GoPro Plunges After Apple Gains Remote Camera Patent(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
GoPro Plunges After Apple Gains Remote Camera Patent
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-13/gopro-plunges-after-apple-gains-remote-camera-patent.html
9 comments
This isn't a patent. It's a published patent application. Says so right on it. In fact, all US patent numbers that start with a year and month ("201302.....") are patent applications.
Patent applications are published 18 months after they are received by the patent office, before they have even been reviewed. Patents may not even be reviewed for 2+ years.
It's most unfortunate that the press who write such articles don't have a basic understanding of patents or the process involved.
Going even further, there is evidence that this is actually a patent filed by Kodak before they sold their portfolio to Apple. Previous patents by these inventors were assigned to Kodak. So there is no indication that Apple has any interest in such a product.
Patent applications are published 18 months after they are received by the patent office, before they have even been reviewed. Patents may not even be reviewed for 2+ years.
It's most unfortunate that the press who write such articles don't have a basic understanding of patents or the process involved.
Going even further, there is evidence that this is actually a patent filed by Kodak before they sold their portfolio to Apple. Previous patents by these inventors were assigned to Kodak. So there is no indication that Apple has any interest in such a product.
Excellent points. Silly me for believing any of the words in the headline.
> It's a stupid patent to grant.
I can assure you that it's not the first and it won't be the last stupid patent that the USPTO will grant.
I can assure you that it's not the first and it won't be the last stupid patent that the USPTO will grant.
Why is there no mention of this story that the same author wrote 4 days ago?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-09/gopro-ceo-woodman-s...
It presents an entirely different view on GoPro and its volatility. I guess its not surprising since it dampens the main point of this article and makes it quite a bit more of a stretch.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-09/gopro-ceo-woodman-s...
It presents an entirely different view on GoPro and its volatility. I guess its not surprising since it dampens the main point of this article and makes it quite a bit more of a stretch.
Not sure I see how it's relevant to the discussion... The article you linked talks about Woodman's stock grants, and mentions how stock option repricing is used primarily by companies with volatile stock prices. The price hit the stock took would lower the value of Woodman's grants, so I don't feel like that article really dampens the main point in any way... Would you mind clarifying?
I don't think GoPro went down because of the threat of the patent. Rather, investors are afraid Apple will start to compete against GoPro. People are seeing the patent as a possible product roadmap not a legal threat.
I have no idea if GoPro stock is overvalued, undervalued, or just right. But I will say that they've had a really nice run with a product that IMO is not all that great (terrible UI among other things) by plugging themselves into the adventure sports lifestyle. And, probably more importantly, those who like to think of themselves as being part of the adventure sports lifestyle--whether they do or not.
I've always been surprised GoPro are as popular as they are.
Before GoPro was even a known brand you could easily buy extremely similar items (small plastic cameras with one-two button(s)) off of eBay straight from China which cost under $50. They often came with generic stick on clips for motorcycle helmets and similar.
This entire market existed for years before GoPro suddenly appeared. All GoPro did was package up the generic product from China, increased the price by 100%, and then used all the extra revenue to buy a ton of adverts.
People often like to claim that GoPro won because it was optically better, but that just isn't accurate. Up until maybe the HERO3+/HERO4 (2013/2014) the line was actually quite behind some generics. The only reason GoPro even got their act together was that some other named vendors started getting into the "action camera" market.
Even today GoPro seems insanely expensive, for the price of a single GoPro HERO4 SILVER[0] with a basic plastic case you can buy the same spec camera on eBay for $65 [1] with enough money left over for a [bad] DSLR by Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc [2].
[0] http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-CHDHY-401-HERO4-SILVER/dp/B00NIY... [1] http://www.ebay.com/itm/Black-SJ4000-Full-HD-1080P-Waterproo... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Interchangeable-Digital-Camera-18...
Before GoPro was even a known brand you could easily buy extremely similar items (small plastic cameras with one-two button(s)) off of eBay straight from China which cost under $50. They often came with generic stick on clips for motorcycle helmets and similar.
