Apple Patent Could Herald Interchangeable iPhone Camera Lenses 160
concertina226 (2447056) writes with this excerpt from IBTimes: "Apple has been granted a patent for interchangeable camera lenses — which could be used on the up-coming iPhone 6. The application was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in remarkably quick time, according to Patently Apple. Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad. A bayonet mount is a fastening mechanism which is typically seen on cameras, used to attach lenses to the camera body. At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
how cool/innovative is that (Score:2)
wow, you mean like the 5s
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
Re:how cool/innovative is that (Score:4, Informative)
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then. Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
"The attachment mechanisms may release from one another in a drop event or other incidence of force applied thereto by allowing a bayonet to radially move outwardly out of contact with a corresponding bayonet of the second attachment mechanism."
Re: (Score:2)
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then.
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
It's wasn't novel and non-obvious when it was first used for cameras, which is sort of obvious from the "bayonet" part of bayonet mount.
Sadly, with the current patent office, April fools jokes are indistinguishable from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then.
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
It's wasn't novel and non-obvious when it was first used for cameras, which is sort of obvious from the "bayonet" part of bayonet mount.
Sadly, with the current patent office, April fools jokes are indistinguishable from reality.
Why didn't you complain at the first patent for a photographic bayonet mount, let alone for all the others? Because they weren't granted to Apple?
BTW, these "bayonet" mounts were used long before bayonets, so cease and desist calling them that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because he wasn't yet born?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because he wasn't yet born?
Then maybe he should keep his mouth shut when grown-ups are talking.
Re: (Score:2)
So no one under the age of 85 is allowed in this conversation?
*Bows out*
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who recently switched from Olympus to Nikon: every damn thing goes backwards. The focus rings go backwards, the zoom ring goes backwards, and the bayonets go backwards.
The optics are good and the images are nice, of course. But I wonder who decided stuff should go backwards at Nikon just for the sake of being different.
German Exacta/Exa camera were backwards. (Score:2)
Because of patent issues in the 1950s, Exacta 35mm cameras had the film on the right and the takeup reel on the left. You advance the firm with your left thumb.
Clockwise/counterclockwise lens mechanisms is trivial by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's now "With an IOS device". The phone related patent was claimed a few years back by a competitor, but clearly should not apply in Apple's case..
Re: (Score:2)
(Same AC) Correction - I read most of the patent. I skimmed the detailed technical part at the end that explained the details.
Whatever happened (Score:2)
I used to look forward annually to see what would come outâ¦why did they do away with it?
Seriously, one day of OMG Poniesâ¦was fun and funny.
RIP April Fools on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance. It's fun having a single April fool's story, and having to spot it. Having all the stories be complete nonsense for a day, and thus losing all the real news for that day, was a pain in the arse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So instead of finding the best way, they found a way of blocking others from making compatable devices.
Bayonets? (Score:4, Funny)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Re:Bayonets? (Score:4, Funny)
That's right! Maybe they're going to start offering phones with interchangeable bayonets.
Re:Bayonets? (Score:5, Funny)
plan b (Score:2)
it's plan b for the kill switch legislation
Re: (Score:2)
That's right! Maybe they're going to start offering phones with interchangeable bayonets.
"You haven't upgraded to the latest model in three product cycles, your blood will now be drawn."
Re: (Score:2)
Android phones with Picatinny rails will arrive shortly after.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because they RTFA'd, and noted the drawings of camera lenses attaching to smartphone cameras in the patent?
Re:Bayonets? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, it seems more likely the iPhone 6 will finally support 10BASE2.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
1080p HD recording, multi-camera/lens capability, and 4G speeds rivaling landline speeds. I don't even know why the hell we even call them phones anymore. Today's cellular device is anything but, and 90% of those features we never asked for, but they sure do generate a shitload of privacy-robbing revenue don't they...
