Given that alot of technology patents being applied for thesedays appear in hollywood movies and TV shows in many forms predating the reaspective patent by many years and even decades.

I find myself with one question.

Why hasn't the movie/music industry copyright enforcers not capalised on all these wonderfu inventions they portray. It's not like you have to have a working example of your patent being executed when you submit a patent. You just have to be first, even if you havn't worked out the small details of like making it work, you can just clevely word around it in lawyerlease. Then when somebody who knows what they are doing actualy does invent and make it work for some practical use; Well you just sue them as you own the patent, ego you invented it and there stealing your idea, you could afford and had the support staff to word in such a way that you could submit it first. You don't have to make the product, you don't even have to have the technicaly genius needed to make it into a working product, you just have to word it right and be able to afford the costs to have it processed and get it sumbited first.

in many ways patent submission is akin to being able to word and submit something first without even having a clue how to add value, as in having something that actualy works and is physical present. Much like how computerised stock market programs work by processing there share dealing faster than others so they can see incomming trends/transaction and be able to submit there requests/purchases/sells or patent applications before everybody else. Funny as the only people who like that approach to fairness are those that are activly doing it and those are only the ones who can afford to do it.

I personaly believe that to be able to submit a patent you must be able to demostrate something that works using your patent in the way outlines in the patent. So a 1980's augumented reality set of glass's attached to a mainframe and battery the size of a small car would not IMHO constitute the ability to submit a patent about a mobile interface in glass's as it is hardly mobile. But I'm sure there are a fair few patents already pertaining to augmented reality via a computer, just been done so many times it would shock anybody if it was not the case. I'm sure somebody who is more versed in the patent search process will do a better job in a later post outlining many of them.

So on that note I leave you with perhaps a marketing slogan Apple could adopt along with many other companies as well. "Patenting your childhood TV SCI-FI show's since after they were made". Oh and with that frame of mindset I do wonder how long it will be until `Hollywood` starts to realise there are much bigger pies to chase than the pursuit of stealing there interlectual property.

But I could be totaly wrong, like how I think when a product is suspected of breaking a patent then instead of banning it, that the company breaking the patent is allowed to lodge a deposit with a 3rd party of the court a amount money equal to as if the patent had been fairly paid for under liscence and they are allowed to carry on doing buisiness then. Only if they are unable to do that can a ban be looked at. Be fairer on companies involved in disputes and less impacting upon wasted resources like unsellable product doing nothing beyond devaluing. Oh and fair upon the comsumer who can stay ignorant of these petty patent disputes. But I'm no judge and I'm a nobody who has no say in how the whole World wide patent application process resolves.