91–100 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This quickly becomes creepy beyond my wildest imaginations. Kill it with fire, please.
Why? The more personal a device is and the closer it becomes to interfacing with who we are, the more it will need to do things like this to work, else it will just feel off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sad fact is not that the author cannot speak about the invention (because of the NDA), but that the patent was carefully written not to disclose anything substantial about the invention.
Why is that sad? Partial information seems better then remaining 100% a trade secret.
The point of patent protection is that you teach everyone how to build the thing that's being protected, in exchange for a monopoly.
Not actually teaching people how to build the thing that's being protected, but still having a monopoly on it is the worst of all worlds.
If you aren't going to teach us how to build something, don't expect patent protection for it. I'd rather you keep it as a trade secret, good, go do it, it's a free country, but then we can just reverse engineer it. If I don't have an NDA with you, I have no reason to keep your trade secret... secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As usual, people will try to use workarounds. For missing ports on my Mac Book Pro, I use a hub. For connecting my AKG headset to my iPhone, I use a dongle. I guess sooner or later Apple will make available a kind of API for device makers to make it possible to interact with the content in ways different that eyeballs tracking.
Those aren't workarounds. The whole point of 3-4 USB-C/Thunderbolt ports is that you can do anything you can do things like plug a docking station into it via one port and do power, display, USB ports, etc off that one cable. But instead every screams about dongles.
"All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." This part makes me sad about patents and original idea behind them. This actually is the opposite of original idea why people came up with the idea of patenting something. To spread the knowledge and to award inventors. Not to stifle the competition.
If not for patent protection they'd be trade secrets inside Apple and if anything they'd talk about them less . Whether or not those trade secrets were likely to leak before or after the expiration of the patent... well... in theory the patents mean you get the info out there even for the failed companies where leaks wouldn't be interesting. In practice you've got patent trolls. I think it would make sense to shorten…
With patents: You are provided with useless information. Information that is literally deliberately designed not to be useful. You can't practically speak use it. If you do obtain the information in any other way, you'll be sued into the ground. You'll be sued even if you've never seen the patent. You'll be sued even if your own invention is only vaguely similar. You'll just be sued, let's leave it at that.
This whole tweet had the same tone as when pop science crime investigation TV explains a criminal can be identified through its gait alone. It's always magic, except when the predictive model doesn't work and there is no corrective action possible on the user side. We're talking about physical reactions, so that means it's supposed to be the same through gender, age, race, health conditions from the algorithm's point…
> So, a user is in a mixed reality or virtual reality experience, and AI models are trying to predict if you are feeling curious, mind wandering, scared, paying attention, remembering a past experience, or some other cognitive state. And these may be inferred through measurements like eye tracking, electrical activity in the brain, heart beats and rhythms, muscle activity, blood density in the brain, blood pressure,…
Think of the possibilities. -A VR show can modify the jokes in real time if they know how funny you find them. -A VR casino can offer a 'full biometrics' table for the players who really think they know how to bluff -A VR porno can have your VR GF climax at the same time as you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's the good ol' bait-and-switch of tech industry you have to consider. New tech is promoted by emphasizing (and sometimes overstating) the humane aspects, the hypothetical applications for the benefit of the user and the society at large. In reality, these capabilities turn out to be mediocre, and those humane applications never manifest - there is no business in them. We always end up with a shitty version that…
PC makers selling TPM to everyone: "We'll make your computer more secure!" Reality: "We'll use it to store media encryption keys, so hollywood will let us stream media to your device."
"All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." This part makes me sad about patents and original idea behind them. This actually is the opposite of original idea why people came up with the idea of patenting something. To spread the knowledge and to award inventors. Not to stifle the competition.
It’s entirely possible that the patents created for the Vision Pro are good enough to recreate many of the individual components that have been patented, but don’t help you assemble the entire product. Which I would argue is entirely within the sprit of the patent system. Just because you want a patent an idea a receive a monopoly on it reproduction doesn’t mean you need give away the details of how your entire product works. Indeed you may probably wish to keep as much stuff a possible hidden a pure trade secrets, if you’re confident that they can’t be easily reverse engineered or replicated.
But none of that diminishes the value of the knowledge shared in a patent. Nor does it inherently mean that the patents are written in a way to be entirely useless, they’re just extremely specific and don’t include broader context that isn’t needed to reproduce the specific thing being patented.
For example you could patent “estimating human emotional intent from body worn bio-sensors”, without once mentioning its intended for use in a VR headset. Just because you intentionally avoid mentioning a VR headset doesn’t make the information in the patent useless.