Re: (Score:2)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
Re: (Score:2)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
So, you get all these features in a phone you never asked for, pay hundreds of dollars for it (which costs are partially driven from litigation), and then you want to bitch when all those neat features rob you of every bit of privacy in every way possible, and yet you like it because every cool app price tag says "free"?
Let's also not forget you're buying a new battery in 6 months because of all those features you never asked for are sucking your battery dry all damn day.
Clearly none of you got the point he
Re: (Score:2)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
So, you get all these features in a phone you never asked for,
So don't fucking buy one, you moron.
Re: (Score:2)
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?
So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?
For the very reason we're having this conversation. Or more to the point, so we can avoid having this conversation in the future.
Marketing useless features and wasting millions on pointless patents (round corners anyone?) does nothing but clog up the entire system, and shines a questionable light on any patent and the system that protects it, no matter how valid or worthwhile.
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
Yes, because Apple encompasses the entirety of the problems in the USPTO.
I own and run Apple hardware. This has nothing to do with a vendor, and has everything to do with common fucking sense, which clearly isn't common, but thanks for verifying that.
Learn to focus the hate where it belongs; on the issue at hand within the patent system itself, and the legal system allowing the nonsense to continue. It only hurts everyone else, and ensures that we as consumers are given no choice when corruption controls
Re: (Score:2)
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
Yes, because Apple encompasses the entirety of the problems in the USPTO.
As opposed to Samsung, who has much more patents.
Re: (Score:2)
IOW because you are an idiot and hate Apple.
Yes, because Apple encompasses the entirety of the problems in the USPTO.
As opposed to Samsung, who has much more patents.
As opposed to pure, unadulterated sarcasm, who has many fans, but obviously you are not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... The claims sections of the patent in question describes the use of bayonet connections for lenses. The description section of the patent describes the use of bayonet connections for lenses. The drawings section of the patent shows a phone and lenses and the details of a lens connections...
Nope, no reason at all to assume it would be used for lenses.
(Seriously, how did this dr
Re: (Score:2)
It is called a sense of humor? Maybe you should try finding your's again...
Re: (Score:2)
Humor is supposed to be funny, you seem to have missed that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Didn't know they made you the authority on all things funny. Someone call the internet, there is a new boss in town!
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, have a chuckle. Can you imagine weaponized iPhones with bayonets sticking out the top? For personal defense only, of course. Probably cut down on iphone muggings!
Re: (Score:2)
Now Apple has invented the Camera to? Holy crap. Cannon's screwed!
Bayonet Lug (Score:1)
Perfect for trench warfare!
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect for trench warfare!
Without the risks of Trench Foot!
Re: (Score:2)
Bring on the grenades with rounded corners.
"Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Holy Jesus! What is that? What the fuck is that? WHAT IS THAT, PRIVATE PYLE?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, an Android smartphone, sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: An Android smartphone?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: How did it get here?
Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, I took it from the mess hall, sir!"
bayonet mount- on a computer (Score:1)
Re:bayonet mount- on a computer (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an interesting variation of the camera lens bayonet mount that includes a "breakaway mode" if it is dropped that allows the lens to snap out without damaging the device or the mount. With a normal DSLR lens mount, that doesn't happen and the lens will remain firmly attached until one of the mounts breaks, whereas this one will release instead of breaking.
Re: (Score:2)
yes! but did you patent the findings
Re: (Score:2)
Each different type of bayonet mount will be patented - eg. Nikon F mount, Pentax K mount, Canon EF mount. Apple patenting a set of specifications for a mount is a perfectly understandable concept - they're not trying to patent a completely generic mount...
Apple likes patents for round corners (Score:2)
Assault Phones (Score:3, Funny)
Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad.
Great.
Stick a black synthetic stock and a large capacity SD card on that bad boy, and Diane Feinstein will demand it be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, please never post a story like this again (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Because patents don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. Here's one from a DOZEN YEARS AGO [slashdot.org] about an Apple patent on color-changing cases. Still waiting for those...
