Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass in patent filing

From US2016/0109707
Patent drawings are not generally a source of amusement, as artistic as they may sometimes be. Magic Leap, the fabled and secretive augmented reality start-up valued at USD 4.5 billion, however, snuck a first class nerd joke in its application US2016/0109707 published 21 April 2016 with the memorable title "combining at least one variable focus element with a plurality of stacked waveguides for augmented or virtual reality display" (and containing no less than 152 patent drawings).
Btw, Google Glass is not waterproof

Fig. 2E of the application shows the prior art, specifically Google Glass, the disadvantages of which the invention seeks to overcome.

Those having spent too much time on the Internet will recognize Fig. 2E as a line drawing of the infamous Robert Scoble shower image. Scoble posted the image of himself wearing Google Glass while naked in the shower in April 2013. It became to epitomize everything that was wrong with Google Glass, prompting to write that "guys like this could kill Google Glass before it ever gets off the ground". Whether Scoble killed Google Glass is anyone's guess, but die it did (kind of not, says Google) and Magic Leap is having a laugh at Google's expense here.
Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass in patent filing Magic Leap lampoons Google Glass in patent filing Reviewed by Mark Schweizer on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.