6 ms·

Apple applies for iWatch patent

39 points by xmpir 14y ago

aviswanathan 14y ago
Patents and suing aside, I think Apple's nosedive into the watch industry is a really interesting one considering their past. Traditionally, they enter new product lines with great hesitation and deliberation, but it almost seems like in this case, they're trying to catch up with the market (Pebble's massive success, etc.). As a hardware company, they're playing with human real estate. They've already got us locked in our desks and on the go with our phones, but now they're trying to add yet another level of convenience with the watch.
- jdminhbg 14y ago
  I have never seen a Pebble in the wild. By comparison, I had seen mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets in the wild before the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, respectively.
  - tiziano88 14y ago
    they've only shipped a very small fraction of them yet
- Terretta 14y ago
  The term "nosedive" is typically used to mean disastrous: literally diving only to land on your nose. Did you mean "head first dive" (which means "going for it, all in" as opposed to "dipping a toe") or are you projecting that Apple is plummeting into a crash and burn situation by getting into watches? Also, Pebble's "massive success" with whom? The only people who know about it seem to be those who hang about on tech blogs and forums and crowd sourcing sites. It hasn't crossed the chasm. Apple's key strength has always been, from Apple II to iPhone, crossing the chasm to put a tech category into the hands of normals.
  - aviswanathan 14y ago
    Nosedive as in potentially disastrous. It's a matter of semantics. Pebble sold $10 million of units via Kickstarter. Mainstream or not, I'd consider that a mild form of success at the least. And Apple has been able to do that, but their technology/APIs are already being used by third-party companies for similar purposes, so in this case, it seems like they're playing catch-up, at least ideologically.
BitMastro 14y ago
It looks similar to the concept from Nokia from 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhcCqG5XHwg#t=158s https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&...
Mindphreaker 14y ago
Since pebble started shipping and already got nice coverage and feedback from the community it sounds reasonable that apple might work on it's "i" equivalent.
- roc 14y ago
  Considering this patent was filed in mid-2011 and is almost certainly claiming an earlier invention date, I think you may have your order of events backwards.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    The company behind Pebble has been working on smartwatches for a lot longer than Pebble - well before 2011. There was even a launched product - inPulse - before Pebble.
    - roc 14y ago
      And? The claim was the reaction to the Pebble is what motivated Apple. I merely posited the calendar doesn't support that. If you want to generalize it to "Apple is doing something similar to what other people had previously done" that's a completely different argument.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011. Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012. From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.
  - Mindphreaker 14y ago
    Thank's for pointing this out. Although I'm not an apple fan, this sounds pretty nice. :)
regisb 14y ago
From claim 1 it appears that the screen will be of variable size depending on the "appendage" on which the watch is worn. I can't wait to see a keynote where the speaker will be wearing the iWatch on his thigh.
- xmpir 14y ago
  i wonder if it will be of any use if one doesn't use other apple products...
- bengillies 14y ago
  It sounds like they're making an iSlapBracelet to me. That means the whole surface would potentially be a screen with just the part facing you being active. I kind of wonder where else would be appropriate to wear it other than on your wrist, given that it explicitly mentions that (Geordi LaForge style visor perhaps?)
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    Depending on size of the band, strength of it 'closed' you could potentially wear it on your bicep like runners currently do with some iPods. I can't see it being moved off the wrist though, I'd assume appendage is to keep the language as broad as possible.
- roc 14y ago
  I think it's more just about covering the discrepancy between "child's wrist" and "adult's wrist". i.e. making sure the display doesn't try to render to a fixed size, when substantial portions of the 'band' may overlap. I doubt they'd ship enough material to actually attach to a leg. And hopefully they're not just shipping an iSlapBracelet: a wrist computer needs to stay in place. Not spin around your wrist freely. Good luck to them in weighting such a device and getting it to stay in place.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    According to the patent application, the slap bracelet is entirely covered with a flexible touchscreen. Sensors detect which side is facing the user. That way, it shouldn't matter whether the bracelet stays in place or not, the UI moves along with it. Also, being a child of the 80s, I remember slap bracelets quite well, and in my experience, they fit quite snug and didn't move around much at all.
bcks 14y ago
A friend of mine works for an Apple store and says people still come in asking for the square iPod Nano and TikTok watchband, even though Apple stopped selling the square (7th generation) Nano some 6 months ago.
- duaneb 14y ago
  That's my favorite nano-absolutely the perfect running ipod. I truly miss it.
0cool 14y ago
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-abo...
nicholassmith 14y ago
I keep thinking about whether it'd work as a product category, we keep hearing that the wristwatch is dead (I'm wearing one mind) but this could appeal to quite a few people. But, lets keep in mind Apple has some patents for some pretty radical ideas floating around and reading too much into patents is like reading chicken entrails.
bane 14y ago
