

Apple applies for iWatch patent - xmpir
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20130044215&OS=20130044215&RS=20130044215

======
dragonbonheur
Yet another broadly-worded patent designed mostly to kill competition.
EVERYONE KNOWS that we must have wrist mounted screens at some point. EVERYONE
KNOWS that having the display wrap around the wrist a desirable feature.
EVERYONE KNOWS that there must be wireless connectivity. EVERYONE KNOWS that
the screen MUST be flexible and MUST be a touchscreen. EVERYONE KNOWS that in
the long term the devices themselves WILL include the necessary processing
power and be completely independent.

It doesn't take a genius to see where tech is heading. Even 3M had the same
ideas: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZz4jFok_o>

Nowadays it's all patent the obvious and sue all competitors.

~~~
oleganza
It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was
not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others
negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different
group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions.

This is how patent system could have been done without violence: a group of
tech companies willing to protect their IP come together and agree on a single
protocol which will register their inventions. They will list what kinds of
inventions are patentable and not patentable. If something in this protocol
remains vague to anyone it won't be signed. Then, they agree to regularly
elect a group of experts who would inspect all incoming submissions and decide
which non-patented inventions are violating or not the existing patents. Every
participant would have to follow the decision of the experts, or would have to
appeal to other participants (in order to re-elect the experts, reexamine the
protocol, or reexamine this particular decision).

If participant does not follow the decision of the experts, he is publicly
defamed and economically ostracised, just like any other non-participant who
violates existing patents. If any participant does not punish violators via
ostracism (whether participants or not), he himself is ostracised by others.

If a large enough group of tech companies really values patents over costs of
ostracism, they can do just that. (Like they agree not to hiring specialists
from each other.) If they don't find the way to agree on patents, then they do
not deserve them. And nobody should go to prison because of that. My gut
feeling is that neither Google, nor Apple, nor Microsoft likes patents. They
could agree about hiring top people, about very specific trademarks like
logos, but they would never spend time fighting over rounded corners if they
were not given a poisonous weapon which is a tax-funded patent office, police
and prisons.

Resume: You do not need violent intervention with guns and prisons to protect
yourself. Example: Apple's customers do not like working conditions of its
partners' factories, so they can ostracise Apple. Apple in response asks
factories to improve conditions, or Apple will ostracise them. There is no
violence, but only negotiation.

~~~
naner
_It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law
was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others
negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different
group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions._

All the incumbents have repeatedly lobbied to strengthen their advantage in
the patent system so it is actually their fault. I don't know why you would
presume Apple to be innocent. They have more power than most companies, they
could lobby for change if they wanted to.

~~~
oleganza
Apple is not innocent for using existing weapon. But do not forget that the
patent system was created well before Apple even existed. If there was no
patent system, tax-funded courts and police, Apple and others: 1) would have
nowhere to go for a cheap and brutal protection. 2) would not worry that
someone else will use cheap and brutal protection against them.

Why is it cheap? Because couple of millions of bucks spent on lawyers is
nothing comparing to amount of tax money and propaganda that fuels police and
courts.

No company that earns money from voluntary exchange would risk creating its
own armed gang: it will quickly run out of customers well before raising
enough funds for a small army.

And if you are afraid that in absence of tax-funded police, some private
companies would not protect themselves and their customers, but instead become
super-powerful mafia themselves, then it is yet another reason why you cannot
have monopoly of violent power in the first place.

My suggestion: no reasoning and intellectual debate is possible if there is a
gun in the room. Take away the gun first, then we could discuss different ways
to protect intellectual and other property. Guns are needed only against other
guns, but even then there's no discussion going on, but pure state of jungle.

~~~
jeremyarussell
You obviously have a hard on for guns. Yet the thing that does the most damage
to our system is the biggest companies constantly lobbying with their weapon
of choice, money, and lots of it. They continue to push for stronger patents,
not weaker ones. They want longer time frames and more complicated
bureaucracy's so that the massive amount of money they have for lawyers will
make sure it's always easy for them to get patents instead of the people
working from their garage that invent something and can't afford to get a
lawyer and file a patent. All the groups you say your gut tells you want less
patents consistently show us via their actions that they want stronger
patents.

