[DroidXcon]

So Apple plans on making an OLED bracelet which is a cool idea



But of course since im a Samsung Fanboy or as Jerry Hildenbrand puts it , "You are just a number to them, a filthy meat-sack that carries a wallet." I much rather Samsung come out with this concept from 2010



Here is an OLED wrist communication device that our company developed for the Military

[klokateer123]

Since they're starting to make flexible screens that fit around the wrist, why not make a pip-boy that'd be an awesome idea.

Sent from my LG-LS970 using Android Central Forums

[llamainmypocket]

Just give me something i can slap to my windshield or the inside of my glasses that's transparent. I want Google maps, Google now, Pandora, emails, and Skype on those two places.

[DroidXcon]

Just give me something i can slap to my windshield or the inside of my glasses that's transparent. I want Google maps, Google now, Pandora, emails, and Skype on those two places.

HUD(Heads up display) has been possible for years. But i dont think it will ever happen because it is a distraction to the driver. I know people who have gotten tickets for hanging things to their rearview mirror. let alone a full out map on their windshiled.

[llamainmypocket]

HUD(Heads up display) has been possible for years. But i dont think it will ever happen because it is a distraction to the driver. I know people who have gotten tickets for hanging things to their rearview mirror. let alone a full out map on their windshiled.

Never under estimate the power of business and the lobbyist on the lawmakers. GM and Chrysler are working on a full windshield augmented reality driving experience and expect it coming in cars in the next 5 years. The points of interest are collision detection, navigation, speedometer, and outlines on the road indicating its parameters when vision is low. These features will make it so much safer to drive that we will wonder how we ever drove at night before. When you marry the business prospects and potential safety prospects this thing has zero chance of not making it.

Personally, I'd rather see the technology specialist companies flesh this out rather than the car companies.

[NoYankees44]

How do they patent this stuff? The first place my mind went was bracelet when I saw flexible screens. Why do they get the patent when others have already worked on it?

Sent from my SCH-I535

[Ry]

How do they patent this stuff? The first place my mind went was bracelet when I saw flexible screens. Why do they get the patent when others have already worked on it?

Sent from my SCH-I535

Those others should have patents on their stuff too.

[DroidXcon]

Those others should have patents on their stuff too.

I'm sure they do but all you have to do is change little things and get a patent for those changes. Like molecules, you can patent them but someone can take that molecule and change one little thing on that molecule and patent it, and that is so small you can't see it with your naked eye.

From my Galaxy Note 2 via Tapatalk

[Ry]

I'm sure they do but all you have to do is change little things and get a patent for those changes. Like molecules, you can patent them but someone can take that molecule and change one little thing on that molecule and patent it, and that is so small you can't see it with your naked eye.

From my Galaxy Note 2 via Tapatalk

Exactly.

Everyone gets so hung up on Apple being granted patents. But as they develop and concept out ideas, it's something they should be doing - just like everyone else.

[DroidXcon]

Exactly.

Everyone gets so hung up on Apple being granted patents. But as they develop and concept out ideas, it's something they should be doing - just like everyone else.

The problem is that Apple tries to Sue for anything even remotely resembling their patents

From my Galaxy Note 2 via Tapatalk

[Ry]

The problem is that Apple tries to Sue for anything even remotely resembling their patents

From my Galaxy Note 2 via Tapatalk

If there's a case to be made, it's their duty to try.

[NoYankees44]

But the difference is proprietary technology or software. Without it there is no ground for a patent. You can't just patent a good idea. You have to accomplish that idea in a new and unique way.

For instance, you should not be able to patent the use of a flexible screen for a bracelet. You could however patent the way you wire it up or new port you designed for it or maybe even the type of screen if you developed that.

Apple has a bad rap for patenting generic things like rectangles with round corners and "clean simplistic" designs and ui that puts things in lists. Now our broken patent system is just as much much of blame, but it's hard not to blame the most public and successful abuser of the system.

