Feeds

back to article Google reveals Glass details in patent application

The US Patent and Trademark Office has published a Google patent application that provides a raft of details about that company's much-ballyhooed "Glass" augmented-reality spectacles. The term Glass, however, is not sufficiently patentesian for the USPTO and Google's patent lawyers. The application in question, filed on August …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Never mind the lasers, having all those electronics and radio transmitters right next to your brain for hours on end will be so wonderful.

Google better start researching a cure for cancer.

4
14
Bronze badge

Why would Google do that? Not nearly as profitable.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

But you will still look silly wearing it.

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Joe 90

Had specs like these, how can they claim the patent?

0
0
Bronze badge

It's nice to see people understand the difference between ionising radiation and non ionising radiation!

The power Wi-fi puts out is so small compared to a mobile phone base station that it's not worth thinking about. The power put out by a mobile phone base station is well beneath the level that there is any scientific reason to think that there could be any effect, let alone any actual evidence that are any health concerns.

Twit.

3
0
Bronze badge
Headmaster

I would guess...

This has the same effect of increasing cancer as a small potato sellotaped to your head. Sellotape is very radioactive in comparison to some computerized eye wear.

Having a laser or any source of light shine in your eyes however may not be good for your vision long term. That though is down to those who know about these things to test and check. I'd probably wait to see if anyone complains of eye strain before getting a pair myself... well, not that I'd want a pair anyhow. :P

1
0
Anonymous Coward

The power Wi-fi puts out is so small compared to a mobile phone base station that it's not worth thinking about.

thouhg, to be fair, not many people wear a mobile phone base station behing their ear all day so this thing call the inverse square law applies!

0
2
Silver badge
Happy

Re: I would guess...

You can pretty much guarantee someone will complain of eye strain right after putting them on.

Now Right Ear Strain from that big rectangular bit...

1
0
Bronze badge

thouhg, to be fair, not many people wear a mobile phone base station behing their ear all day so this thing call the inverse square law applies!

With a reply like that I take it that your the original uneducated anonymous coward!

Base station output is 50-100 watts.

A 3/4g mobile phone held by your ear can emit up to 2 watts.

Wifi output is 0.1 watt.

If you spent an hour on your mobile which was emitting 1 watt (i'll be kind and assume that it's using half what it's allowed to) then it would take 20 hours with GoogleGlasses to reach the same amount of power emitted. (and being non ionising, as we know the effect is not cumulative...)

Remember citizen, Ignorance is strength!

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

Hope burn-in isn't an issue

Although having the Google logo permanently seared into people's field of vision sounds like a Marketeer's wet dream.

4
0

Truer than most people realize

Most people are fairly ignorant of the effects of electric fields on the brain and body and will prefer to ignore the very idea of brain-cancer-causing cool techno-glasses. For anyone who is interested in exploring the subject, take a look at Dr. Robert O. Becker's book, "The Body Electric" . Provides a "new" perspective on our modern health issues.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: Truer than most people realize

> Most people are fairly ignorant of the effects of electric fields on the brain and body

The implication here is that you are one of those people....

3
0
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: Truer than most people realize

To explain the effects, do you not have to explain how the every day natural electric and magnetic fields never killed us? An increase in artificial ones, is akin to an increase or artificial light sources (candles) compared to a natural light source (the sun). Both can be dangerous, but both are also mundane and safe. Don't eat your fire detector and don't microwave your cat and the technology should be safe.

3
1
Childcatcher

I demand

That we remove the ROTATING IRON CORE of this planet immediately, and also move ourselves out of the magnetic field of that CANCER-CAUSING NEARBY STAR.

It's the only way to be sure.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Truer than most people realize

Superstition just never goes away, does it? Get back to me when portable devices can emit radio-frequency radiation in terms of Watts - oh, and you do know there is a difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation, don't you?

1
0

Re: Truer than most people realize

See also "Biologically Closed Electrical Circuits" by Bjorn Nordenstrom. The original book with exhaustive treatment of the original research is very expensive (check out your university's medical school library for copy) but there are some books oriented more toward the popular/non-research reader.