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh! Tiedye hypercolor shirts are MY thing. No one remembers them so everyone thinks I'm magic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's something that has existed for years and that is extremely obvious, yet somehow they were granted a patent on it because "on a smartphone".
Re: (Score:2)
It's something that has existed for years and that is extremely obvious, yet somehow they were granted a patent on it because "on a smartphone".
Funny how the patent doesn't mention "phone" anywhere - nor "computer" or "internet" for that matter. But hey, you claim shit like that all the time, so what else is new. Frankly, I blame you - Apple gets all these patents because you are so dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
It is weird. It is weird that one can rehash a bayonet mount, combine it with some other existing idea, i.e. a breakaway mechanism, and patent it.
It is also weird that companies can be given patents for specific implementations of existing techniques (i.e. Canon and Nikon's bayonet mounts).
Really at the end of the day, America has found yet another way of gathering more power. By allowing as much material as possible to be patented by US entities, regardless of whether the material deserves a patent or not,
in other news (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple receives patent #999666 for "power adaptor allows handheld device to be charged from AC mains" and patent #666999 for "Handheld device User-interface buttons".
I hope this is an April Fools joke. How long have cameras had a bayonet lens mount?
Re:in other news (Score:4, Interesting)
"Bayonet mount" is a generic term, kind of like "screw" - I.E. just as there are a wide variety of screws and heads, specific mounts can and do vary wildly from each other.
Different specific mounts have different features and performance. For example, the bayonet mounts used for light bulbs aren't suitable for lenses because their depth would make a camera unwieldy, complicate optical design, and wear quickly because of the weight of the lens on the relatively small pins. Hence, lens mounts use typically tabs rather than pins. Light bulb mounts also suck at maintaining close and rigid alignment - something a lens mount absolutely must have. Lens mounts also use different retention features than a light bulb mount to facilitate quick changes and reduce the relative force required.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bayonet mount" is a generic term, kind of like "screw" - I.E. just as there are a wide variety of screws and heads, specific mounts can and do vary wildly from each other. Different specific mounts have different features and performance. For example, the bayonet mounts used for light bulbs aren't suitable for lenses because their depth would make a camera unwieldy, complicate optical design, and wear quickly because of the weight of the lens on the relatively small pins. Hence, lens mounts use typically tabs rather than pins. Light bulb mounts also suck at maintaining close and rigid alignment - something a lens mount absolutely must have. Lens mounts also use different retention features than a light bulb mount to facilitate quick changes and reduce the relative force required.
Wait, you're spreading actual information? But how can the trolls all yell, "Derp! Rounded corners! On a smartphone!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent titles don't mean shit, legally or otherwise. If you really want to know what a patent is about you should go straight to the claims.
Prior Art (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But but... it's "on a mobile device"... That makes it totally different!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but this has existed in one form or other on hundreds of different cameras for many decades! Simply adding one more camera to the list (iPhone) does not make it a new and patentable device! Clearly this is prior art and the patent should have been rejected by the patent office.
Why is it that so many people think that the title is the patent (in this case the title of the news article, not even the patent title)? They're not patenting the idea of using any interchangeable camera lens on a phone. They are patenting a specific mechanism for an interchangeable camera lens. I'm not trying to say anything about the merits of the patent, just that it is certainly not trying to patent the idea of any and all interchangeable camera lenses on a phone.
I know, I know, actually reading the
Odd in that a bayonet seems pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know why Apple would ever add a bayonet mount to a camera, it really messes with the smooth look they go for and makes for something really easy to break on a camera. Also anything recessed on a camera is going to get really dirty, and be very hard to clean - so this would mess with the camera for most people who never wanted to attach other lenses.
Instead I would expect them to do something like a magnetic mount - they could easily place a steel ring around the lens opening, even just under the surface, that lenses could clamp onto via magnets. External lenses don't need to be mounted in any particular orientation, just straight over the camera lens...
Also why is the story talking about adjustable lenses? That's not what the patent is about. It's only about the mount. Its not like I cannot already buy an iPhone case that has such a mount and attach lenses as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you don't actually own an iPhone and have never actually handled one - they're anything but smooth overall. In particular, there's already
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you don't actually own an iPhone and have never actually handled one there's already recesses which haven't shown any propensity to get really dirty.
There have never been any with a well the size and depth of a camera bayonet (the only real recess looking at my phone now is the silence button, which is too narrow to get much link or other debris). I know because I have an iPhone case that has a lens mount included - typically anyone with a camera case that has a hole for the camera (all of the
Re: (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO. Let's see... There's the speakers, the earphone jack, the charging jack, the silence switch, the on-off switch... Yeah, there's no real recesses on the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the speakers, the earphone jack, the charging jack, the silence switch, the on-off switch
I thought you said you had an iPhone? Theon-off switch is not recessed, it's just a button coming from the top.
The other holes are mostly too large to matter - but in fact I have had lint build up in the headphone jack that had to be cleaned.
You are also ignoring that none of those things really need cleaning to function, whereas even very small amount of cruft means visual impairment. Well, except for the he
Re: (Score:2)
If you make a recessed lip for it to mount to, it can't slide.
A lens with a lot of protrusion may torque off, but I think at a certain point you need to reign in your expectations of what kind of lens makes sense to attach to a smart phone regardless of mount.
ANY attachment system that results in a substantial protrusion runs the risk of being broken off, at least with a magnetic mount you don't destroy the phone or mount when the lens gets ripped off.
The iPhone 5s itself weighs 112g, I can't see mounting a
Re: (Score:2)
You could space the curved magnets around the periphery so they could be loosened by twisting. You could include a gentle depression on the perimeter to allow a release button on the lens to make that twist easier to perform when unlocked and much harder when locked. The lens would probably also need an outer weather seal that doubled as a soften auto-retractable snap buffer, so bringing the lens close wouldn't just snap on and shatter anything on either part. Also twisting on/off should partially clean the
hell, use the Pentax/Contax screw mount (Score:2)
patents have expired, and there are millions of lenses out there.
You know Apple has moved over to the dark side : (Score:4, Insightful)
when you can't tell whether an Apple patent story is serious or an April Fools joke.
Yup. This is /., alright. (Score:3)
Apple's patent was pretty specific - and probably intended to prevent third-party manufacturers from making attachable lenses for iJunk without cutting Apple in for a slice of the pie. If somebody were to devise a (similar but different) mechanism for a non-Apple smartphone, it would almost certainly differ sufficiently from Apple's mechanism to be allowed (but only after Apple attempted to sue and get an injunction, of course). Again - *Sigh*.
Let's also remember one other point - All the iPhones in existence were made by Apple, to the best of my knowledge. There are many manufacturers of Android devices. Apple may well be able to standardize their bayonet mount (their bat, their ball, their rules), but within the Android ecosystem such an item would require cooperation and buy-in from a majority of Android device manufacturers. Ever seen a horse designed by a committee? We call it a 'camel'.
Prior art (Score:2)
"$PriorArt, on a phone."
Innovation worthy of a patent, indeed. >_>
Re: (Score:2)
"$PriorArt, on a phone."
Innovation worthy of a patent, indeed. >_>
Well, then it's a good thing that's not at all what the patent referenced in the article is. Not only that, but the claims don't even mention a phone. Okay, I get not reading the patent. Even not reading the article and making uninformed comments is pretty much standard protocol, but if you had even read past the 1st sentence in the summary it might have given you a clue that it's a little more than just "$PriorArt on a phone." Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of patents like that out there, this ju
Nikon? (Score:2)
Doesn't Nikon already own this patent?
Ok so it's not a simple bayonet (Score:2)
It's a simple bayonet with the added feature of one of fittings clips being able to move outwards in the event the attachment is knocked so the clip doesn't snap off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a simple bayonet with the added feature of one of fittings clips being able to move outwards in the event the attachment is knocked so the clip doesn't snap off.
So Apple have copied the same design as the battery cover on every single remote control I've ever owned.
Re: (Score:2)
because they just patent the apple attacher - and then just sue anyone doing the same with a smartphone.
also, the summary is incorrectly worded, because there have been many(more than 3) smartphones with moving zoom optics in the past decade(samsung has a model now that is basically an android phone bolted to a moderately sized pocket camera.).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm guessing "for a smartphone" is the new part, just like new patents based on old ideas are approved when you add "on the Internet" to it.
or... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, i've got a shelf full of bayonet lenses for my film making endeavors.. Seriously, just because you make the phone come with a built-in mount, I'm not so sure that's patentable. We've been asking for that kind of crap for awhile now for those of us interested in shooting film (errrrrm... video) on cellphones (nokie n8 and 1020, for example). I mean, good on you, Apple, release it! But a patent?
Re:Bayonet lenses are nothing new (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the patent is for lens mount that decouples itself in the event that the phone is dropped-- potentially reducing the damage to the phone and lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically, if you screwed a camera lens onto an iphone, the lens cylinder would project beyond the rectangular prism that is the iphone. And if you dropped that iphone, and it landed on the lens, it would probably stress that lens mount quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
The bayonet mount of my camera does not need to protude out of it. And neither did it, but having it protuding out of the body is certainly not an improvement, nor really innovative :)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont understand how this could be patented if it is already a thing, just on a different piece of hardware.
It's because it includes the phrase "on a computer".
You see, in addition to their computational uses, computers also have a "human memory erasure" capability. When you bring a computer near humans working with any old technology, all memory of that technology is erased, and the humans have to learn about its use from scratch.
This is a well-known phenomenon in the field of patent law, and is a major source of income for patent lawyers. And for the companies that manufacture the old technology, which b
Re:Or use a real camera (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not just about the latest technology (Score:2)
It is true that sensors in top of the line phones get the latest technology. However, they also get low budget versions of that technology and they *are* tiny compared to full frame and medium format cameras.
One of the reasons people still use those bigger sensors is that the quality of the lens system used is less critical to prevent distortion if your sensor is bigger. If you use a 4*3 meter sensor (your wall) you can get amazing pictures with just a tiny hole in the curtains, you can do away with a le
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing about my phone camera is that it takes OK photos and it is in my pocket, where as my Canon SLR which takes amazing photos, tends to be in my camera bag at home.
Re: (Score:2)
"that has been disproven."
Care to share that proof?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean a scientific paper. Or industry whitepaper. If you please - you're not obliged - I'm genuinely interested.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:2)
So? There are numerous photographers doing amazing work with "shitty sensors and tiny lenses". An iPhone camera is every bit as much a real camera as the latest four figure offering from Canon or Nikon. A camera is only a sensor or surface for collecting light combined with something to focus the light onto that sensor or surface after all.
Only a fool, a poseur, or a com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense), that doesn't necessarily translate into better pictures (in the artistic sense). Many think, as the grandparents seems to, that the former is a synonym for the latter - it isn't. While a better light capturing box will allow the photographer to do more things, ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box.
Re: (Score:2)
"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"
"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."
And two seconds later you conflate the terms again. ;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.
Back on topic. A detachable lens on a phone (with all
Re: (Score:3)
"And two seconds later you conflate the terms again."
If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say.
"I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor."
Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."
Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not
Re: (Score:2)
And there, right in the summary we have:
At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
The need have been shown by third party, the next natural step is to integrate it. There is no reason for this patent to be granted. Hopefully it is a joke but sadly enough it as obvious as it should be.
Okay, from all the silly things said in this discussion, this sure is in the top three - "because there are third party products, doing it different than any of them is totally obvious."
Re: (Score:2)
"just as Canon Patented the EOS mount, Nikon patented the F mount..."
Which is just as shitty. Whomever made the original camera bayonet mount maybe deserves protection. Everything else is a derivation or iteration of that.