in things that will actually matter in the future. Steve Jobs was a massive douche but at least he had some vision.
 
mi7chy said:
Patent thief and troll strikes again. Samsung has a patent on HMD from 2005.

http://global.samsungtomorrow.com/gear-vr-how-samsung-makes-virtual-reality-a-reality/
Click to expand...

You need to be mad with the patent office for granting what is basically a double patent.

If you were a business man and didn't do the same thing Apple is doing, you'd be a foolish, broke business man.

I posted it in another thread, and I'll post it in this one:

Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
Dwango said:
So not only did Samsung come up with and actually patent the idea first, they were also first to market. Wait, and just how much money has Apple been sitting on all these years? And what did they do with it? They bought a company that makes headphones that make you look like a wannabe trendy dumbass instead of investing in things that will actually matter in the future. Steve Jobs was a massive douche but at least he had some vision.
Click to expand...
yeah, they're totally identical :rolleyes:

The-idea-of-HMD-using-features-phone-United-States-Patent-2005.png

11848-5238-Screen-Shot-2015-02-17-at-91805-AM-l.jpg
 
I wonder what Microsoft has filed--obviously something. Unless Apple tries to enforce the patent it will just sit there along with a zillion others the company can't enforce--because I'd guess that the idea is too general and obvious to merit an actionable hardware patent--nobody can/should "own the rights" to something a general as a "head-mounted display"...My guess would be that they all have unenforceable patents on such hardware--that their company lawyers have filed in a bid to justify their inordinate salaries.
 
WaltC said:
I wonder what Microsoft has filed--obviously something. Unless Apple tries to enforce the patent it will just sit there along with a zillion others the company can't enforce--because I'd guess that the idea is too general and obvious to merit an actionable hardware patent--nobody can/should "own the rights" to something a general as a "head-mounted display"...My guess would be that they all have unenforceable patents on such hardware--that their company lawyers have filed in a bid to justify their inordinate salaries.
Click to expand...
that's not how patents work

if you took the concept of a head mounted VR holder and made it from foam like big stadium fingers you'd have to patent that implementation or people could copy you without issue

it's unfathomable how so many people in this community can be so wrong about how a basic system in our country operates; especially how trivial it is to look it up or the fact that this comes up nearly every single time anyone patents anything ever
 
They will award a patent for just about anything now a days....... including a turd on a stick. Wait, I think I need to submit some paperwork :D
 
mope54 said:
yeah, they're totally identical :rolleyes:

The-idea-of-HMD-using-features-phone-United-States-Patent-2005.png

11848-5238-Screen-Shot-2015-02-17-at-91805-AM-l.jpg
Click to expand...

iPhone's screen size back in 2008 when this was filed was 3.5" so the horizontal length is ~2.91". You would've had to cross your eyes to use it. This is just throwing shit at the wall without any basic design validation to see if it passes the USPTO after seeing someone else's work. Samsung's dual display addresses the proper width along with pioneering the single phablet size screen that's used in the shipping Gear VR. Apple's patent should be invalidated because it's unsound.
 
every single company that wants to use their own implementation has to patent what they intend to do or everyone else can copy it without compensation...why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
How much modification is required to be a new, unique product in the patent offices/courts eyes? So many similar products that are different enough for a new patent, yet do the same exact thing and look similar.
 
Ur_Mom said:
How much modification is required to be a new, unique product in the patent offices/courts eyes? So many similar products that are different enough for a new patent, yet do the same exact thing and look similar.
Click to expand...
I doubt that many in this thread have actually read the relevant patent filings. Simply looking at the end-products of researched, designed, and manufacturing processes and concluding that they are the same on a superficial basis isn't going to give much insight as to why a particular patent was granted or rejected.

One thing you can be certain of, however, is that a filing process that takes over 6 years until approval is not a rubber stamping process.
 
Apple is going to sue. Once again Samsung has stolen Apple's ideas, before Apple invented them. ;)
 
I get the feeling the patent system was architected with the notion of individuals coming up with great ideas and getting robbed by big-business who can beat them to market.

