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

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#41

Post by naner »

oleganza wrote: post #34
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 com…

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.

All the incumbents have repeatedly lobbied to strengthen their advantage in the patent system so it is actually their fault. I don't know why you would presume Apple to be innocent. They have more power than most companies, they could lobby for change if they wanted to.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#42

Post by codex »

oleganza wrote: post #34
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 com…

This just does not work well unless there is overarching enforcer, because the majority can decide to steal from the minority, or those not in the group. And there are some patents so valuable that no social penalty can keep a company from violating them; it's either violate or go out of business.

Another voluntary group like this is the UN; it is completely ineffective in matters of security.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#43

Post by dragonbonheur »

oleganza wrote: post #34
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 com…

I never said it was only a problem with Apple. There is no need to apologize for them. It is a problem in technology patents and as I've written everyone knows where it is going.

It's time to limit the effectiveness of technology patents to 1 year, maybe 2 years maximum or maybe get rid of tech patents altogether.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#44

Post by dragonbonheur »

betterunix wrote: post #37
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

And before that there were Palm-powered watches by Fossil, I know.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#46

Post by aviswanathan »

Terretta wrote: post #36
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 tec…

Nosedive as in potentially disastrous. It's a matter of semantics.

Pebble sold $10 million of units via Kickstarter. Mainstream or not, I'd consider that a mild form of success at the least.

And Apple has been able to do that, but their technology/APIs are already being used by third-party companies for similar purposes, so in this case, it seems like they're playing catch-up, at least ideologically.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#47

Post by oleganza »

naner wrote: post #41
oleganza wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

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. All the incumbents have repeatedly lobbied to strengthen their advantage in the patent system so it is actually their faul…

Apple is not innocent for using existing weapon. But do not forget that the patent system was created well before Apple even existed. If there was no patent system, tax-funded courts and police, Apple and others: 1) would have nowhere to go for a cheap and brutal protection. 2) would not worry that someone else will use cheap and brutal protection against them.

Why is it cheap? Because couple of millions of bucks spent on lawyers is nothing comparing to amount of tax money and propaganda that fuels police and courts.

No company that earns money from voluntary exchange would risk creating its own armed gang: it will quickly run out of customers well before raising enough funds for a small army.

And if you are afraid that in absence of tax-funded police, some private companies would not protect themselves and their customers, but instead become super-powerful mafia themselves, then it is yet another reason why you cannot have monopoly of violent power in the first place.

My suggestion: no reasoning and intellectual debate is possible if there is a gun in the room. Take away the gun first, then we could discuss different ways to protect intellectual and other property. Guns are needed only against other guns, but even then there's no discussion going on, but pure state of jungle.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#48

Post by roc »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #15
roc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more just about covering the discrepancy between "child's wrist" and "adult's wrist". i.e. making sure the display doesn't try to render to a fixed size, when substantial portions of the 'band' may overlap. I doubt they'd ship enough material to actually attach to a leg. And hopefully they're not just shipping an iSlapBracelet: a wrist computer needs to stay in place. Not spin around your wrist freely. G…

According to the patent application, the slap bracelet is entirely covered with a flexible touchscreen. Sensors detect which side is facing the user. That way, it shouldn't matter whether the bracelet stays in place or not, the UI moves along with it. Also, being a child of the 80s, I remember slap bracelets quite well, and in my experience, they fit quite snug and didn't move around much at all.

They also had no weight to them and what little weight they had was well-distributed.

Unless this hypothetical snap-bracelet device also had its weight very well distributed, it's going to tend to spin. Particularly if the total weight is sufficient to cause the snap-bracelet to slide toward 'open', even a bit, as your wrist rotates or travels through the air. And evenly distributing the weight over an entire-surface-screen would be quite a challenge, given the internals.

I think it more likely a production device along those lines would have a series of fixed potential-attachment-points and strong magnets to counter the forces caused by the weight of the device and movement of the wrist. And the screen wouldn't need to be over the entire device, but simply enough of the 'top' so that it could reasonably serve the various potential-attachment-point configurations. (the magnets would also provide a simple and consistent way to determine just how open or closed the device is)

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#49

Post by oleganza »

codex wrote: post #42
oleganza wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

This just does not work well unless there is overarching enforcer, because the majority can decide to steal from the minority, or those not in the group. And there are some patents so valuable that no social penalty can keep a company from violating them; it's either violate or go out of business. Another voluntary group like this is the UN; it is completely ineffective in matters of security.

If majority can decide to steal from the minority, you cannot have democracy. Do you propose a self-proclaimed minority that will have guns to enforce peace and morality to protect you against majority?

Seriously, though. Patents are valuable only because there is a small amount of people with guns and prisons. Everyone else despises guns. Neither you, nor Apple lawyers would want to enforce IP using their bare hands or paying for killers out of their pocket. Same for funding soldiers killing people around the world. The existing threat of murder ("obey the patent or give your money, or go to jail, or be shot down") is here because it is already being paid for by taxpayers. And since nobody is upset about it, it feels clean and easy to use it. But in free society it will not be clean and easy to use violence. You would have to pay for it yourself. And people would pay for guns only in extreme cases for personal protection in some weird dangerous areas. Otherwise it's too damn risky. But when it's regularly paid from taxes, any enforced regulation becomes possible, any crazy PATRIOT act or SOPA becomes readily available to society without much discussion.

Re: Apple applies for iWatch patent

#50

Post by allwein »

buro9 wrote: post #20
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011. Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012. From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.

> the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild. Fairly common, automatic mechanical watches already use kinetic, but were we to say "But those aren't electronic" then you could always look at something like the Seiko Premier ( http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_s... ) And for ambient light charging, you have Citizen…

> Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market.

This is my biggest complaint whenever there's a patent discussion on HN (or anywhere else) by laypersons. The power sources are highly relevant to the patent; Every single claim in the patent is important. Otherwise, someone back at the beginning of patent-time could have simply patented "thing which you wrap around your wrist" and owned the patent to watches, bracelets, and handcuffs. As well, there could exist pre-existing patents for a straight stick, a piece of string, and a hook; But putting them all together to make a fishing rod would be an innovation that you could patent.

Post reply on HN