Google Wants to Patent a Laser Keyboard for Project Glass

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]Weren't there laser keyboards that displayed the virtual keyboard onto a table?...[/citation]

Yes. I remember seeing those about 6-7 years ago, maybe even longer.
 
I would like to hear more about this tech. The projection sounds trivially easy, but detecting key-presses does not. Compared to all the other methods one could use to gather input (gestures, visual invariants, etc), a projected keyboard sounds quite weak.
 
[citation][nom]dormantreign[/nom]I hate patents and copyrights...should be abolished. Its the way to a class 1 civilization.[/citation]

So you'd be happy spending years of your life and millions of dollars developing something just to have someone steal it and get rich off it?
 
[citation][nom]dormantreign[/nom]I hate patents and copyrights...should be abolished. Its the way to a class 1 civilization.[/citation]

I hate the patenting of ideas. Especially ideas that already existed, but are being patented "in a different context." Is the idea of interacting with a projected image new and novel? No. They're getting the patent based on the fact that normally the projector isn't worn on the user's head.
 
It depends on what the object is. If it is an original object, then no it shouldn't. Would you really want your life work being stolen just because you think it's the way to a "class 1 civilization"?
 
[citation][nom]twelch82[/nom]I hate the patenting of ideas. Especially ideas that already existed, but are being patented "in a different context." Is the idea of interacting with a projected image new and novel? No. They're getting the patent based on the fact that normally the projector isn't worn on the user's head.[/citation]

With as many technological solutions we have today, that amount of specificity is accepted, and even required. A technology used on someone's head, compared to if they wore it on their wrist, could have completely different applications.
 
[citation][nom]getochkn[/nom]So you'd be happy spending years of your life and millions of dollars developing something just to have someone steal it and get rich off it?[/citation]
This way of thinking is why we'll never be a class 1 civilization. If it was never patented it, it wouldn't be stealing. And another person taking that invention and making it better or cheaper isn't a bad thing. It would also push innovation at a much much faster rate, because if they want to make money they will have to constantly make it better so that the people will buy it over another's competitor's product.

It's like science, once we discover something it should be shared for free so that other smart people can build on it and advance our species as a whole. Telsa wanted free energy for all of humanity, so we wouldn't have to kill each other for resources all the time. They destroyed and or suppressed a lot of his work which unfortunately set back the human race at the very least 100 years.
 
You think taking away patents will make things better?

Let's put it this way: You go to buy a graphics card with all new technology and it can't be patented according to your logic. You go into a superstore to buy it and you find that there are 15 other brands with other cards that have the same technology.

You don't get it? Nothing would ever be impressive. Nothing would ever be unique. There would be multiples of each bit of technology/items and it would eventually cause OVER-INFLATION of each of the markets. This would either lead to a sharp rise in cost or a sharp drop in cost, eventually leading companies out of business. Think about what you're doing before you do it.
 
[citation][nom]calmstateofmind[/nom]With as many technological solutions we have today, that amount of specificity is accepted, and even required. A technology used on someone's head, compared to if they wore it on their wrist, could have completely different applications.[/citation]

Saying, "What if we attached a projector to someone's head?", and then drawing up some drawings of it, is not presenting something patent-worthy, IMO.

Maybe the Austin Powers writer should get a patent on sharks with laser beams on their heads.
 
old tech that sucks to use, but in this application, would actually be pretty usefull seeing as how there is next to no way to get a better keyboard for the glasses.
 
Class 1 civilization? What a joke. Most people are jerks and the patent laws exist to protect innovation not to stifle it. We might be able to eliminate patents when there is only one corporate entity in the universe. Like on Star Trek.

Case in point.
When I worked at Black & Decker one would get a $5000 bonus for developing a patent. Our college intern came up with a patent and my boss erased his name and stole the patent and this kids $5K.
He justified his actions by saying if he hadn't told the intern to work on that project he wouldn't have developed the idea. The guy could have at least shared the money or even bought him a beer but he didn't.
 
[citation][nom]JoeMomma[/nom]Class 1 civilization? What a joke. Most people are jerks and the patent laws exist to protect innovation not to stifle it. We might be able to eliminate patents when there is only one corporate entity in the universe. Like on Star Trek.Case in point. When I worked at Black & Decker one would get a $5000 bonus for developing a patent. Our college intern came up with a patent and my boss erased his name and stole the patent and this kids $5K.He justified his actions by saying if he hadn't told the intern to work on that project he wouldn't have developed the idea. The guy could have at least shared the money or even bought him a beer but he didn't.[/citation]

In any firm there is a contractual clause which states that any patent or innovation you develop working there belongs to the firm! Read contract next time before you sign it!
That`s why apple, ibm and other firms have patents and not the poor bastards who came with ideea and work at implementation!

That`s why i considered broked the patents system because now they grant patents for ideeas not actual products. They showed a prototype for that keyboard? NO. Is the first of this kind? NO.
More of... if is only 25% different from others keyboards it is granted as a new patent. AND THAT IS A BULSHIT (since is nothing new really)!
And lately they grant patents for software... let`s face it: there are 53 instructions in C language... and you think that is impossible for 2 people in 6 bil. to came with same order of them which we call programs? Since there are no infinite combinations for them sooner or later someone will came up with same program!
 
Patenting of "ideas" alone should not be permitted as in effect it is almost impossible to prove that someone else has not had exactly the same idea . . . but just didn't happen to register it with a patent office or was even aware the idea had been patented. Patents should only be permitted when there are working prototypes OR if patenting of an idea is allowed there should be a time limit (say 2 years) within which a viable working prototype must be developed (or at least substantial money must have been invested to demonstrate that the patent register is not simply laying claim to something they have no intention of seriously developing). After a certain period has elapsed the patent expires and after that it should be free game with no-one else able to claim a patent so basically the "idea" is open to anyone prepared to invest in making it reality and first to do it wins!. This whole registering of ideas to me is not too much different to trolls that register internet domain names for companies that already exist with the hope of selling them to such companies. "Parking" should not be permitted . . either actively develop or get out of the way (shit or get off the pot). . . . . now I'm off to register a patent for a device that transports matter from one location to another by molecular transfer (beam me up Scotty) . . . after all one day someone may actually figure out how to do it and I'll be able to claim royalities or a big fat settlement for patent violation!
 
[citation][nom]dormantreign[/nom]I hate patents and copyrights...should be abolished. Its the way to a class 1 civilization.[/citation]

Right, so someone spends 1000s of hours of time, maybe their life savings, or for a big company millions of dollars then anyone can go and use what you created and you're not entitled to anything in return?

You have to have patents and copyrights to protect people who come up with something new.

Now, is the patent office giving patents where there probably shouldn't be giving them, I agree with that. But that's an issue in the process of patents not the concept of patents.
 
[citation][nom]susyque747[/nom]No patent unless you have a working prototype.[/citation]

Companies that are getting patents where they should do have working prototypes that's not the issue. The issue is should they even get a patent for the little variation that they are saying is worthy of a patent. And the simple answer is no.
 
For something like google glass or occulus rift I would say there is no need for laser keyboard instead hand/finger sensing technology so the wearer can type on air on the virtual keyboard seen in the screen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom