CloudTalkin

lkrupp said:

mini LED, micro LED, are they the same thing? I’d never heard of mini LED until lately.

They're different.  cnet has a surprisingly decent down to earth and detailed article about MiniLED and how it differs from MicroLED
https://www.cnet.com/news/mini-led-is-here-how-smaller-lights-could-lead-to-big-tv-improvements/

melgross said:

CloudTalkin said:

Mike, I'm at a loss here:

LED and Mini LED screens are expected to be comparable to OLED displays, but without the production issues or potential for burn-in. Moving to Mini LED could also reduce Apple's reliance on Samsung's OLED manufacturing.

This is an article about iPads. Afaik, iPad screen tech is IPS LCD. Even if they move to Mini LED, they'd still be using LCD panels with the Mini LED backlight.   Apple has never relied on Samsung's OLED manufacturing for iPads.  What's the connection?

Also just a suggestion.  You guys should do an "explainer" on display tech used in/possibly will be use in Apple products.  Too many articles just throw out OLED, Mini LED, Micro LED in the same article as if the audience knows the differences.  The comment section generally proves that to be untrue.  All three of those technologies are decidedly different.  They're also in decidedly different stages of development.

There’s a misconception on your part here. Apple has been working on micro LED screens, as I mentioned above your post. In fact, Apple is ahead of everyone else in R&D for that tech, and basically kickstarted the R&D in the rest of the major players in the industry. The article says mini LED, which I questioned. But the idea is that this is not an LCD screen with an LED backlight, which uses leds on the edge of the display. Only large screens have them in back. It’s an LED screen.

There's no misconception.  Micro LED has nothing to do with the article's discussion of iPads.  The mistake is yours and honestly almost everything you wrote is wrong. It's one of the reasons I suggested Mike do an "explainer" on the tech in question.  It never fails that on every article discussing Mini LED, someone - you in this instance- incorrectly brings up Micro LED as if it's relevant.  It is not.  

1. The article mentions Mini LED because that's the tech that is most likely to be used in the next iPad. Not Micro LED. Here's a simple explanation of Mini LED from CNet: https://www.cnet.com/news/mini-led-is-here-how-smaller-lights-could-lead-to-big-tv-improvements/

2. It's not an LED screen.  That's not actually something that exists.  There are LCD screens, OLED screens, and MicroLED screens.  Any screen marketing LED tech is referencing the backlighting.  Always has been that way.  If the new iPads adopt MiniLED, it will be an IPS LCD panel with MiniLED backlight.

3/ MicroLED won't be seen in the iPad for at least 3 years or so imo.  Apple's introduction of MicroLED will most likely come first in the Apple Watch - similar to their test run of OLED before bringing it to iPhones.  It definitely won't make it's first appearance in a product as pivotal as iPads.  All just opinion, but I'd put money on being more right than wrong.

As an aside, I'm curious what makes you think Apple is ahead of everyone else on R&D for MicroLED?  Afaik, there's no one single implementation of MicroLED tech and both Sony and Samsung have salable MicroLED products on the market. 

fastasleep said:

CloudTalkin said:

That side view movable mirror tech is some of the silliest I've heard.  Movable mirror while driving. It's like the individuals involved have never driven a car.

mike eggleston said:

My concern with the side mirror just being a monitor is what if the camera fails? A mirror can only "fail" if it is broken. A camera has a lot more parts and therefor a lot more points of failure.

Here come the armchair engineers.

Bud I am an engineer.  So there's that. But it's also immaterial.  No one needs an engineering degree to see the folly in the movable mirror patent.  The number one folly: A user would have to wait until a mirror moved into place before they could use it.  Imagine trying to do a lane change and having to wait on the mirror to move into place.  Glancing into a side view mirror is an activity that takes milliseconds.  There's no actuator that's going to move the mirror that fast.  But let's do some make believe and pretend there is an actuator that fast that would fit into the car frame. The eye tracking is still going to be flawed because people gaze around their environment when driving. Our eyes track from mirror to mirror to mirror (right, left, and rear view) to front glass hundreds of times during a drive.  Most of that occurs without it even registering on a conscious level.  You'd have a car with flapping mirrors.  Basically, there is never a time when driving a car the mirrors should be inaccessible.  But if you can think of a scenario where it makes sense to not have the mirrors accessible, I'd be more than happy to hear it.  That particular patent is patently (intended) unsafe to the driver and anyone on the road with them.

gilly33 said:

CloudTalkin said:

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

Patent troll?  Patent troll based on what exactly?←That's rhetorical btw.  I already know what you're going to claim.  I am just pretending to set you up to trot out the oft quoted and incorrect claim they don't have a product that uses the patents in question.  They do. They have a product that uses the patent so that kinda sorta throws a wrench into the works of that claim that I thought you were going to make.  

 Also, not really sure how you figure they got slapped in the face.  Pretty sure the verdict says Apple infringed on 2 of their 4 patents.  I can't figure how you're also making an assumption they have to go through it all again. They don't. The case is going back to district court, yes.  But it's going back there to determine if damages can be recalculated without a trial or if a new damages trial will be required.  It's not going back to district court to determine whether or not Apple infringed.  That has been adjudicated.
Right from the article above:

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

None of this even takes into account the other separate Virnetx lawsuit loss that Apple is appealing.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-virnetx-patent-idUSKCN1P91UF
So not really sure Virnetx got slapped in the face... or anywhere else for that matter.

What product do they have that uses the patent? Are they making any products and are they ‘developing and transferring technology’ according to the FTC? 

Go to their website.  The info is there. https://www.virnetx.com/ 

sflocal said:

This entire case has been a sham.  VirnetX is simply a patent troll.  I'm glad VirnetX got slapped in the face and has to go through it all again and burn through more cash.  In the end I hope Apple prevails completely and sends a message to other patent trolls that attempt to pull a stunt like this again in the future.

Other companies would have settled, but I'm glad Apple is sticking to their guns.

Patent troll?  Patent troll based on what exactly?←That's rhetorical btw.  I already know what you're going to claim.  I am just pretending to set you up to trot out the oft quoted and incorrect claim they don't have a product that uses the patents in question.  They do. They have a product that uses the patent so that kinda sorta throws a wrench into the works of that claim that I thought you were going to make.  

 Also, not really sure how you figure they got slapped in the face.  Pretty sure the verdict says Apple infringed on 2 of their 4 patents.  I can't figure how you're also making an assumption they have to go through it all again. They don't. The case is going back to district court, yes.  But it's going back there to determine if damages can be recalculated without a trial or if a new damages trial will be required.  It's not going back to district court to determine whether or not Apple infringed.  That has been adjudicated.
Right from the article above:

That judge may decide to recalculate the sum Apple is to pay VirnetX. However he or she may also conduct a new trial, limited specifically to determining damages.

None of this even takes into account the other separate Virnetx lawsuit loss that Apple is appealing.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-virnetx-patent-idUSKCN1P91UF
So not really sure Virnetx got slapped in the face... or anywhere else for that matter.