Apple invention could lead to glasses-free 3D on mobile devices

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2016
An Apple patent application published early on Thursday could theoretically set the stage for iPhones and other devices with "autostereoscopic" displays, simulating 3D without the need for special glasses.




The patent, found by AppleInsider, describes a pixel array featuring a second array of subpixels and lens structures, the latter emitting light at a number of different angles. The key component though would be the "beam steerer," pointing the correct light at the viewer.

To judge where to aim the light, a device would use a camera and/or an accelerometer. That would suggest an emphasis on mobile devices, though Apple could conceivably try to implement the technology into MacBooks.

Glasses-free 3D has largely failed to take off in consumer electronics, so far. One attempt at the idea was Amazon's botched Fire Phone, which didn't offer a true stereoscopic effect but did employ a "dynamic perspective" sensor system. The most successful may be Nintendo's 3DS handheld.

The application was originally submitted in January 2015, and is credited to Jean-Jacques Drolet, a senior manager of Display Technologies at Apple.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    irevoltirevolt Posts: 19member
    What about using this technology to adjust for farsightedness or nearsightedness? With an app that you type in your left and right eye specs and the device would adjust.
    doozydozen
  • Reply 2 of 31
    roakeroake Posts: 811member
    "Amazon's failed Fire Phone, which didn't offer a true stereoscopic effect but did employ a "dynamic perspective" sensor system."

    Wasn't that just a parallax effect?
    SpamSandwichTurboPGT
  • Reply 3 of 31
    KWKW Posts: 1member
    AppleInsider, 

    Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Patens are just patenting the idea. The way you title is strictly link bate. Companies like Apple patent every idea under the sun. That way, if they ever DO INVENT the thing, someone else can't claim they have the copyright, and vise-versa. 
    edited July 2016 brikonSpamSandwichgatorguyrevenantmjhnldysamoria
  • Reply 4 of 31
    brikonbrikon Posts: 1member
    HTC EVO 2011
  • Reply 5 of 31
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    KW said:
    AppleInsider, 

    Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Patens are just patenting the idea. The way you title is strictly link bate. Companies like Apple patent every idea under the sun. That way, if they ever DO INVENT the thing, someone else can't claim they have the copyright, and vise-versa. 

    okay feeding the trolls, How do you know Apple has not actually prototype this in the lab, They do spend Billions every year on developing new idea. Unlike many company who never spent any money making anything and truly just patent an idea whether it can actually be made.
    edited July 2016 jbdragonpatchythepiratebadmonkmejsric
  • Reply 6 of 31
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    KW said:
    AppleInsider, 

    Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Patens are just patenting the idea. The way you title is strictly link bate. Companies like Apple patent every idea under the sun. That way, if they ever DO INVENT the thing, someone else can't claim they have the copyright, and vise-versa. 
    Your understanding of what a patent is is sadly lacking.
    A patent is awarded to  the practical implementation of an idea. Whereby you get a period of time of exclusivity for your way of doing something but you have to disclose it to everyone.
    ie  you can't patent an idea.
    Although if you find a way that gets the same result by a different way then on the surface you can have two or more companies apparently doing the same thing but still not infringing each others patents. 
    Copyright is something else.
    jbdragonTurboPGTnolamacguydoozydozenjkichlinebadmonkmejsric
  • Reply 7 of 31
    longpathlongpath Posts: 393member
    KW said:
    AppleInsider, 

    Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Patens are just patenting the idea. The way you title is strictly link bate. Companies like Apple patent every idea under the sun. That way, if they ever DO INVENT the thing, someone else can't claim they have the copyright, and vise-versa. 
    This is half of the problem with the current patent system, wherein ideas and actual working inventions are equated, to the point where ideas are patented years before any technology exists to actually make an invention, and someone who subsequently builds an actual working invention that uses that idea is held to be infringing on the patent. In reality, patents, if they should be allowed to exist at all (a separate issue that, amongst other things, involves interpretation of the first amendment in the US and equivalent free speech guarantees in other countries) should only apply to actual inventions and the creation of a working invention should automatically supersede any patent on a mere idea. Yes, I acknowledge that a patent on software code blurs that line; but, if the code compiles and executes the claimed function, then it is a working invention, not merely an idea for one.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 8 of 31
    waverboywaverboy Posts: 106member
    Nintendo 3DS, anyone?
    kevinpetersonsupadav03
  • Reply 9 of 31
    kevinpetersonkevinpeterson Posts: 56member
    Nintendo's 3DS family of systems (out since 2011) have sold 58 million units. But I guess that means failed.
  • Reply 10 of 31
    farmboyfarmboy Posts: 152member
    longpath said:
    This is half of the problem with the current patent system, wherein ideas and actual working inventions are equated, to the point where ideas are patented years before any technology exists to actually make an invention, and someone who subsequently builds an actual working invention that uses that idea is held to be infringing on the patent. In reality, patents, if they should be allowed to exist at all (a separate issue that, amongst other things, involves interpretation of the first amendment in the US and equivalent free speech guarantees in other countries) should only apply to actual inventions and the creation of a working invention should automatically supersede any patent on a mere idea. Yes, I acknowledge that a patent on software code blurs that line; but, if the code compiles and executes the claimed function, then it is a working invention, not merely an idea for one.
    There is no such thing as a "patent on a mere idea". Inventions claimed in a patent must be reduced to practice, in other words, an actual functioning device (even if crude) must be created that utilizes the claims in the patent. You can't patent the "idea" of an anti-gravity hover board unless you demonstrate to the USPTO (and all other patent agencies) a functioning anti-gravity hover board as described in your application. I also don't see what the first amendment has to do with anything patent; perhaps you'll enlighten us.
  • Reply 11 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    Corning's dream come true ...
  • Reply 12 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    KW said:
    AppleInsider, 

    Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Patens are just patenting the idea. The way you title is strictly link bate. Companies like Apple patent every idea under the sun. That way, if they ever DO INVENT the thing, someone else can't claim they have the copyright, and vise-versa. 
    Here's me thinking you patented an invention/idea.  What is an invention if not an idea?
  • Reply 13 of 31
    mobiusmobius Posts: 380member
    waverboy said:
    Nintendo 3DS, anyone?
    Didn't you read the article?
    doozydozen
  • Reply 14 of 31
    richdatswhorichdatswho Posts: 38member
    HTC had a glasses-free 3d phone in 2011 so you're reaching here with saying this is their invention as if they'll be first to market with something ground breaking. Perhaps they're building on a way to improve upon what HTC did 5 years ago but, they're definitely not first.
    doozydozen
  • Reply 15 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    HTC had a glasses-free 3d phone in 2011 so you're reaching here with saying this is their invention as if they'll be first to market with something ground breaking. Perhaps they're building on a way to improve upon what HTC did 5 years ago but, they're definitely not first.
    Ah but was it 'autostereoscopic'?  ;)
    richdatswho
  • Reply 16 of 31
    richdatswhorichdatswho Posts: 38member
    farmboy said:
    longpath said:
    This is half of the problem with the current patent system, wherein ideas and actual working inventions are equated, to the point where ideas are patented years before any technology exists to actually make an invention, and someone who subsequently builds an actual working invention that uses that idea is held to be infringing on the patent. In reality, patents, if they should be allowed to exist at all (a separate issue that, amongst other things, involves interpretation of the first amendment in the US and equivalent free speech guarantees in other countries) should only apply to actual inventions and the creation of a working invention should automatically supersede any patent on a mere idea. Yes, I acknowledge that a patent on software code blurs that line; but, if the code compiles and executes the claimed function, then it is a working invention, not merely an idea for one.
    There is no such thing as a "patent on a mere idea". Inventions claimed in a patent must be reduced to practice, in other words, an actual functioning device (even if crude) must be created that utilizes the claims in the patent. You can't patent the "idea" of an anti-gravity hover board unless you demonstrate to the USPTO (and all other patent agencies) a functioning anti-gravity hover board as described in your application. I also don't see what the first amendment has to do with anything patent; perhaps you'll enlighten us.
    You can actually patent an idea if you don't have the means to build it yourself. The drawings and instructions must clear and concise enough for someone with the means to build to follow along and execute. That's the key difference. An aero-space engineer may have a new wing design that will reduce fuel consumption. He himself can not build it but, the laws do allow him to file a patent for protection so that while it's being built no one can steal the idea. You can execute some sort of an agreement with a manufacturer but, you still have no tangible proof that says you thought of it first. What you can't say is "I have great idea, wouldn't it be cool to have a phone with 3D capabilities and not need glasses" and think you can patent that...anyone who thinks you can is an idiot.
    jkichline
  • Reply 17 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,212member
    farmboy said:
    longpath said:
    This is half of the problem with the current patent system, wherein ideas and actual working inventions are equated, to the point where ideas are patented years before any technology exists to actually make an invention, and someone who subsequently builds an actual working invention that uses that idea is held to be infringing on the patent. In reality, patents, if they should be allowed to exist at all (a separate issue that, amongst other things, involves interpretation of the first amendment in the US and equivalent free speech guarantees in other countries) should only apply to actual inventions and the creation of a working invention should automatically supersede any patent on a mere idea. Yes, I acknowledge that a patent on software code blurs that line; but, if the code compiles and executes the claimed function, then it is a working invention, not merely an idea for one.
    There is no such thing as a "patent on a mere idea". Inventions claimed in a patent must be reduced to practice, in other words, an actual functioning device (even if crude) must be created that utilizes the claims in the patent. You can't patent the "idea" of an anti-gravity hover board unless you demonstrate to the USPTO (and all other patent agencies) a functioning anti-gravity hover board as described in your application. I also don't see what the first amendment has to do with anything patent; perhaps you'll enlighten us.
    Where did you read that a functional device has to be presented to the USPTO to get a patent issued? 
    jkichline
  • Reply 18 of 31
    chickchick Posts: 35member
    You certainly can patent an idea without reduction to practice. The patent office only requires reduction to practice on ideas it considers impossible according to current science. Last I knew, this applied to "free energy" and "perpetual motion" inventions. There may be other categories but these are two that do require that the inventor provide a working model. I wish every patent required reduction to pactice. We would see a lot fewer patents and fewer overly broad patents where the inventor creates something new but then goes on to claim any way they can think of to get the same results using different technology where the inventor has not done the work to reduce this version to practice. I have several patents and not once have I been required to show reduction to practice.
  • Reply 19 of 31
    supadav03supadav03 Posts: 503member
    waverboy said:
    Nintendo 3DS, anyone?
    Exactly what I was thinking. No the New 3DS it is  quite impressive.
  • Reply 20 of 31
    kevinpetersonkevinpeterson Posts: 56member
    That lazy 3DS line was added in a later edit.
Sign In or Register to comment.