I was initially thinking that it was just going to be an Apple branded knockoff of http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-Strap/dp/B0045LYVJ6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361458759&sr=8-2&keywords=ipod+watch+band http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-Strap/d... but it looks like they're intending to use the flexible screen tech that's been demo'd by Samsung recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N3E7fUynrZU#t=45s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... before the inevitable complaining about who innovated what first, I'd like to say that it looks like Samsung has the screen nailed down, but Apple is going to get the device concept figured out (which will then probably be launched off of by tons of companies not the least of which will be Samsung). I'd say Samsung's strategy might be "why waste R&D when you can get Apple to do it for you?" but it's obvious that this core tech is the result of unbelievable amounts of R&D dollars.
- ohwp 14y ago
  Well 3M already figured this out: http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/3m-flexible-mul.php http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/3m-flexible-mul.php
- dragonbonheur 14y ago
  Let's keep your theory of Apple being first to market here. Since Samsungand LG have the displays does that mean that Apple should be able do register this overly broadly-defined patent that will prevent other manufacturers from using Samsung's and LG's technology? Other than in phone, tablet/monitor, eye-wear and wristband formats, are there any form factors that can be invented? The answer to both is NO. Such broad patents should be rejected, especially when someone uses components from other manufacturers and when those components are so essential to the design properties.
dragonbonheur 14y ago
Yet another broadly-worded patent designed mostly to kill competition. EVERYONE KNOWS that we must have wrist mounted screens at some point. EVERYONE KNOWS that having the display wrap around the wrist a desirable feature. EVERYONE KNOWS that there must be wireless connectivity. EVERYONE KNOWS that the screen MUST be flexible and MUST be a touchscreen. EVERYONE KNOWS that in the long term the devices themselves WILL include the necessary processing power and be completely independent. It doesn't take a genius to see where tech is heading. Even 3M had the same ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZz4jFok_o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZz4jFok_o Nowadays it's all patent the obvious and sue all competitors.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- zoul 14y ago
  If Apple were to introduce the device, they have two options. First, patent the design (and then possibly sue others). Second, do not patent the design and get sued by others. Which one would you choose? I would go for the first one (and not sue others without a proper cause, but that’s a different topic).
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Patenting the design doesn't protect them from being sued except insofar as it gives them a club to wave at anyone who might try (and they already have plenty of such clubs). The main threat Apple would need to worry about would be patent trolls, and having a threatening portfolio is a useless defense against trolls.
- oleganza 14y ago
  It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions. This is how patent system could have been done without violence: a group of tech companies willing to protect their IP come together and agree on a single protocol which will register their inventions. They will list what kinds of inventions are patentable and not patentable. If something in this protocol remains vague to anyone it won't be signed. Then, they agree to regularly elect a group of experts who would inspect all incoming submissions and decide which non-patented inventions are violating or not the existing patents. Every participant would have to follow the decision of the experts, or would have to appeal to other participants (in order to re-elect the experts, reexamine the protocol, or reexamine this particular decision). If participant does not follow the decision of the experts, he is publicly defamed and economically ostracised, just like any other non-participant who violates existing patents. If any participant does not punish violators via ostracism (whether participants or not), he himself is ostracised by others. If a large enough group of tech companies really values patents over costs of ostracism, they can do just that. (Like they agree not to hiring specialists from each other.) If they don't find the way to agree on patents, then they do not deserve them. And nobody should go to prison because of that. My gut feeling is that neither Google, nor Apple, nor Microsoft likes patents. They could agree about hiring top people, about very specific trademarks like logos, but they would never spend time fighting over rounded corners if they were not given a poisonous weapon which is a tax-funded patent office, police and prisons. Resume: You do not need violent intervention with guns and prisons to protect yourself. Example: Apple's customers do not like working conditions of its partners' factories, so they can ostracise Apple. Apple in response asks factories to improve conditions, or Apple will ostracise them. There is no violence, but only negotiation.
DigitalTurk 14y ago
A watch shaped like a bracelet and easily removable. That very much suits my intuition of what an iWatch would be. I have a pet theory that, when removed, the iWatch will be flat and it will be possible to use it as a phone by holding up to your ear. The cellular technology will be in your iPhone Maxi or iPad. The importance of such a feature is simply—but not unimportantly—that this would look less dorky than holding up a 5" phone to your head or using a bluetooth headset.
- frankus 14y ago
  In that case I have prior art: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phone#1294263682 http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phon...
  - Terretta 14y ago
    Science fiction is not prior art. Speculative ideas don't count.
    - frankus 14y ago
      Should've been more like "called it". Agreed, it doesn't meet the legal definition of prior art.
donohoe 14y ago
Easier to steal than an iPhone?
rxc178 14y ago
So they want to make a Pebble knockoff. Great... More shit for me to buy and immediately have it go out of date.
Cardeck1 14y ago
Wait a minute.So if I am working on a similar product, I will be sued by Apple?That is ridiculous.Probably they will call it their IDEA now.Total CRAP.

39 points by xmpir 14y ago

Patents and suing aside, I think Apple's nosedive into the watch industry is a really interesting one considering their past. Traditionally, they enter new product lines with great hesitation and deliberation, but it almost seems like in this case, they're trying to catch up with the market (Pebble's massive success, etc.). As a hardware company, they're playing with human real estate. They've already got us locked in our desks and on the go with our phones, but now they're trying to add yet another level of convenience with the watch.

jdminhbg 14y ago
I have never seen a Pebble in the wild. By comparison, I had seen mp3 players, smartphones, and tablets in the wild before the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, respectively.
- tiziano88 14y ago
  they've only shipped a very small fraction of them yet
Terretta 14y ago
The term "nosedive" is typically used to mean disastrous: literally diving only to land on your nose. Did you mean "head first dive" (which means "going for it, all in" as opposed to "dipping a toe") or are you projecting that Apple is plummeting into a crash and burn situation by getting into watches? Also, Pebble's "massive success" with whom? The only people who know about it seem to be those who hang about on tech blogs and forums and crowd sourcing sites. It hasn't crossed the chasm. Apple's key strength has always been, from Apple II to iPhone, crossing the chasm to put a tech category into the hands of normals.
- aviswanathan 14y ago
  Nosedive as in potentially disastrous. It's a matter of semantics. Pebble sold $10 million of units via Kickstarter. Mainstream or not, I'd consider that a mild form of success at the least. And Apple has been able to do that, but their technology/APIs are already being used by third-party companies for similar purposes, so in this case, it seems like they're playing catch-up, at least ideologically.

BitMastro 14y ago

It looks similar to the concept from Nokia from 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vhcCqG5XHwg#t=158s https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&...

