I understand the article is clickbaiting about male genitalia, but does Apple submit vague patent applications because the legal SOP is to cover as many usecases as possible? If so, is it primarily to preclude competition or is it to keep the roadmap open?
> […] the article is clickbaiting about male genitalia […]
Are you implying that Apple is trying to patent smart cock rings as well?
That does not seem likely as most users want their cock rings to be dumb rather than smart. Then, again, there is a remote attack + ransom demand threat vector which will likely scare most potential users away…
> Like any firm, Apple writes its patents in such a way as to be as broad and even vague as the US Patent Office allows. But rather than just being a way that Apple could later sue anyone for making any ring-shaped smart device, this one goes into detail about use cases.
This is the thing that irks me. Why are people allowed to gatekeep an idea, even if they do not have any plans to actually release a product? In the worst case, a generic/vague patent can block entire classes of devices from appearing for 20 years.
IMHO, if a patent application is submitted, it should be required that the patent holder or a licensee releases a matching product to the market in at least five years, in a way that is accessible to the general public (so no trickery by selling for tens of millions of dollars apiece), or the patent is forfeited.
> IMHO, if a patent application is submitted, it should be required that the patent holder or a licensee releases a matching product to the market in at least five years
This would complete the transition from having patents as a tool available to independent inventors, to being purely for protection of established players. Even today, it's at least theoretically possible for someone to come up with, say, an idea for a new practical high-intensity EUV source, and to get reasonable compensation for developing that idea by licensing it to established industry players. With your proposal, if it would take a non-player more than five years to commercialize an idea (which is true of the vast majority of non-trivial inventions), all the establishment has to do is wait them out and then use the idea license-free in 5 years, instead of 21.
It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with many aspects of the patent system, and I certainly personally believe that eliminating it entirely might be beneficial, but I suspect your proposal would act contrary to your goals.
Yeah - if anyone needs patent protection, it’s the little guy. Perhaps there should be some restriction on the patent applications from large corporations.
I'll say it: I think any ring with adequate electronics will be too bulky and uncomfortable to wear on a toe, especially if you put it into a shoe. Also, how much more info could you get from the foot's motion than from something on the wrist? Finally it's not clear what sensors could be useful beyond the IMU anyway.
I don't know why people are being squeamish about this.
