

 Google Glass: Apple Granted Patent for Head-Mounted Display - saket123
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-patent-hud-display/

======
_djo_
This is poor from Wired, there's nothing in this patent that would seem to
represent a threat to Google Glass. After all, this is not in any way a patent
on Head-Mounted Displays as a concept, as those have been in use in militaries
since the 1980s, which Apple's patent references.

The patent actually refers to an apparently novel method of handling
peripheral vision in stereoscopic HMDs, in order to remove the 'tunnel' or
'box' effect and increase the comfort of wearing HMDs for a long period of
time. At present this is something which no existing stereoscopic HMD (or
indeed, Google Glass) handles to my knowledge.

It's also worth noting that existing stereoscopic HMDs, while impressive, have
been known to cause discomfort such as headaches in some people when worn for
more than a few hours.

So there doesn't appear to be any link to Project Glass which, it should be
noted, has also been patented by Google. This is just linkbait.

~~~
mtgx
I agree. The title of the patent, at least how it's being picked up in the
press, makes it sound threatening to the Google Glass, but I doubt the actual
description of the patent would describe Google Glass. I think Google already
has a bunch of patents like these:

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57434403-76/google-
patents...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57434403-76/google-patents-
project-glass-wearable-display/)

I remember reading a few posts like these about Google's new patents for
Google Glass.

~~~
roc
> _"I doubt the actual description of the patent would describe Google Glass"_

The independent claims of the '859 patent (1 and 17) both specify stereoscopic
displays. Inventions can only infringe a patent if they, at a minimum, include
all the elements specified in a patent's claim.

Google Glass has a single display. It can't possibly infringe.

------
m_eiman
The actual problem that the patent is intended to solve, for those who'd
rather comment than RTFA:

"A problem with HMDs, primarily HMDs that are not of the see-through kind, is
that the image on the display in front of each eye fills the central but not
the peripheral field of view of the user. Consequently, the visual experience
is similar to looking into a box or tunnel having a small screen at a
distance. Peripheral vision is good at detecting motion and as a result,
occluded peripheral vision in HMDs can cause a user to experience motion
sickness symptoms after some time. Thus, whereas existing HMDs may work well
for their intended purposes for short periods of time, there is a continuing
need for improved HMDs that provide enhanced long-time visual experience for
the user."

~~~
electrichead
Their solution also only involves projecting a solid colour into the
peripheral view. Actual peripheral view for our eyes can make out details and
shapes, so it is not to emulate vision but to "reduce fatigue."

~~~
_djo_
Not so, the patent describes various options for dealing with peripheral
vision, including projecting blurred shapes corresponding with the
environment, 'frames' and solid colours.

------
treelovinhippie
This is very awesome. I think Apple has the capability of kickstarting the HUD
market and taking it mainstream better than Google can. Hopefully Apple can
produce a product that looks like regular sunglasses that the mainstream would
consider wearing daily. The biggest problem with Google Glass is that only
geeks will wear them and they'll never be considered 'cool' until they can
miniaturize the tech to fit into normal frames.

------
Semaphor
The fact that wired chose to link this to Google glass (which it only is in
the way that they deal with video/pictures in a head-mounted-way) seems to
confuse a lot of prople who CBA to read the article -.-

------
Tichy
Maybe what Apple really is doing is secretly undermining patent law. Perhaps
there is a master plan behind it, and one day, _bang_ , Apple will
revolutionize the patent industry and make it user friendly.

------
smogzer
It's just one patent in a field that has been producing patents for a long
time. Take the example of Microvision that is on the top 20 of patent
receivers in America and has been doing HUD for the military for a long time.
They also have done research for projection directly on the eye retina, i
guess that's hard to top.

------
jeffool
No one can expect this to stand. A cursory glance at the Wiki gave me "In
2005, the Liteye HMD was introduced for ground combat troops as a rugged,
waterproof lightweight display that clips into a standard US PVS-14 military
helmet mount." That's actually on the field a year before Apple even applied
for this patent.

~~~
nitrogen
Looking further back for potential sources of prior art, I seem to remember
seeing a picture of and/or reading about a very early stereoscopic head-
mounted display that used two ultracompact CRT displays. However, given the
mixed bag of Apple's recent successes and failures, combined with the general
ham-handedness of the patent system, anything is possible.

------
jarin
I have hope both that Apple is secretly working on an amazing set of augmented
reality glasses and that the patent will be somehow overturned.

------
rsanchez1
If Apple turns around and sues Google using this patent, I think it will be
time to unplug completely and join the people in the mountains looking to
escape EM radiation.

And really, they had to add CRT displays to the patent? Seriously Apple, CRT?
Did Apple figure out a magical new way of getting "retina" resolution with a
millimeter-long tube that can somehow feed the entire field-of-vision of the
person wearing it? Come on.

~~~
davidw
> If Apple turns around and sues Google using this patent, I think it will be
> time to unplug completely and join the people in the mountains looking to
> escape EM radiation.

Or you could just get rid of your Apple crap and get a nice Linux machine (if
indeed, you haven't already). It's a pretty good system for hackers and the
inquisitive.

~~~
fpgeek
I believe part of the point is that if Apple's patent abuse continues
unchecked, there won't be options like nice Linux machines...

~~~
taligent
Yes because Linux only come onto the market this week and hasn't been around
for 20+ years without a lawsuit from Apple. Or how about the fact that at one
stage Apple had their own Linux distribution (MkLinux) and contributes a lot
of core technologies used in Linux e.g. CUPS, WebKit.

~~~
fpgeek
Motorola, HTC and Samsung were all making smartphones long before Apple was.
IIRC, they are all now being sued by Apple over, among other things, at least
one feature that their smartphones had before the iPhone was even announced.
So how's that previous history working out for them?

I'll also highlight my assumption: Apple's patent abuse continues unchecked.
In other words, Apple's software patent assaults are delivering positive
results without blowback. If that continues, why wouldn't they extend that to
new areas? Wouldn't you expect them to attempt to maximize the return on their
patents? If not, why not?

Now I'll admit I don't think it is likely that Apple's abuse will continue
unchecked. I expect Apple's competitors to build their patent arsenal (e.g.
notifications) and successfully hit back and eventually create a stalemate.
But if they can't or don't, I'd expect Apple to see how far they can push
things (just like any other corporation).

~~~
taligent
What are you talking about ? I was talking about Apple going after Linux.

~~~
fpgeek
So was I. You're asserting that vendors selling "nice Linux machines" (or at
least nice machines that run Linux well once you install it) aren't among
Apple's competitors? Since when?

To take just one example: the ultrabooks that Apple could easily try to go
after with their "wedge" design patent, can run Linux, too, not just Windows.
And that's clearly a form factor many people consider nice. Granted, this is a
different area of competition than smartphones, but I specifically talked
about Apple extending their patent assaults to new areas if their patent abuse
remained unchecked.

Do you think Apple extending their legal strategy like that wouldn't have an
impact on the availability of nice hardware to run Linux on? It seems obvious
to me that it would. After all, there's more than one way to go after Linux.

------
fpgeek
It looks like Google should have spent a little less money on skydivers and a
little more on lawyers :(