This entire market existed for years before GoPro suddenly appeared. All GoPro did was package up the generic product from China, increased the price by 100%, and then used all the extra revenue to buy a ton of adverts.
People often like to claim that GoPro won because it was optically better, but that just isn't accurate. Up until maybe the HERO3+/HERO4 (2013/2014) the line was actually quite behind some generics. The only reason GoPro even got their act together was that some other named vendors started getting into the "action camera" market.
Even today GoPro seems insanely expensive, for the price of a single GoPro HERO4 SILVER[0] with a basic plastic case you can buy the same spec camera on eBay for $65 [1] with enough money left over for a [bad] DSLR by Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc [2].
[0] http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-CHDHY-401-HERO4-SILVER/dp/B00NIY... [1] http://www.ebay.com/itm/Black-SJ4000-Full-HD-1080P-Waterproo... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Interchangeable-Digital-Camera-18...
People always seem to know why stocks move - after they have moved.
>> People always seem to know why stocks move - after they have moved.
Hindsight is perfect, you just get all the survey results from the buyers and sellers and see what the common reasons for buying/selling were. Then you post an article before the closing bell that same day. Easy.
Hindsight is perfect, you just get all the survey results from the buyers and sellers and see what the common reasons for buying/selling were. Then you post an article before the closing bell that same day. Easy.
People think they know why they do what they do. But when you try and encode it, it fails.
I've worked with traders, trying to implement the system they think they use. They had a system of indicators and said they traded according to them but when applied mechanically to trading data it didn't make a profit.
I've worked with traders, trying to implement the system they think they use. They had a system of indicators and said they traded according to them but when applied mechanically to trading data it didn't make a profit.
maybe it's difficult to uncover the opposite story, but when was the last time we heard a story like: "Large corporation stock price drops because small tech company was awarded patent".
There has to be a boatload of prior-art around this.
The Sony QX10 for a start
http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/lens-style-camera
I've not read the patent but I can zoom and do some basic camera controls, capture stills and record video - all wirelessly from my Sony Phone (Xperia Z1 in my case)
EDIT : I just read the patent, it's from 2012. It all seems like the obvious stuff one would write if asked "write the manual of controlling a camera wirelessly"
http://www.sony.co.uk/hub/lens-style-camera
I've not read the patent but I can zoom and do some basic camera controls, capture stills and record video - all wirelessly from my Sony Phone (Xperia Z1 in my case)
EDIT : I just read the patent, it's from 2012. It all seems like the obvious stuff one would write if asked "write the manual of controlling a camera wirelessly"
Here's a write-up of the details: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2015/01/apple-gr...
That site is so absolutely terrible I created an account just to post a link to the actual patent (something patentlyapple goes out of its way not to do).
https://www.google.ca/patents/US20130235222
Simply incredible that they take the figures from the patent and then watermark them.
It seems that the concerns of the GoPro camp are not that Apple is going to start extorting with the patent, but rather that Apple has shown specific interest in GoPro's market, specifically noting it several times in their patent application.
https://www.google.ca/patents/US20130235222
Simply incredible that they take the figures from the patent and then watermark them.
It seems that the concerns of the GoPro camp are not that Apple is going to start extorting with the patent, but rather that Apple has shown specific interest in GoPro's market, specifically noting it several times in their patent application.
More proof that today the patent system is here to serve large corporations.
[deleted]
[deleted]
One day, someone's gonna patent the sun.
The patent is about using multiple wireless links to control a remote camera. Think Bluetooth-LE and WiFi. You let the camera go into a low power mode when not being used and wake it up through the Bluetooth-LE.
It's a stupid patent to grant. It is the first half baked sentence that would come out of my mouth if you had asked me in 2012 to make an intermittently used camera last longer on battery. I'd have had to talk to someone about power draw of imaging elements before I added a second low power sensor like in claim 10. But, it isn't a patent on remote cameras.