Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Researching Low Power Bluetooth Hotspots for Devices Like the iWatch

syndalis said:
no, they are patenting using a low powered protocol on a client device to negotiate a handshake that allows for use of internet services (and other device specific data feeds) from a host device as needed.

Internet over bluetooth has been a thing for a while. Having connection that doesn't drain the battery on either device is a bit more novel.
Click to expand...

Actually, they ARE patenting internet over BT, just adding a particular sequencing to connect as needed. It does drain the battery, just less. There are a bunch of power-saving apps for Android which attempt to do something similar (including based on location/network).

It looks to be mostly legal posturing move with the potential of trolling against competitors.
 
cmChimera said:
It IS a competition. That's the point. One reason you're granted patents so that competitors have to find NEW methods of doing something or pay you for it. If someone invents a better airbag and it meets the requirements for a patent, it gets a patent. Airbags aren't just claimed as "bags of air". They have complicated mechanics and processes to make them do what they do. If someone comes along and makes a substantially better way of doing it, they can patent it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. Please engage brain before typing.
 
Shaun said:
That's exactly what I said. Please engage brain before typing.
Click to expand...

No it's not what you said. Your logic seems to imply that a new, substantially better airbag shouldn't be patentable. I disagree.
 
SlCKB0Y said:
What method? The details listed here don't describe any method, only a high level idea which already exists.
Click to expand...

This is MacRumors. You don't come here for details. To read the details, you'd have to review the patent application.
 
Shaun said:
You can't invent something that already exists. If someone has a patent for the airbag then they have a patent for the airbag. Doesn't matter if yours is better. It's not a competition. You still have to acknowledge their prior art in your own patent and state how it's fundamentally different or pay royalties to the original patent holder.

----------



Any chance you could pull a sensible comment out of your arse once in a while instead of just insulting people.
Click to expand...

Look up patents for automotive tires. You think there is only one?
 
cmChimera said:
No it's not what you said. Your logic seems to imply that a new, substantially better airbag shouldn't be patentable. I disagree.
Click to expand...

It depends on why it is better. Is it better because even though it is using exactly the same technology, the new airbag puts things together in a slightly different way that is more effective or reliable? In other words, same technology, better execution? Or, does the new airbag use a different technology that works better because of that technology? Is there an objective way to determine whether or not there is an invention, because the difference in technology is obvious?

That is a fundamental difference to me. But, others may take the view that basically it is whatever you can get away with. If you convince the legal system that there is an "invention" even though there is no new technology, just a rearrangement, then, I guess we are stuck with that and with paying a large tax to the legal system.
 
syndalis said:
no, they are patenting using a low powered protocol on a client device to negotiate a handshake that allows for use of internet services (and other device specific data feeds) from a host device as needed.

Internet over bluetooth has been a thing for a while. Having connection that doesn't drain the battery on either device is a bit more novel.
Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY how a Note 3+Galaxy Gear work together. Sounds like another patent suit in the making.
 
chabig said:
You just described WHAT the note does, not HOW it does it. The difference is key.
Click to expand...

For the Note 3 + Gear, Bluetooth LE is HOW, lightweight tethering is the WHAT.....I really see no difference between the Note 3's implementation of this patent and what Apple mapped out. Apple doesn't reveal in this patent whether the tethered device is making the server calls directly to the remote servers or if the tethering device is doing that on behalf of the tethered. Actually, this whole concept is inherent since the intro of Android 4.3 but I think the Note 3 + Gear combo is the first implementation of the concept since it's one of the few devices shipping with Bluetooth LE.

But today I can leave my Note 3 in my briefcase and perform all functions listed in this patent with the Gear. Horrid implementation for most of them, but after rooting both devices all are functional. Make/receive calls and texts, search/receive map directions, search the web, all alerts/notifications, etc.

Typical of anything done by Samsung, it's a half-crap gimmick but purely from a technical perspective it certainly appears identical to this patent.
 
Last edited:
ReallyBigFeet said:
For the Note 3 + Gear, Bluetooth LE is HOW, lightweight tethering is the WHAT.....I really see no difference between the Note 3's implementation of this patent and what Apple mapped out.
Click to expand...

How can you see the Note's implementation without access to source code?
 
Anyone knew of that crazy kickstar project of a spray paint making anything RF ?

Well, Apple's low Bluetooth kind of me of this...

The air-ways are jammed........and with all the other crap that put out RF, there is no sign of letting up.

"Huston, we have a problem."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back