I was just playing with a 3 year old LG phone yesterday that has glasses free 3-D on it. Works live or when you shoot video. So why this be such a big deal for Apple to play catch up?
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.
Software patents are what got us into this mess in the first place. It wasn't until lobbying forced the patent office to accept them that the abuses started. They need to go too.
Sure did; the bit about the 3DS was added in a later edit, but even so, the point is that it's already been done, and quite effectively.
I don't know about "quite effectively"... ;-) The 3DS requires the user to attain and maintain uncomfortable and unnatural eye behavior (some people cannot even accomplish it) and which makes some people have serious headaches after a given time doing it.
this "invention" sounds convoluted and impractical (it's already a problem to deal with reflections at ideal color/light angles). That's probably why they applied for the patent instead of building it and filing the patent application on announcement day of the actual product. I'd happily try out such a device to see for myself, but I'm sure not going to bank on its practicality sight unseen.
As someone said before, patents are awarded for practical inventions that have a reasonable chance of being built. Otherwise, people would patent "warp drive" or a "transporter" or anti-gravity shoes or a hoverboard.
Please quit referring to patents as "Apple invention". They are NOT inventions. Paten[t]s 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.
The USPTO used to require a working (scaled model) to be submitted with the patent application until they no longer had room to store them -- I think a fellow name A. Lincoln's patent "received Patent No. 6469 for a device to lift boats over shoals". I think solving the storage problem along with a moratorium of some time to actually solve the problem of bonding the IP without having to give it all away. This does not solve the problem -- should inventors be told to hold back on said invention sometimes decades of work to gamble that he should be able to possibly recover a fortune in time, effort & capital. Certainly a system can be designed or an existing one modified?!
BTW: @KW - 'bate' has to do with falconry, I assume your reference had to do with 'bait' which is what is typically used in fishing, etc...
As someone said before, patents are awarded for practical inventions that have a reasonable chance of being built. Otherwise, people would patent "warp drive" or a "transporter" or anti-gravity shoes or a hoverboard.
The idea of a patent covering an idea itself is ludicrous. Patents are the protection of a methodology of implementing an idea.
If someone was to patent “candy coated chocolate”, that would prevent anyone from making it in ANY way, not just the way the patent owner does. If someone was to patent “northwesterly facing arrow cursor”, that would prevent anyone from having their mouse cursor be an arrow facing that way, not just prevent them from stealing the code that draws the arrow.
Patents for (single) implementations of ideas, copyrights for designs. Something so simple has become so insane. And imagine if patents were extended as copyright has been! Ludicrous.
Comments
this "invention" sounds convoluted and impractical (it's already a problem to deal with reflections at ideal color/light angles). That's probably why they applied for the patent instead of building it and filing the patent application on announcement day of the actual product. I'd happily try out such a device to see for myself, but I'm sure not going to bank on its practicality sight unseen.
If someone was to patent “candy coated chocolate”, that would prevent anyone from making it in ANY way, not just the way the patent owner does. If someone was to patent “northwesterly facing arrow cursor”, that would prevent anyone from having their mouse cursor be an arrow facing that way, not just prevent them from stealing the code that draws the arrow.
Patents for (single) implementations of ideas, copyrights for designs. Something so simple has become so insane. And imagine if patents were extended as copyright has been! Ludicrous.