Mindphreaker 14y ago

Since pebble started shipping and already got nice coverage and feedback from the community it sounds reasonable that apple might work on it's "i" equivalent.

roc 14y ago
Considering this patent was filed in mid-2011 and is almost certainly claiming an earlier invention date, I think you may have your order of events backwards.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  The company behind Pebble has been working on smartwatches for a lot longer than Pebble - well before 2011. There was even a launched product - inPulse - before Pebble.
  - roc 14y ago
    And? The claim was the reaction to the Pebble is what motivated Apple. I merely posited the calendar doesn't support that. If you want to generalize it to "Apple is doing something similar to what other people had previously done" that's a completely different argument.
Samuel_Michon 14y ago
Apple's patent application was filed on August 17, 2011. Pebble's Kickstarter campaign started on April 11, 2012. From the description of the patent application it's clear that this thing is nothing like a Pebble or a watch. It's a slap bracelet covered with a flexible touchscreen. What's more, the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild.
- Mindphreaker 14y ago
  Thank's for pointing this out. Although I'm not an apple fan, this sounds pretty nice. :)

regisb 14y ago

From claim 1 it appears that the screen will be of variable size depending on the "appendage" on which the watch is worn. I can't wait to see a keynote where the speaker will be wearing the iWatch on his thigh.

xmpir 14y ago
i wonder if it will be of any use if one doesn't use other apple products...
bengillies 14y ago
It sounds like they're making an iSlapBracelet to me. That means the whole surface would potentially be a screen with just the part facing you being active. I kind of wonder where else would be appropriate to wear it other than on your wrist, given that it explicitly mentions that (Geordi LaForge style visor perhaps?)
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  Depending on size of the band, strength of it 'closed' you could potentially wear it on your bicep like runners currently do with some iPods. I can't see it being moved off the wrist though, I'd assume appendage is to keep the language as broad as possible.
roc 14y ago
I think it's more just about covering the discrepancy between "child's wrist" and "adult's wrist". i.e. making sure the display doesn't try to render to a fixed size, when substantial portions of the 'band' may overlap. I doubt they'd ship enough material to actually attach to a leg. And hopefully they're not just shipping an iSlapBracelet: a wrist computer needs to stay in place. Not spin around your wrist freely. Good luck to them in weighting such a device and getting it to stay in place.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  According to the patent application, the slap bracelet is entirely covered with a flexible touchscreen. Sensors detect which side is facing the user. That way, it shouldn't matter whether the bracelet stays in place or not, the UI moves along with it. Also, being a child of the 80s, I remember slap bracelets quite well, and in my experience, they fit quite snug and didn't move around much at all.

bcks 14y ago

A friend of mine works for an Apple store and says people still come in asking for the square iPod Nano and TikTok watchband, even though Apple stopped selling the square (7th generation) Nano some 6 months ago.

duaneb 14y ago
That's my favorite nano-absolutely the perfect running ipod. I truly miss it.

0cool 14y ago

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-abo...

nicholassmith 14y ago

I keep thinking about whether it'd work as a product category, we keep hearing that the wristwatch is dead (I'm wearing one mind) but this could appeal to quite a few people. But, lets keep in mind Apple has some patents for some pretty radical ideas floating around and reading too much into patents is like reading chicken entrails.

bane 14y ago

I was initially thinking that it was just going to be an Apple branded knockoff of http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-Strap/dp/B0045LYVJ6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1361458759&sr=8-2&keywords=ipod+watch+band http://www.amazon.com/Nanotch-Protective-Wrist-Watch-Strap/d... but it looks like they're intending to use the flexible screen tech that's been demo'd by Samsung recently http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N3E7fUynrZU#t=45s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... before the inevitable complaining about who innovated what first, I'd like to say that it looks like Samsung has the screen nailed down, but Apple is going to get the device concept figured out (which will then probably be launched off of by tons of companies not the least of which will be Samsung). I'd say Samsung's strategy might be "why waste R&D when you can get Apple to do it for you?" but it's obvious that this core tech is the result of unbelievable amounts of R&D dollars.

ohwp 14y ago
Well 3M already figured this out: http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/3m-flexible-mul.php http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/3m-flexible-mul.php
dragonbonheur 14y ago
Let's keep your theory of Apple being first to market here. Since Samsungand LG have the displays does that mean that Apple should be able do register this overly broadly-defined patent that will prevent other manufacturers from using Samsung's and LG's technology? Other than in phone, tablet/monitor, eye-wear and wristband formats, are there any form factors that can be invented? The answer to both is NO. Such broad patents should be rejected, especially when someone uses components from other manufacturers and when those components are so essential to the design properties.