I'll be the first to advocate for a better understanding of non-violent means
for negotiation, but the dynamics of violence and weapons and human psychology
goes in a different area other then a patent discussion. Unless you're trying
to derail the topic into a flame war or something.

~~~
oleganza
Human psychology, to my understanding, is flexible. If you have patent threat
for 100 years, people adapt to it. You have to accept existence of patents
because someone may buy one and shut you down. You also surrounded by massive
propaganda that whatever government does is generally good (bad stuff is
exceptional). As a result, if not you, but many people around you see patents
as a morally correct tool that can be abused, but if not abused, it's all
right. And even if you don't think it's such a great idea, you still have to
play along because someone else will use patents against you. Is it surprising
then, that in 2013 (223 years since the first patent issued in 1790) you have
big budgets to file as many patents as they can? Is that a proof that you
would have similar situation with no patent office?

I admit, it is useless to debate too much about what would happen if. It's
more pragmatic to talk about how would you design non-violent scheme of
negotiation where people are protected and insured against violence.

The gun issue is not offtopic. It is the primary reason why you have all of
the drama around government. Because people are ultimately threatened with
murder if they do not comply. If you have no possibility to hurt person for
non-complience, then there is no drama. You both can perfectly avoid each
other and use peaceful means to find justice as much as you want.

So my approach to any question about abuse of (or use of) state-provided
violence is this:

1\. Identify the violence. 2\. Think how to avoid it completely.

Patent law is a system of brutal violence not based on any hard core moral
proof. You require proofs from a mathematician, and still do not kill him if
he's wrong. Why don't you require even stronger proof from anybody with a gun?
It is not a solution to limit patents. And not even to call for their
abolishment. You cannot come to mafia and ask them to stop doing what they are
doing. The solution is to simply avoid patents as much as you can while
finding other ways to protect yourself.

How to do that practically (not by persuasion, but by building some sort of
mechanism for people) - is another complex topic. I myself investigate how you
can build an anonymous dispute resolution network on top of Bitcoin blockchain
(to use it as a secure storage of agreements). Anonymity will provide safety
from violence, while conforming to the network rules will allow to make deals
with other people. This way you can grow a community of people who respect
each other's choices without threatening each other using legal or illegal
methods.

------
bane
I was initially thinking that it was just going to be an Apple branded
knockoff of [http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-
Strap/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-
Strap/dp/B0045LYVJ6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361458759&sr=8-2&keywords=ipod+watch+band)

but it looks like they're intending to use the flexible screen tech that's
been demo'd by Samsung recently

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N3E7fUynrZU#t=45s)

before the inevitable complaining about who innovated what first, I'd like to
say that it looks like Samsung has the screen nailed down, but Apple is going
to get the device concept figured out (which will then probably be launched
off of by tons of companies not the least of which will be Samsung). I'd say
Samsung's strategy might be "why waste R&D when you can get Apple to do it for
you?" but it's obvious that this core tech is the result of unbelievable
amounts of R&D dollars.

~~~
dragonbonheur
Let's keep your theory of Apple being first to market here. Since Samsungand
LG have the displays does that mean that Apple should be able do register this
overly broadly-defined patent that will prevent other manufacturers from using
Samsung's and LG's technology? Other than in phone, tablet/monitor, eye-wear
and wristband formats, are there any form factors that can be invented? The
answer to both is NO. Such broad patents should be rejected, especially when
someone uses components from other manufacturers and when those components are
so essential to the design properties.

------
0cool
[http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-
abo...](http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-
apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html)

------
Mindphreaker
Since pebble started shipping and already got nice coverage and feedback from
the community it sounds reasonable that apple might work on it's "i"
equivalent.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011.

Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012.

From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is
nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible
touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's
battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.

~~~
buro9
> the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by
> ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.

Fairly common, automatic mechanical watches already use kinetic, but were we
to say "But those aren't electronic" then you could always look at something
like the Seiko Premier (
[http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_s...](http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_snp005p1)
)

And for ambient light charging, you have Citizen and their Eco-Drive range (
[http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-
us/watches/collections/citize...](http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-
us/watches/collections/citizen-eco-drive/) ) and Casio's G-shock (
<http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/> )

I enjoy the fact that my current watch is ambient light powered, syncs with
atomic clocks each night via radio... and therefore never needs a battery or
charging, and is so damn accurate that I can glance at my watch when some
event happens on my NTP sync'd server and the entry in the log file is
precisely when the time on my watch said it would be.

Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've
existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Thanks for the explanation, but the watches in your examples use very little
juice. Apple's concept device has a large touchscreen and a persistent network
connection with other iDevices. That uses a lot more power, that's why I was
surprised to read that they're trying to run it off ambient light and kinetic
energy -- I would've thought it wouldn't be worth it.

~~~
buro9
The patent mentions using multiple power acquisition methods to simply extend
the life of the battery.

The patent also mentions many power savings features, basically putting the
device into life-saving mode most of the time and only waking to perform a
task or notify you of something.

If that's the case, then low power use when off is the priority for them, and
if they are able to use drips of power from multiple sources to partially
power that stand-by, then the battery only really gets used when you put the
screen on... meaning that the device's standby time can be legitimately
advertised as being some very long period of time.

And for an idea of standby power for a bluetooth device, let's go back to
Casio ( <http://world.g-shock.com/us/en/ble/function/> )...