Nowadays it seems all we see is patents existing for the sake of having a patent. The system just doesn't work with corporations carpet bombing everything under the sun for a patent because they have the resources to do it. It doesn't pass the smell test.
 
dr/owned said:
I get the feeling the patent system was architected with the notion of individuals coming up with great ideas and getting robbed by big-business who can beat them to market.

Nowadays it seems all we see is patents existing for the sake of having a patent. The system just doesn't work with corporations carpet bombing everything under the sun for a patent because they have the resources to do it. It doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

It was stacked a bit against the little guy b4 "prior art" was tossed out and "first to patent" became the rule. Now it is pretty much designed around companies becoming patent mills so they can protect profits by eliminating innovation. Little guy makes a product, we steamroll our patent through b4 he gets a chance, and voila, it's now ours.
 
I don't understand your logic and the way you use these empty catchphrases without thinking them through.

Even if large corporations were patent trolling (ignoring the fact the definition of a "patent troll" is an entity that doesn't manufacture anything but instead sues other entities that do in order to generate revenue), and even if that forced other companies to not use the patented thing, that would be the opposite of "eliminating innovation" since that would force the other company to come up with something new to work around the patent.

You're conflating two separate concepts: making sure people can't manufacture anything like what you have (the long term result would be stimulating innovation, whether you like it or not) versus everyone copying every implementation that's already being used (which is what would occur if we didn't have a patent system and already occurs to a large extent in patent ignoring countries like china).
 
Well I don't know enough to comment on this from personal experience, but a smarter (and richer) person has this to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBH64zFew6k

His companies get sued 2 times a year by patent trolls instead of once every 4 years. In Cuban's words, his companies invent a solution in their own space without knowledge that they're stepping on anyone's feet and get sued because someone is sitting on a library of aspects of the invention they can sue over.

So I'm gonna vote alongside the people that say patents are stifling innovation.
 
psedach said:
Well I don't know enough to comment on this from personal experience, but a smarter (and richer) person has this to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBH64zFew6k

His companies get sued 2 times a year by patent trolls instead of once every 4 years. In Cuban's words, his companies invent a solution in their own space without knowledge that they're stepping on anyone's feet and get sued because someone is sitting on a library of aspects of the invention they can sue over.

So I'm gonna vote alongside the people that say patents are stifling innovation.
Click to expand...
how about you explain how someone coming up with an idea and implementing it suing someone who comes up with the same idea later on is "stifling innovation?"

Do you understand the meaning of the word "innovation?"
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I already saw one of those made of cardboard, didn't I?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter we gave up caring and switched to first to file a few years back. So now anyone with money can copy ideas and outrun any smaller player and patent their ideas.
 
I suppose you have to be innovative to get around the patent system. That aside, in this case, Apple patented something someone else is already selling.
 
I'm more interested to see if Apple actually does anything with the patent. I have my doubts that head mounted cell phone holders will ever go anywhere.
 
What a company needs to do is fix the nausea that comes from wearing these types of devices. Samsung's comes with a huge list of warnings. I think the Oculus Rift will when it ships as well.
 
mope54 said:
I don't understand your logic and the way you use these empty catchphrases without thinking them through.

Even if large corporations were patent trolling (ignoring the fact the definition of a "patent troll" is an entity that doesn't manufacture anything but instead sues other entities that do in order to generate revenue), and even if that forced other companies to not use the patented thing, that would be the opposite of "eliminating innovation" since that would force the other company to come up with something new to work around the patent.

You're conflating two separate concepts: making sure people can't manufacture anything like what you have (the long term result would be stimulating innovation, whether you like it or not) versus everyone copying every implementation that's already being used (which is what would occur if we didn't have a patent system and already occurs to a large extent in patent ignoring countries like china).
Click to expand...

A real patent troll is someone that buys patents in order to sue often while the patents may not even be valid or barely relevant. If you develop a relevant pantent as an individual, you're not a troll to expect proper compensation for it. And being forced to license it devalues your potential compensation. Your definiition of troll falls right into the hands of your corporate overlords to rape people who go out on their own out from under the corporate plantation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top