http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/ Engadget Comments for Apple patent application offers more evidence of projector plans http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
http://www.engadget.com/exclude/apple

You're welcome. Or cry moar, whichever.]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
i think it was a sigh related to patents, not apples.

but that's ok, you can be a dick if you want to.]]>Mar 18th 2010 5:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
This is an article about Apple applying for patents. How is it not about Apple?]]>Mar 18th 2010 9:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/

So a patent application for the remote control... of a projector with a computer?

That's not an invention. That's a weekend DIY project!]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
That's your argument against this patent application? That somebody could build it in their garage?

Do you just not understand why patents exist or something?]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/"and basically describes a setup that would let various devices (including a laptop or phone) remotely interact with a projector"

Except for the fact that Windows has done this since vista, and windows mobile for a few years as well]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
I hate Microsoft as much as I hate Apple. It has nothing to do with Microsoft doing this before Apple, and everything to do with NEITHER of them inventing this.]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
"and basically describes a setup that would let various devices (including a laptop or phone) remotely interact with a projector"

Is that NOT the actual quote from the article from Engadget? Or are they stupid too?

I dont care if Microsoft came up with it first last or ever. It is not an invention. It's like a patent application for remote access or teleconferencing!

Here:
http://www.engadget.com/exclude/anyone_that_doesnt_kiss_apple's_ass.

Just so you can have a dissent free Engadget.]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
"That's your argument against this patent application? That somebody could build it in their garage?"

That it's not an invention, but using existing devices to...do something

It's remotely controlling a projector with a device. That is essistially like the remote that comes with the damn thing.

Or how about allowing different computers to use the same output screen? Never seen that before.

"Do you just not understand why patents exist or something?"

In this case to patent no actual thing? I guess as long as it's the RIGHT company, patenting BS is A-OK.]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 4:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 5:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/- take an already existing process or system that requires above average geekery and tech wizardry
- simplify the hell out of it so that "normal" people can use it
- piss off geeks and nerds by leaving out stuff normal people don't need or use
- package the whole thing in appealing industrial design
- put an Apple logo on the back]]>Mar 18th 2010 5:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
I've read it. It's exactly as Engadget states. Device gives data to projector over the network, projector has included camera (don't know why, presumably you would have the data on your screen as you push buttons), camera sends data back to device.]]>Mar 19th 2010 10:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 3:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Why so stupid? Where in this patent application does it say anything about patenting the projection of light? Oh right, Apple haters don't read so good. No, see, this patent is about a specific methodology for controlling a projector remotely.

Not a patent for all forms of remote control.
Not a patent for projecting light.
Not a patent for inventing projectors, or remote control.
It's just a patent for a SPECIFIC type of control that Apple may or may not want to implement in the future.

Why are people so dense about Apple and patents?]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Why so touchy?
It could also just be a joke, I won't get into the fanboy/hater thing but why do you jump to defend a computer company?]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Clearly, you don't "read so good", either. Obviously, I was just poking fun at the situation (the article doesn't mention 3-D either, does it?).

Everyone who up-ranked me go it... you may have too if your Apple Defense System didn't kick into overdrive the moment someone cracked a joke. Uptight about their patents, much?]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
@whySoSerious This is why I use "/s" most of the time, so fanbois don't pitchfork me to death!]]>Mar 18th 2010 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
I find it hard to believe that controlling a projector via network or remote network can be patented let alone accepted.

Oh wait...]]>Mar 18th 2010 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
No... no. Just no.]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Watch out LG, Apple has had this idea since the dawn of time...but never implemented it. /s]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Case in point: Apple suing HTC over the use of multitasking...WTF?]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
wasnt it multitouch?]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
He wouldnt know, since he obviously hasn't read the claims, and since he is not a registered patent attorney, he likely could not interpret the claims even if he had read them.

One must take a massive dose of salt when reading any comments here that relate to patents, as those leaving messages have little to no knowledge of claim interpretation, prosecution strategy, or infringement analysis.]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
It would be nice is people sat at their chairs for a bit thinking.

"Hmm, I'm reading this, but I don't really understand it. Maybe I shouldn't comment, or maybe I should just type something like 'BURN THE WITCH!!!" cos I'm on the internetz and I have a keyboard and I'm FUCKING AWESOME!!!!!!!!"



]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Do your research.]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 3:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/no one in here does even remotely mention he/she is writing advice, or to be an expert in the field.

this is a comment section, as defined by it's word it is a placeholder for "comments" therefore one providing one's own opinion.

but you are correct, maybe a disclaimer, as you did was necessary.]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
If your girlfriend is a lawyer, why didn't she tell you that Apple doesn't own "multitasking" and isn't suing HTC over "multitasking"?

Apple owns patents on SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS of multitasking, and that's what HTC is violating. Not "multitasking" in general. Did your girlfriend not understand that part? Or was it just you?]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
The title of a patent is utterly meaningless. It is the CLAIMS that matter, and how they are interpreted.

Saying Apple is suing for "multitasking" is a bit like saying "the tax code states that taxes must be paid."]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
It's not that people are writing advice, the problem is that people get their panties all in a bunch about patents (and generally, only about Apple patents or lawsuits) when they have absolutely no idea what a patent is or how the patenting system operates. Complete ignorance.

I wouldn't "rip" Lockheed for the lousy thrust mechanics of its rockets because I know absolutely nothing about rockets or thrust mechanics. But for some reason, everyone and their mother is a patent expert when it comes to (Apple) patents - yet by their writings you can tell they don't even know patents 101.

]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
I said Apple will likely not use the feature, but use it to sue. So in short.
- So is Apple suing HTC over multitasking (implementation)? Yes
- Does the iPhone multitask? No]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Wrong. Apple is suing for the violation of their patent, which is the specific implementation of multitasking. Not "multitasking" in general.

And yes, the iPhone DOES multitask. iPhone OS is a fully preemptive multitasking OS, and Apple's apps do run in the background. But even that is irrelevant. If Apple holds the patent it doesn't matter if the iPhone is actually using the technology that is patented, does it? All that matters is that Apple holds the patent.]]>Mar 18th 2010 9:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
On March 18th, 2010, Apple published 18 patent applications.

Microsoft published 51.

Citations:
http://www.latestpatents.com/apple-patent-applications-published-on-18-march-2010/
http://www.latestpatents.com/microsoft-patent-applications-published-on-18-march-2010/

The information isn't hard to find, people.
]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Yeah, but who is Microsoft suing? :/]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=microsoft+files+patent+lawsuit]]>Mar 18th 2010 4:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
If you don't like the patent system, blame the patent system. Don't blame Apple for using it.]]>Mar 18th 2010 3:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
If you don't like the patent system, blame the patent system. Don't blame Apple for ABUSING it.]]>Mar 18th 2010 7:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/Mar 18th 2010 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
Maybe some stories on Hello Kitty laptops or something would be more on their level.]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/18/apple-patent-application-offers-more-evidence-of-projector-plans/
I think you meant to say "99.9999% of the people reading this have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what a patent, patent application, or patent claim is."

As to Hello Kitty, you basically nailed that on the head.]]>Mar 18th 2010 2:46PM