> Since Bluetooth® v4.0 uses low-power near field communication technology,
> your function-packed G-SHOCK is able deliver to approximately _two years of
> operation on a single coin type battery_. This makes the watch's advanced
> functions practical for everyday use. Approximate battery life when
> communication function are used for 12 hours a day (tentative value).

2 years!

The iWatch (or whatever it's called) really is only going to drain the battery
when that screen is on and in use.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Interesting. Assuming the device has only Bluetooth 4.0 and not 2.1 or WiFi,
then the only iDevices that would be compatible are the iPhone 4S and later,
iPod touch 5th gen, iPad 4, and iPad mini.

Given the limited number of compatible iDevices, it might be prudent for Apple
to hold out launching this snap bracelet device, at least until they launch
the next generation of iPhones and iPod touches.

~~~
allwein
It might be a limited number of models, but there are more iPhone 5's and
iPhone 4S's than all of the previous iPhone models combined.

------
BitMastro
It looks similar to the concept from Nokia from 2007
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhcCqG5XHwg#t=158s)

------
DigitalTurk
A watch shaped like a bracelet and easily removable. That very much suits my
intuition of what an iWatch would be.

I have a pet theory that, when removed, the iWatch will be flat and it will be
possible to use it as a phone by holding up to your ear. The cellular
technology will be in your iPhone Maxi or iPad. The importance of such a
feature is simply—but not unimportantly—that this would look less dorky than
holding up a 5" phone to your head or using a bluetooth headset.

~~~
frankus
In that case I have prior art:

[http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phon...](http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phone#1294263682)

~~~
Terretta
Science fiction is not prior art. Speculative ideas don't count.

~~~
frankus
Should've been more like "called it". Agreed, it doesn't meet the legal
definition of prior art.

------
nicholassmith
I keep thinking about whether it'd work as a product category, we keep hearing
that the wristwatch is dead (I'm wearing one mind) but this could appeal to
quite a few people.

But, lets keep in mind Apple has some patents for some pretty radical ideas
floating around and reading too much into patents is like reading chicken
entrails.

------
aviswanathan
Patents and suing aside, I think Apple's nosedive into the watch industry is a
really interesting one considering their past. Traditionally, they enter new
product lines with great hesitation and deliberation, but it almost seems like
in this case, they're trying to catch up with the market (Pebble's massive
success, etc.).

As a hardware company, they're playing with human real estate. They've already
got us locked in our desks and on the go with our phones, but now they're
trying to add yet another level of convenience with the watch.

~~~
Terretta
The term "nosedive" is typically used to mean disastrous: literally diving
only to land on your nose. Did you mean "head first dive" (which means "going
for it, all in" as opposed to "dipping a toe") or are you projecting that
Apple is plummeting into a crash and burn situation by getting into watches?

Also, Pebble's "massive success" with whom? The only people who know about it
seem to be those who hang about on tech blogs and forums and crowd sourcing
sites. It hasn't crossed the chasm.

Apple's key strength has always been, from Apple II to iPhone, crossing the
chasm to put a tech category into the hands of normals.

~~~
aviswanathan
Nosedive as in potentially disastrous. It's a matter of semantics.

Pebble sold $10 million of units via Kickstarter. Mainstream or not, I'd
consider that a mild form of success at the least.

And Apple has been able to do that, but their technology/APIs are already
being used by third-party companies for similar purposes, so in this case, it
seems like they're playing catch-up, at least ideologically.

------
regisb
From claim 1 it appears that the screen will be of variable size depending on
the "appendage" on which the watch is worn.

I can't wait to see a keynote where the speaker will be wearing the iWatch on
his thigh.

~~~
bengillies
It sounds like they're making an iSlapBracelet to me. That means the whole
surface would potentially be a screen with just the part facing you being
active.

I kind of wonder where else would be appropriate to wear it other than on your
wrist, given that it explicitly mentions that (Geordi LaForge style visor
perhaps?)

~~~
nicholassmith
Depending on size of the band, strength of it 'closed' you could potentially
wear it on your bicep like runners currently do with some iPods. I can't see
it being moved off the wrist though, I'd assume appendage is to keep the
language as broad as possible.

------
bcks
A friend of mine works for an Apple store and says people still come in asking
for the square iPod Nano and TikTok watchband, even though Apple stopped
selling the square (7th generation) Nano some 6 months ago.

~~~
duaneb
That's my favorite nano-absolutely the perfect running ipod. I truly miss it.

------
rxc178
So they want to make a Pebble knockoff. Great... More shit for me to buy and
immediately have it go out of date.

------
donohoe
Easier to steal than an iPhone?

------
Cardeck1
Wait a minute.So if I am working on a similar product, I will be sued by
Apple?That is ridiculous.Probably they will call it their IDEA now.Total CRAP.