1
0

Re: Truer than most people realize

If one takes that view, there is always a certain level of background radiation that only does minor damage to our DNA. So I guess a tad more radiation is ok? Anything that moves electrons gives off radiation when the electron hits something. That is how X-Ray machines work, they fire an electron beam at from 30kv to 150kv at a tungsten target. The electrons hit the target and the level of radiation is metered out by voltage=wavelength (penetration) and amperage=quantity. Radiation damage is permanent, meaning if you get 10 rem per month until you reach about 400 rem total, 50% of people so exposed die (Called LD-50) Of course, these glasses would only give off radiation directly to the lens of the eye (the second most sensitive tissue after gonads) causing Cataracts and possibly cancer. I myself have cataracts after only a lifetime dosage of ~4 REM from x-raying patients, flouroscopy, Inserting Radioactive needles Etc. Many Radiologists from up until the 50's lost all their fingers because, "It was only a little Radiation at a time". I think the other effects are enough unknown from microwave to magnetic emissions that I would certainly never put anything electronic that close to my eyes. Go for it! Darwin Lives!!!

0
0

Re: Truer than most people realize

If you are talking about Electromagnetic Spectrum, the difference is only in wavelength, Higher energy goes into the Ionizing level, lower into the microwave and radio wavelengths, Pick your poison, Cancer or cooked, or maybe just Cataracts. When you get an X-Ray, the tech or Dr. sets the quantity level in miliamps, the penetration in kv, not in Watts. Exposure is measured in 10k ionizations/cc=REM or Radiation Equivalent Man.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

"is getting more than a little press"

which means that Google is learning from Apple who can spin air in to a story to keep their name in the papers.

At least Google has working models.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Nice, but I'd rather have...

There's no doubt how useful this type of device will be to many people - anyone who travels a lot is the obvious one. Many different job roles could benefit. Obvious ones are Police, military, medicine, logistics.

But for everyday use for me? I couldn't think of anything worse than being constantly bombarded by info that I don't really need to know. I already sit in front of a computer the bulk of my waking hours, when I'm away from that I want to be *far* away.

So yeah, not for me ... but ...

I want these: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game

I want them NOW dammit.

Keep your google glass, the Oculus Rift is infinitely more interesting!

I want to escape from the real world every so often, forget the weather, the time, the date, the things I have to do, the appointments - sod them all. I want to drift off into a virtual world and unwind by shooting things.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nice, but I'd rather have...

> Keep your google glass, the Oculus Rift is infinitely more interesting!

Or combine the two; proper synthetic vision could be extremely handy.

0
0

Does anyone think that with the camera and the battery all on the same side of the glasses, these things are not exactly going to sit straight on the face???

3
1

I would imagine the camera needs to be on the same side as the display so that the camera gets as close as possible to the same vision as the eye seeing the display.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

.... sounds like people won't be wearing the right!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I hope William Gibson is paying attention, he could have a prior art claim here. cf Virtual Light

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Cool, lasers, now there just happens to be a UK company with tons of patents in that area IIRC, i.e. they pretty much invented the tech! so if they do decide to use lasers its good news for at least one UK business.

But overall, that is one vague patent..

0
0
Boffin

The device isn't a "pair"...

... I suppose it's a monocle.

1
0
Silver badge
Alien

How many eyes?

"the retina of one or more of the user's eyes."

I like the way they leave it open in case Zaphod Beeblebrox gets some of these. But are they peril sensitive?

0
0
Gold badge
Meh

So Google want to patent "HUDs"

With a classic everything-but-the-kitchen-sink patent listing every conceivable implementation method.

Well let's see, I've got Vernor Vinge (A Deepness in the Sky) Charles Stross (Accelerado, Glass House, Halting State) and Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash for the direct laser write on retina display tech.

I note that Frank Herbert said the TV periscope he described in The Dragon in the Sea made the idea unpatentable.

And I'll be there are a number of much earlier references as well.

