3 ms·

> …I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in order to assert IP rights… This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on

by Jach 14y ago

> …I'm wondering if Steve Mann is perhaps seeking to establish some documentation in order to assert IP rights… This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this page yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aeyetap.org%2Fpublications%2Findex.html&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Aeyeta...

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google? On the contrary for someone who has put as much of his life into augmented reality, to see Google Glass hit the press where essentially this giant $250B company is going to change the world with his ideas? Especially where he is the sole inventor and assignee? I don't know about you but that movie has played out so many times as to be cliche. Generally the professor's college is the one doing the suing as they get assignment rights to research but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'll be the first to admit I'm awfully cynical about patents these days, and I sure as hell know that if some patent litigator saw Mann's patent he would ask Dr. Mann if he was being compensated by Google. If not that same litigator would probably have a moment of giddyness as he offers to get him that compensation. Could be a big payday, and money is a powerful motivator. I'll take it all back if Mann says that Google has already licensed the patent. Otherwise my bet is on the legal sharks.
- sesqu 14y ago
  If there were to be a legal dispute, surely actual patents and research papers would be the documentation you crave, and not an after-the-fact, sole author web page on a very loosely related topic?
- DanBC 14y ago
  The argument is that there is already substantial documentation and that Steve Mann doesn't need to establish anymore.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google? I think the argument was that he hardly needs an altercation at a McDonalds in 2012 to establish documentation. He's been doing the wearable computing stuff for decades, publicly.
- ajays 14y ago
  Jeez man, anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing these days knows all about Mann's work. I'm sure the Google Glasses people know all about it too; I'd be shocked if they did not. He's just too well known. Stop tilting at windmills. Here's some background reading: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-glass-wearable-computers-disappoint-me http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-gla...
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    If your employer allows it, browse the US patent office [1]. That is a search for 'google' and 'glasses' in any patent application. Then go to the link the US PTO maintains which cites references to Dr. Mann's patent [2]. Of the 34 patents that reference Dr. Mann's work, not a single one is a Google patent associated with Google Glass. So while "anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing" knows about Dr. Mann's work, apparently those same people at Google seemed to have missed that connection when the started filing patents about wearable displays. So, I agree with you. Everybody working with wearable computing should know about Dr. Mann's work. And anyone putting out a 'revolutionary product' which looks strikingly similar to the Eyetap product would, acknowledge that debt and perhaps show how they learned from what had gone before. So if you're right, then I'm right too. [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=glasses&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=google&FIELD2=&d=PTXT http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec... [2] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PALL&Query=ref/6614408 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...

by Jach 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google? On the contrary for someone who has put as much of his life into augmented reality, to see Google Glass hit the press where essentially this giant $250B company is going to change the world with his ideas? Especially where he is the sole inventor and assignee? I don't know about you but that movie has played out so many times as to be cliche. Generally the professor's college is the one doing the suing as they get assignment rights to research but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'll be the first to admit I'm awfully cynical about patents these days, and I sure as hell know that if some patent litigator saw Mann's patent he would ask Dr. Mann if he was being compensated by Google. If not that same litigator would probably have a moment of giddyness as he offers to get him that compensation. Could be a big payday, and money is a powerful motivator. I'll take it all back if Mann says that Google has already licensed the patent. Otherwise my bet is on the legal sharks.

sesqu 14y ago
If there were to be a legal dispute, surely actual patents and research papers would be the documentation you crave, and not an after-the-fact, sole author web page on a very loosely related topic?
DanBC 14y ago
The argument is that there is already substantial documentation and that Steve Mann doesn't need to establish anymore.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> Your argument is that because Dr. Mann is an academic he wouldn't sue Google? I think the argument was that he hardly needs an altercation at a McDonalds in 2012 to establish documentation. He's been doing the wearable computing stuff for decades, publicly.
ajays 14y ago
Jeez man, anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing these days knows all about Mann's work. I'm sure the Google Glasses people know all about it too; I'd be shocked if they did not. He's just too well known. Stop tilting at windmills. Here's some background reading: http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-glass-wearable-computers-disappoint-me http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/26/2986317/google-project-gla...
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  If your employer allows it, browse the US patent office [1]. That is a search for 'google' and 'glasses' in any patent application. Then go to the link the US PTO maintains which cites references to Dr. Mann's patent [2]. Of the 34 patents that reference Dr. Mann's work, not a single one is a Google patent associated with Google Glass. So while "anybody who has anything to do with wearable computing" knows about Dr. Mann's work, apparently those same people at Google seemed to have missed that connection when the started filing patents about wearable displays. So, I agree with you. Everybody working with wearable computing should know about Dr. Mann's work. And anyone putting out a 'revolutionary product' which looks strikingly similar to the Eyetap product would, acknowledge that debt and perhaps show how they learned from what had gone before. So if you're right, then I'm right too. [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=glasses&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=google&FIELD2=&d=PTXT http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec... [2] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PALL&Query=ref/6614408 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sec...