Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple applies for iWatch patent

appft.uspto.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#31

Post by 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.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#32

Post by jdminhbg »

aviswanathan wrote: post #31

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 i…

I have never seen a Pebble in the wild. By comparison, I had seen mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets in the wild before the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, respectively.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#34

Post by oleganza »

dragonbonheur wrote: post #19

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…

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.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#35

Post by tiziano88 »

jdminhbg wrote: post #32
aviswanathan wrote: post #31

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 i…

I have never seen a Pebble in the wild. By comparison, I had seen mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets in the wild before the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, respectively.

they've only shipped a very small fraction of them yet

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#36

Post by Terretta »

aviswanathan wrote: post #31

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 i…

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.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#37

Post by betterunix »

dragonbonheur wrote: post #19

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…

"EVERYONE KNOWS that we must have wrist mounted screens at some point"

We passed that point: we already have Android watches. You could have purchased one last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMM_One

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#38

Post by Samuel_Michon »

buro9 wrote: post #30
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 so…

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.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#39

Post by mistercow »

zoul wrote: post #28
dragonbonheur wrote: post #19

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…

If Apple were to introduce the device, they have two options. First, patent the design (and then possibly sue others). Second, do not patent the design and get sued by others. Which one would you choose? I would go for the first one (and not sue others without a proper cause, but that’s a different topic).

Patenting the design doesn't protect them from being sued except insofar as it gives them a club to wave at anyone who might try (and they already have plenty of such clubs). The main threat Apple would need to worry about would be patent trolls, and having a threatening portfolio is a useless defense against trolls.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#40

Post by Terretta »

frankus wrote: post #27
DigitalTurk wrote: post #23

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 holdin…

In that case I have prior art: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phon...

Science fiction is not prior art. Speculative ideas don't count.
Post reply on HN