0
0
Holmes

Re: So Google want to patent "HUDs"

from http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

"A science-fiction novel might describe an invention without going into details. While this will describe the basic idea behind the invention, it does not enable the skilled person to construct the invention. For example, the famous Star Trek TV series features the so-called "transporter", by which Starfleet personnel could be "beamed down" to the surface of the planet. However, no details were ever given on how the transporter was supposed to work, or how anyone could build it. If someone today were to invent a working matter transporter that operated in exactly the same way as in Star Trek, he would still be able to obtain a patent on it. The disclosure given in the TV series would not be sufficient to destroy novelty of the features of his transporter.

That does not mean that fiction cannot be used as prior art at all. If the fiction describes the invention in sufficient detail, it counts as prior art just like a technical publication would. "

I an not a lawyer (thank Dog) but I read that as unless those authors/books described the tech in sufficient detail that it could actually be build then it isn't prior art

2
0
Alert

Re: So Google want to patent "HUDs"

although "Arthur C. Clarke, wrote detailed descriptions of the concept of a waterbed while hospitalized in the mid 1930s. His writings were later used as prior art to prevent a patent from being awarded in the 1960s as the waterbed started to become popular. " from http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/23/samsung_cites_science_fiction_as_prior_art_in_us_ipad_patent_case.html

So it really seems to depend on how detailed the description is in the book!

0
0

Re: So Google want to patent "HUDs"

I would say the level of detail given in this application is similar to the detail given in Star Trek anyway;

---"a laser or LED source and scanning system could be used to draw a raster display directly onto the retina of one or more of the user's eyes."

Is this possible with todays technology or are Google patenting something that may be possible in the future?

---"Other possibilities exist as well."

Does this not count as 'overly broad'?'

0
0
Bronze badge

What exactly are they patenting?

Projection of laser on the retina has been a research goal for ages -- the idea is nothing new. Having a wearable device on your head is not a new idea either. What's innovative in this particular theoretical patent???

0
0
Boffin

Basic physics

People who want to "draw a raster display directly onto the retina" do not understand high-school-level optics.

0
0
Thumb Down

I wear glasses already

This is going to look utterly retarded.

0
0
Boffin

Re: I wear glasses already

Surprised they didn't patent having an handle on the front to assist when taking them on and off.

0
0

Lasers writing on the retina - already patented

Micro Vision Systems has had the patent for using lasers to write on the retina since the early 1990s, licensed IIRC from Washington State University. The original patents may actually have expired by now but I think there are numerous follow-on patents.

0
0
Pint

Is there a Google Glasses support device hidden in the user's pocket?

Does the version of the Google Glasses that's available right now come with a little mobile data modem, GPS receiver and data processing box that goes in your pocket? It just seems far more practical to use a low power, short range RF link (Bluetooth or similar) to a mobile Google Glasses support device hidden in your pocket, than to cram a cellular data modem and battery into about 1 cc of space. The Glasses would simply be the user I/O.

I really suspect that there's a mobile-sized device (or your existing mobe) hidden in the user's pocket to make this thing work. If they've managed to make a real and practical version sans 'box-in-pocket' then I'd be very impressed. 'Practical' includes acceptable battery life (one day) and RF performance (works). The future would be well-and-truly here if they've actually done that level of integration and power density.

Suspiciously yours.

1
0
Pint

Re: Is there a Google Glasses support device hidden in the user's pocket?

Found the answer as to what's built in and what's not.

Inside: wifi, Bluetooth, GPS (!)

Not inside: cellular data modem

So you basically need a mobe in your pocket for any of the online features while you're out and about. And can you imagine trying to accept a free hot spot's browser based terms & conditions, or enter a wifi pass code using only the Glasses? Probably impossible. Wifi := ~25% useful in practice.

Leaving out the cellular modem is no surprise (impossible in 2013). Also avoids another phone bill.

0
0
Pint

I'm waiting for The Eyes Of The Overworld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Overworld

Very funny book by the underrated Jack Vance.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.