

Apple granted glasses patent - sarfralogy
http://www.patexia.com/feed/apple-granted-glasses-patent-20120705-2

======
Zenst
Given that alot of technology patents being applied for thesedays appear in
hollywood movies and TV shows in many forms predating the reaspective patent
by many years and even decades.

    
    
      I find myself with one question.
    

Why hasn't the movie/music industry copyright enforcers not capalised on all
these wonderfu inventions they portray. It's not like you have to have a
working example of your patent being executed when you submit a patent. You
just have to be first, even if you havn't worked out the small details of like
making it work, you can just clevely word around it in lawyerlease. Then when
somebody who knows what they are doing actualy does invent and make it work
for some practical use; Well you just sue them as you own the patent, ego you
invented it and there stealing your idea, you could afford and had the support
staff to word in such a way that you could submit it first. You don't have to
make the product, you don't even have to have the technicaly genius needed to
make it into a working product, you just have to word it right and be able to
afford the costs to have it processed and get it sumbited first.

in many ways patent submission is akin to being able to word and submit
something first without even having a clue how to add value, as in having
something that actualy works and is physical present. Much like how
computerised stock market programs work by processing there share dealing
faster than others so they can see incomming trends/transaction and be able to
submit there requests/purchases/sells or patent applications before everybody
else. Funny as the only people who like that approach to fairness are those
that are activly doing it and those are only the ones who can afford to do it.

I personaly believe that to be able to submit a patent you must be able to
demostrate something that works using your patent in the way outlines in the
patent. So a 1980's augumented reality set of glass's attached to a mainframe
and battery the size of a small car would not IMHO constitute the ability to
submit a patent about a mobile interface in glass's as it is hardly mobile.
But I'm sure there are a fair few patents already pertaining to augmented
reality via a computer, just been done so many times it would shock anybody if
it was not the case. I'm sure somebody who is more versed in the patent search
process will do a better job in a later post outlining many of them.

So on that note I leave you with perhaps a marketing slogan Apple could adopt
along with many other companies as well. "Patenting your childhood TV SCI-FI
show's since after they were made". Oh and with that frame of mindset I do
wonder how long it will be until `Hollywood` starts to realise there are much
bigger pies to chase than the pursuit of stealing there interlectual property.

But I could be totaly wrong, like how I think when a product is suspected of
breaking a patent then instead of banning it, that the company breaking the
patent is allowed to lodge a deposit with a 3rd party of the court a amount
money equal to as if the patent had been fairly paid for under liscence and
they are allowed to carry on doing buisiness then. Only if they are unable to
do that can a ban be looked at. Be fairer on companies involved in disputes
and less impacting upon wasted resources like unsellable product doing nothing
beyond devaluing. Oh and fair upon the comsumer who can stay ignorant of these
petty patent disputes. But I'm no judge and I'm a nobody who has no say in how
the whole World wide patent application process resolves.

~~~
timtamboy63
> Why hasn't the movie/music industry copyright enforcers not capalised on all
> these wonderfu inventions they portray.

I'm fairly sure you need to at least show the patent office that you can build
this. Otherwise I'd go out and patent everything.