Also they are stifling innovation purposely for their own gain with the suits. Small companies(where lots of innovation usually come from) can't compete with the gigantic threat of apple breathing down their neck whether the suit is justified or not. Theses companies might even completely leave the market for calmer waters and take their good ideas with them.

Also apple has a habit of suing grocery stores with apples in their logos and that is just wrong...

Sent from my SCH-I535

[Ry]

But the difference is proprietary technology or software. Without it there is no ground for a patent. You can't just patent a good idea. You have to accomplish that idea in a new and unique way.

For instance, you should not be able to patent the use of a flexible screen for a bracelet. You could however patent the way you wire it up or new port you designed for it or maybe even the type of screen if you developed that.

Apple has a bad rap for patenting generic things like rectangles with round corners and "clean simplistic" designs and ui that puts things in lists. Now our broken patent system is just as much much of blame, but it's hard not to blame the most public and successful abuser of the system.

Also they are stifling innovation purposely for their own gain with the suits. Small companies(where lots of innovation usually come from) can't compete with the gigantic threat of apple breathing down their neck whether the suit is justified or not. Theses companies might even completely leave the market for calmer waters and take their good ideas with them.

Also apple has a habit of suing grocery stores with apples in their logos and that is just wrong...

Sent from my SCH-I535

This "flexible screen for a bracelet" is more specific than what you're making it out to be.

[NoYankees44]

This "flexible screen for a bracelet" is more specific than what you're making it out to be.

That description basically says they patented touch interface on a self springing band with the use of flexible screens. Yeah not generic at all...

Edit: o and also the use of a charging port, solar and kinetic charging. Yeah hope you were not wantinf someone else to make on that can charge...
Sent from my SCH-I535

[Ry]

That description basically says they patented touch interface on a self springing band with the use of flexible screens. Yeah not generic at all...

Edit: o and also the use of a charging port, solar and kinetic charging. Yeah hope you were not wantinf someone else to make on that can charge...
Sent from my SCH-I535

And?

Google is patenting glasses with a computer on it. Simple enough, right?

[NoYankees44]

And?

Google is patenting glasses with a computer on it. Simple enough, right?

Which is equally ridiculous.

However at least they actually have prototypes. Chances are apple will never make the bracelet, or just for a long time. They willjust keep anyone else from doing it. Apple scatter shots patents and they decides what would be worth doing latter.

Once again, they are not the only abuser of the broken system, just the currently most notable.

Sent from my SCH-I535

[Ry]

Which is equally ridiculous.

However at least they actually have prototypes. Chances are apple will never make the bracelet, or just for a long time. They willjust keep anyone else from doing it. Apple scatter shots patents and they decides what would be worth doing latter.

Once again, they are not the only abuser of the broken system, just the currently most notable.

Sent from my SCH-I535

Who says they don't have prototypes?

Most notable? Meh. Hate for hates sake.

[NoYankees44]

Who says they don't have prototypes?

Most notable? Meh. Hate for hates sake.

Alright who is on the news every other week suing some else? Even my parents who don't give a crap know that it's happening. Today they are the most notable. In the 90s it would have been Microsoft probably.

Essentially when apple created the iPhone they created a successful recipe for chocolate cake. There were other recipes before, but they made a successful one. But instead of patenting their recipe, they tried to patent all of chocolate cake and then attempted to sue anyone that came out with a different recipe. It stifles development and innovation and keeps small companies from competing like they should be able to. Someone like Samsung has the power to stand up to them, but others did not and left the market entirely.

Once again the system let's this happen. A few years later it might be someone else that is king troll, but right now it is apple.

At least other companies keep it in their market. Apple sues grocery stores and phone companies that had copyrights for their stuff before apple.

Sent from my SCH-I535

[Ry]

Alright who is on the news every other week suing some else? Even my parents who don't give a crap know that it's happening. Today they are the most notable. In the 90s it would have been Microsoft probably.