dragonbonheur 14y ago

Yet another broadly-worded patent designed mostly to kill competition. EVERYONE KNOWS that we must have wrist mounted screens at some point. EVERYONE KNOWS that having the display wrap around the wrist a desirable feature. EVERYONE KNOWS that there must be wireless connectivity. EVERYONE KNOWS that the screen MUST be flexible and MUST be a touchscreen. EVERYONE KNOWS that in the long term the devices themselves WILL include the necessary processing power and be completely independent. It doesn't take a genius to see where tech is heading. Even 3M had the same ideas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZz4jFok_o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZz4jFok_o Nowadays it's all patent the obvious and sue all competitors.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zoul 14y ago
If Apple were to introduce the device, they have two options. First, patent the design (and then possibly sue others). Second, do not patent the design and get sued by others. Which one would you choose? I would go for the first one (and not sue others without a proper cause, but that’s a different topic).
- mistercow 14y ago
  Patenting the design doesn't protect them from being sued except insofar as it gives them a club to wave at anyone who might try (and they already have plenty of such clubs). The main threat Apple would need to worry about would be patent trolls, and having a threatening portfolio is a useless defense against trolls.
oleganza 14y ago
It is a problem with any patents, not with Apple in particular. Patent law was not a voluntary contract that Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Google and others negotiated between each other up front. It was imposed by entirely different group of people who pay armed soldiers to enforce their decisions. This is how patent system could have been done without violence: a group of tech companies willing to protect their IP come together and agree on a single protocol which will register their inventions. They will list what kinds of inventions are patentable and not patentable. If something in this protocol remains vague to anyone it won't be signed. Then, they agree to regularly elect a group of experts who would inspect all incoming submissions and decide which non-patented inventions are violating or not the existing patents. Every participant would have to follow the decision of the experts, or would have to appeal to other participants (in order to re-elect the experts, reexamine the protocol, or reexamine this particular decision). If participant does not follow the decision of the experts, he is publicly defamed and economically ostracised, just like any other non-participant who violates existing patents. If any participant does not punish violators via ostracism (whether participants or not), he himself is ostracised by others. If a large enough group of tech companies really values patents over costs of ostracism, they can do just that. (Like they agree not to hiring specialists from each other.) If they don't find the way to agree on patents, then they do not deserve them. And nobody should go to prison because of that. My gut feeling is that neither Google, nor Apple, nor Microsoft likes patents. They could agree about hiring top people, about very specific trademarks like logos, but they would never spend time fighting over rounded corners if they were not given a poisonous weapon which is a tax-funded patent office, police and prisons. Resume: You do not need violent intervention with guns and prisons to protect yourself. Example: Apple's customers do not like working conditions of its partners' factories, so they can ostracise Apple. Apple in response asks factories to improve conditions, or Apple will ostracise them. There is no violence, but only negotiation.

DigitalTurk 14y ago

A watch shaped like a bracelet and easily removable. That very much suits my intuition of what an iWatch would be. I have a pet theory that, when removed, the iWatch will be flat and it will be possible to use it as a phone by holding up to your ear. The cellular technology will be in your iPhone Maxi or iPad. The importance of such a feature is simply—but not unimportantly—that this would look less dorky than holding up a 5" phone to your head or using a bluetooth headset.

frankus 14y ago
In that case I have prior art: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phone#1294263682 http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Slap_20Bracelet_20Cell_20Phon...
- Terretta 14y ago
  Science fiction is not prior art. Speculative ideas don't count.
  - frankus 14y ago
    Should've been more like "called it". Agreed, it doesn't meet the legal definition of prior art.

donohoe 14y ago

Easier to steal than an iPhone?

rxc178 14y ago

So they want to make a Pebble knockoff. Great... More shit for me to buy and immediately have it go out of date.

Cardeck1 14y ago

Wait a minute.So if I am working on a similar product, I will be sued by Apple?That is ridiculous.Probably they will call it their IDEA now.Total CRAP.