Apple Patents Oculus Rift-Style Headset

Fucking assholes, clearly they are up to their no good with stealing others technologies..
 
Patents should only be granted with a working prototype in hand. I'm going to patent self-tying shoe laces. I'll just draw some weird, complex looking shit up and get it patented. Then I'll wait for anything closely resembling it to come along and sue the maker.
 
I didnt see anything in the apple patent about 3d.
 
It takes years to get a patent. This was originally submitted years ago. Same with the curved display.
 
silv said:
It takes years to get a patent. This was originally submitted years ago. Same with the curved display.
Click to expand...

yeah ok apologist. Apple has the shittiest patent practices our of pretty much any major corporation. You think the rift hadnt at least began phase 1 development before this patent was filed? You think apple didnt maybe get wind of it and begin filing this patent? Same with curved displays. give me a break, apple is a dirty ass company that i hope gets driven into the ground with samsung pissing on the ashes
 
VladDracule said:
yeah ok apologist. Apple has the shittiest patent practices our of pretty much any major corporation. You think the rift hadnt at least began phase 1 development before this patent was filed? You think apple didnt maybe get wind of it and begin filing this patent? Same with curved displays. give me a break, apple is a dirty ass company that i hope gets driven into the ground with samsung pissing on the ashes
Click to expand...

Did you even read the article? Rift didn't exist in 2008 when this patent was filed for. Apple has been developing headsets since 2006. Palmer Luckey, Rift's founder, was 15 in 2008 and 13 in 2006 so no I don't think Rift had shit when this patent was filed for.
 
Because Apple is slowly switch from a consumer electronics company to an IP company. :)
 
There are a ton of useless patents out there that never amount to anything; I'm sure Apple owns a ton of them. The problem is, our patent office is mostly a revenue generating rubber stamp department. That is, anyone can come up with a "new" idea or concept, without the means or technology to make the idea work, and receive a patent regardless of how absurd or vague the idea is. All you need to do is fill out some forms, pay a fee and wait. Large companies, like Apple, Google and Microsoft, literally have salaried people sitting around coming up with "new" ideas and patenting them.
 
Nicklebon said:
Did you even read the article? Rift didn't exist in 2008 when this patent was filed for. Apple has been developing headsets since 2006. Palmer Luckey, Rift's founder, was 15 in 2008 and 13 in 2006 so no I don't think Rift had shit when this patent was filed for.
Click to expand...

Rift didnt do anything new or novel EITHER. This is an example of the tech involved ripening enough to make it viable. Head mounted displays are NOTHING NEW, Apple didnt invent anything here, they took existing ideas and said "I made this"
 
Wait until the next patent where Apple patents a device that turns oxygen into carbon dioxide... then sues us all for patent infringement.

worm
 
Nicklebon said:
Did you even read the article? Rift didn't exist in 2008 when this patent was filed for. Apple has been developing headsets since 2006. Palmer Luckey, Rift's founder, was 15 in 2008 and 13 in 2006 so no I don't think Rift had shit when this patent was filed for.
Click to expand...

Yup.

The onus was on Oculus Rift to do their due diligence and make sure they weren't trying to bring something to market that infringed on someone's existing patent or patent application. If Apple goes after them, that's their fault.
 
Spire3660 said:
Rift didnt do anything new or novel EITHER. This is an example of the tech involved ripening enough to make it viable. Head mounted displays are NOTHING NEW, Apple didnt invent anything here, they took existing ideas and said "I made this"
Click to expand...

Which is fine, if they improve on an existing technology with their own ideas. What gets me is that some of these patents are the natural progression of the technology or so vague that it pretty much stops development in that area. No one else can compete without facing a lawsuit.
 
Parja said:
Yup.

The onus was on Oculus Rift to do their due diligence and make sure they weren't trying to bring something to market that infringed on someone's existing patent or patent application. If Apple goes after them, that's their fault.
Click to expand...

And, of course, who loses in the end ? Us - people genuinely excited about the technology.
 
I'm fairly certain that this tech has been around since the mid 80's or thereabouts....
File:VirtualBoyJapan.jpg
 
Pathetic. Apple is taking a page out of Microsoft and turning to patent trolling as they become irrelevant. Apple is nothing more than a white box assembler like Dell and as rediculous as Dell getting a patent on display or any technology for that fact.
 
Once again...

A: Obvious under the art, umm I'll put a heads up display in front of the users face. You can't patent shit that is so obvious it was in Sci Fi movies from the 50's.

B: Prior Art, defense contractors have done all this shit with fighter pilots, tank drivers, etc for 20+ years. They can't patent SECRET SHIT. However, it's commercial use ... ie: sold to the government as top secret devices for profit ... makes it prior art and voids the patent-ability of any of this shit.

The PTO doesn't care, they are here to collect fee's and rubber stamp applications. They leave it to the court system ... the one with 93 open judge seats still to fill, to sort out the minutia of validity.

Thank You Ronny Raygun, you must be so proud.
 
These technologies have been in the works since the 80s any patents are going to take years to sort out.
 
Parja said:
Yup.

The onus was on Oculus Rift to do their due diligence and make sure they weren't trying to bring something to market that infringed on someone's existing patent or patent application. If Apple goes after them, that's their fault.
Click to expand...

Since patents are not valid to begin with (except in the eyes of statist brown-nosers who would be wise to mind their own business), I see no reason why Occulus should be obligated to do anything. They actually have a product, crApple does not. Only a parasite would deny Occulus the ability to use their own work.
 
damicatz said:
Since patents are not valid to begin with (except in the eyes of statist brown-nosers who would be wise to mind their own business), I see no reason why Occulus should be obligated to do anything.
Click to expand...

You don't? So apparently you have no experience with patent law? I'm not saying it's right, but it's how things work. And while you may not want to play the game, the law says you have to.

When developing a new product, you really need to delve into existing patents as well as patent applications, since you have to assume an application will eventually be approved.
 
Parja said:
You don't? So apparently you have no experience with patent law? I'm not saying it's right, but it's how things work. And while you may not want to play the game, the law says you have to.
Click to expand...

Then they had better be prepared to use force because I don't recognize patents as valid.
 
Sorry dickheads, they Rift has already been created. Try again!.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top