...but this should work now for Android fans (who have normally spaced eyes) too now that the bigger iPhone 6+ is available.
Unlikely as their optic nerves are detached and all impulses need to route via an official ad matching engine to maximise revenue. For Android users, all reality is augmented.
In a quick search I didn't find the particular patent either. Perhaps it wasn't even a US patent which would make the search difficult. Perhaps there was no patent in the first place. Maybe the articles author would know. Did you consider asking him?
Nope! Until proven otherwise, I consider Samsung's claim to be effectively debunked by Apple's lack of citation in their patent application. The U.S. is the first and best place in the entire World to patent, by the way, and regardless, patents published in other countries constitute prior art.
Nope! Until proven otherwise, I consider Samsung's claim to be effectively debunked by Apple's lack of citation in their patent application. The U.S. is the first and best place in the entire World to patent, by the way, and regardless, patents published in other countries constitute prior art.
I'm sure prior art is missed all the time. With millions of patents it would be impossible to cover them all. If were that easy to discover no company like Apple or Google or icrosoft would ever be blindsided by a patent claim they weren't aware of. The USPTO won't rise up in anger if some patent shows itself as prior art after the fact.
As for whether you personally believe a Samsung patent from 2005 exists it's no skin off my teeth either way as I don't really care myself. It wasn't my claim so why ask me? Ask the articles author if you're at all curious (which based on your reply I don't think you are).
As for whether you personally believe a Samsung patent from 2005 exists it's no skin off my teeth either way as I don't really care myself. It wasn't my claim so why ask me? Ask the articles author if you're at all curious (which based on your reply I don't think you are).
Apparently you care enough to echo the original claim. Like a trial attorney, why ask more questions when you got the answer you wanted and any further questions might spoil your argument? Same for me... I got the answer I wanted.... it doesn't look like Samsung has a relevant patent in the country where it matters most. I'd suggest you're at the disadvantage.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/184817/apple-wins-patent-for-a-head-mounted-iphone-virtual-reality-display#post_2678814" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Gatorguy</strong> <a href="/t/184817/apple-wins-patent-for-a-head-mounted-iphone-virtual-reality-display#post_2678814"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br />As for whether you personally believe a Samsung patent from 2005 exists it's no skin off my teeth either way as I don't really care myself. It wasn't my claim so why ask me? Ask the articles author if you're at all curious (which based on your reply I don't think you are).</div></div><p>Apparently you care enough to echo the original claim. Like a trial attorney, why ask more questions when you got the answer you wanted and any further questions might spoil your argument? Same for me... I got the answer I wanted.... it doesn't look like Samsung has a relevant patent in the country where it matters most. I'd suggest you're at the disadvantage.</p>
Suing Google for Cardboard would be a neat trick. Google offers Cardboard as a set of downloadable instructions, and doesn't produce or sell them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
How many of us will try to hold their iPhone up close to their face after reading this? I did. Felt weird and there would have to be some sort of software to account for the blurriness...
It's an optical solution, not a software solution. Remember that Viewmaster worked fine w/out software. Google recommends bi-convex 45mm FL lenses.
Rather than hearsay from a company as well-respected as Samsung [cough, choke, puke], we really would just like to see a link to the relevant Samsung patent from 2005. I don't see any such patent cited in the references for Apple's new patent, and it would surely be frowned upon (understatement of the year) by the USPTO if Apple had omitted mention of a relevant patent in their application.
The day VR glasses are not helmets (they're still more or less helmets) I can see Apple go into VR glasses. Like if you get it to work light weight and slim like in the concept art here. Another reason to keep them iPhone's really light weight. The problem with the third concept art image, is that the iPhone would have to penetrate the nose bone, and parts of the forhead to work as described, lol.
Comments
Unlikely as their optic nerves are detached and all impulses need to route via an official ad matching engine to maximise revenue. For Android users, all reality is augmented.
In a quick search I didn't find the particular patent either. Perhaps it wasn't even a US patent which would make the search difficult. Perhaps there was no patent in the first place. Maybe the articles author would know. Did you consider asking him?
Nope! Until proven otherwise, I consider Samsung's claim to be effectively debunked by Apple's lack of citation in their patent application. The U.S. is the first and best place in the entire World to patent, by the way, and regardless, patents published in other countries constitute prior art.
As for whether you personally believe a Samsung patent from 2005 exists it's no skin off my teeth either way as I don't really care myself. It wasn't my claim so why ask me? Ask the articles author if you're at all curious (which based on your reply I don't think you are).
As for whether you personally believe a Samsung patent from 2005 exists it's no skin off my teeth either way as I don't really care myself. It wasn't my claim so why ask me? Ask the articles author if you're at all curious (which based on your reply I don't think you are).
Apparently you care enough to echo the original claim. Like a trial attorney, why ask more questions when you got the answer you wanted and any further questions might spoil your argument? Same for me... I got the answer I wanted.... it doesn't look like Samsung has a relevant patent in the country where it matters most. I'd suggest you're at the disadvantage.
[URL] http://www.google.com/patents/US6963379 [/URL]
Suing Google for Cardboard would be a neat trick. Google offers Cardboard as a set of downloadable instructions, and doesn't produce or sell them.
Quote:
How many of us will try to hold their iPhone up close to their face after reading this? I did. Felt weird and there would have to be some sort of software to account for the blurriness...
It's an optical solution, not a software solution. Remember that Viewmaster worked fine w/out software. Google recommends bi-convex 45mm FL lenses.
Singularity, thanks for taking the time to find it. So there is a relevant Samsung patent that Apple should probably have list as prior art after all.
So Cpsro, does that mean Apple is in trouble with the USPTO in your opinion?
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-mattel-announce-a-virtual-reality-view-master/
The problem with the third concept art image, is that the iPhone would have to penetrate the nose bone, and parts of the forhead to work as described, lol.