Google Glass: Apple Granted Patent for Head-Mounted Display | Hacker News Reader

Google Glass: Apple Granted Patent for Head-Mounted Display

wired.com

58 pointssaket12329 comments

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.

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...

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

> "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.

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."

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."

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

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.

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 -.-

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.

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.

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.

Looking at past, i can't say that it won't stand. Software industry will pay price for this mindless patent abuse in worse ways.

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.

So why was this patent granted in the first place? Is there no filter whatsoever. Big companies can just get their patents automatically approved? Because it sure looks like that's how it goes.

Apple are currently using slide-to-unlock to block certain products from selling.

Did you ever expect that to stand? I think we should be assume the worst now..

This does not patent HMDs, it only patents a way to deal with peripheral vision in stereoscopic HMDs. In fact Apple's patent explicitly describes existing HMDs, which have actually been around for decades.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

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).

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

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.

On that day, I retire to the mountains...

I take it you couldn't be bothered to read the article.

If you did you would have noticed that Apple is projecting stereoscopic 3D images using two displays. Does Google do anything at all similar to that ?

No. Case closed.

If you read the actual patent, the references to CRTs are in the parts where Apple describes existing Head/Helmet-Mounted Displays, of which some do use CRT displays. All of Apple's drawings show LEDs or OLEDs being used.

And as I said before, I see nothing in this patent that applies to Google Glass.

He went away from the basement and left this note on his terminal: "I'm going to a commune in Vermont and will deal with no unit of time shorter than a season." - Tracy Kidder, "The Soul of a New Machine"

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com