If this was an Apple patent we would have world war three break out. How was this patent ever granted since its common for multiple light sources to be combined in this way... Just look at car indicators or the new LED traffic lights!
[citation][nom]pacomac[/nom]If this was an Apple patent we would have world war three break out. How was this patent ever granted since its common for multiple light sources to be combined in this way... Just look at car indicators or the new LED traffic lights![/citation]
1. Car Indicators do not have cameras.
2. Traffic lights don't have camera's built into them, they are separate and only use the flash to highlight the light-sensitive license plates and driver if possible.
3. I think you are thinking of just the lights themselves, but car indicators and traffic lights do NOT fire at different rates to create an "ideal" setting for a camera.
PS.. If you didn't detect the hints, I think you forgot there's a camera involved in this patent.
Inspired by the picture above, I would like to see "multi-camera camera patent", as in, the ability to provide stereoscopic imagery for different head orientations and angles.
Just an idea. Hope Apple does not run to the patent office with it.
I'm all for protecting the rights of creators - especially when some of the patents involve a big development expense. It looks to me like Google may have something that actually deserves a patent here. That being said, I simply don't know what exists on cameras these days; I do know they have some kinds of multi-flash technology, but how that compares - I'm clueless.
If it ISN'T more than what we see on some digital cameras, the patent system has failed us; if it is, then it's all good.
The same applies to Apple patents. Some of those just look too much like what already existed to most of us, and it upsets us to see people take credit for things they didn't really create - especially when it means financial reward is being given to an entity that doesn't deserve it. The failing isn't in that we have patents, or even in a company like Apple, it's in the ability of the office to determine the worth of submitted patents, if it allows these things to happen.
As lay people though, we have to remember that we are looking at these things from the outside, and it's really hard for us to judge them fairly. Patents are a good thing, sloppy administration of them is not, but in most cases we aren't well enough informed to truly know what is fair and what isn't.
@Marcus52, it might seem like companies are trying to patent pre-existing ideas/technologies but that's because before you can patent an improvement to an existing product you have to license the technology that you're building on and specify all those details in application. It's extremely rare to see a totally new product that isn't based on an existing idea or patent. And that's why after the FTC anti-trust case against Google, they agreed not to sue other companies over "standard-essential patents" anymore. Because if you block access to these standard essential and technologies nobody else can have a stake in the market. Lots of great info about trademarks, patents, copyrights etc on
This is cool technology. This plus the new Blackberry 10 'rewind time' feature would be really cool together.