Something is wrong with our patent system. Apple really has no clue how they would build this. It is just an idea at this point and now if it is ever invented, even by someone else, it will belong to Apple. I don't think technology companies should be allowed to generate patent after patent like this without any investment in actually demonstrating a unit that works.
Sorry but it's already in use, fingerprint scanning screens, not as long as it's been in the movies of course, but it exists now I read recently in product news. As are haptic screens (still in a largely experimental setp moistly) ad RFID readers obviously
"I don't think technology companies should be allowed to generate patent after patent like this without any investment in actually demonstrating a unit that works."
First, thank God you didn't write our patent laws, because some really great ideas have come about as just that... ideas, without a physical product built by the inventor (and yes, just coming up with the idea is an "invention" under our patent laws). If you had to build *and* market every single idea before you could get a patent, very few companies would waste the time or money to invent things, because it would require a huge investment to not only (a) pay the people who come up with the ideas, but also (b) pay the people who figure out how to make physical prototypes of the ideas that the first people came up with, and then (c) pay the people to figure out how to build those prototypes efficiently so you can actually make money selling them, and the (d) pay some other people to actually build those finished products, and then hope that it is actually commerically valuable. But, since you can patent something at step (a) you can get your patent and protect your idea and then spend a little more time developing it without worrying that others are going to rip you off.
Second, do you honestly think Apple hasn't built some type of prototype with these features before they filed these patent applications? I've been helping companies get patents for about 5 years now, and the vast majority of established companies never decide to patent something until they have built at least a rough prototype.
Stop trolling against the patent system. It's pretty clear you don't understand it anyway.
Actually the patent system used to specify you had to have a device with the invention in existence within X number of years to make the patent fully valid and protected, not sure how it is right now though.
The Cobra Tag may help you win that losing battle, acting as a Bluetooth device that attaches to your key ring and connects to your phone, it gives you the opportunity to find the missing item if it's less than 30 feet away.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Something is wrong with our patent system. Apple really has no clue how they would build this. It is just an idea at this point and now if it is ever invented, even by someone else, it will belong to Apple. I don't think technology companies should be allowed to generate patent after patent like this without any investment in actually demonstrating a unit that works.
Sorry but it's already in use, fingerprint scanning screens, not as long as it's been in the movies of course, but it exists now I read recently in product news.
As are haptic screens (still in a largely experimental setp moistly) ad RFID readers obviously
Hah I typed moistly, I mean mostly though, moistly is more suited for IM use :)
"I don't think technology companies should be allowed to generate patent after patent like this without any investment in actually demonstrating a unit that works."
First, thank God you didn't write our patent laws, because some really great ideas have come about as just that... ideas, without a physical product built by the inventor (and yes, just coming up with the idea is an "invention" under our patent laws). If you had to build *and* market every single idea before you could get a patent, very few companies would waste the time or money to invent things, because it would require a huge investment to not only (a) pay the people who come up with the ideas, but also (b) pay the people who figure out how to make physical prototypes of the ideas that the first people came up with, and then (c) pay the people to figure out how to build those prototypes efficiently so you can actually make money selling them, and the (d) pay some other people to actually build those finished products, and then hope that it is actually commerically valuable. But, since you can patent something at step (a) you can get your patent and protect your idea and then spend a little more time developing it without worrying that others are going to rip you off.
Second, do you honestly think Apple hasn't built some type of prototype with these features before they filed these patent applications? I've been helping companies get patents for about 5 years now, and the vast majority of established companies never decide to patent something until they have built at least a rough prototype.
Stop trolling against the patent system. It's pretty clear you don't understand it anyway.
Actually the patent system used to specify you had to have a device with the invention in existence within X number of years to make the patent fully valid and protected, not sure how it is right now though.