Essentially when apple created the iPhone they created a successful recipe for chocolate cake. There were other recipes before, but they made a successful one. But instead of patenting their recipe, they tried to patent all of chocolate cake and then attempted to sue anyone that came out with a different recipe. It stifles development and innovation and keeps small companies from competing like they should be able to. Someone like Samsung has the power to stand up to them, but others did not and left the market entirely.

Once again the system let's this happen. A few years later it might be someone else that is king troll, but right now it is apple.

At least other companies keep it in their market. Apple sues grocery stores and phone companies that had copyrights for their stuff before apple.

Sent from my SCH-I535

Who is Apple suing this week?

[llamainmypocket]

How do they patent this stuff? The first place my mind went was bracelet when I saw flexible screens. Why do they get the patent when others have already worked on it?

Sent from my SCH-I535

Heck if I know. It appears based on the resent lawsuit between Apple and Samsung that Apple had patented the rectangle with rounded edges...

These tech companies buy companies for the sole purpose of collecting patents, not for using the patent, but for the opportunity to sue someone in the future as a source of revenue!

[androidluvr2]

HUD(Heads up display) has been possible for years. But i dont think it will ever happen because it is a distraction to the driver.

I totally agree with this.

[androidluvr2]

Wow, lots of misconceptions about patents here. Not going to try to clear them all up as I tried in another thread to just clear up some basic points and it got out of hand with minutia rather than sticking to basic points.

But I will say this - the biggest problem with our patent systems is lay person juries. They simply are not smart enough nor educated enough to understand the patented technology. The average lay juror can't understand the abstract concepts of patent law, such as obviousness, either. They have a bias towards the patent owner because they assume if someone got a patent they must have invented something. And since they are dumb asses and can't understand the technology or the law, they return a verdict in favor of the patent owner far more often than is warranted.

The average juror can't understand algebra and yet they are expected to understand complex technology like OLEDs if selected as a patent juror. You don't need to have even your GED to sit on a patent jury. Heck, you don't even have to speak English to sit on a patent jury, yet you would be interpreting a patent written entirely in English and a technical document to boot!

It's laughable that this is our system, but that is where the problem lies.

[idaute]

Wow, lots of misconceptions about patents here. Not going to try to clear them all up as I tried in another thread to just clear up some basic points and it got out of hand with minutia rather than sticking to basic points.

But I will say this - the biggest problem with our patent systems is lay person juries. They simply are not smart enough nor educated enough to understand the patented technology. The average lay juror can't understand the abstract concepts of patent law, such as obviousness, either. They have a bias towards the patent owner because they assume if someone got a patent they must have invented something. And since they are dumb asses and can't understand the technology or the law, they return a verdict in favor of the patent owner far more often than is warranted.

The average juror can't understand algebra and yet they are expected to understand complex technology like OLEDs if selected as a patent juror. You don't need to have even your GED to sit on a patent jury. Heck, you don't even have to speak English to sit on a patent jury, yet you would be interpreting a patent written entirely in English and a technical document to boot!

It's laughable that this is our system, but that is where the problem lies.

Oh, my, but on that other thread you made the statement that you knew all this stuff (patents) off the top of your head. Now, just off the top of your head tell us do you know of a single instance that a patent case has been tried before a jury in which at least one of the jurors could not speak English? Now, off the top of your head, have you any ideas to rectify the problem with lay person juries? The problem has been worked on. Have you heard of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is a specialized court that was implemented thirty years ago or longer. It specializes in patent cases. All patent cases tried by juries in Federal District Courts are appealed to this specialized patent court. The judges on that court are trained in both the law and scientific technology. That appeal process will find and correct problems that may have been caused by the lay juries. Can't do away with trial by jury. That is part of our legal system that goes back to Magna Carta and is implemented in our Constitution. But, the problem has been looked at, and the specialized patent court of appeals appears to be doing its job. Now, what about your biggest problem with our patent system?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

[androidluvr2]

onto ignore you go . . . . .

[drift_shifter8]

This reminds me of the PipBoy in the Fallout game series. I mean this is a promising concept but I wonder just how much will they stab our wallets for it?