I've heard that the point of patents is to incent innovation, but it's hard to see how that's happening here. It's not the case, as with pharmaceutical research, that R&D resources had to be spent to generate the idea, demonstrate its efficacy, and prove its safety. That will be needed for the technology required to implement this, but, this patent actually reduces the incentive to spend R&D resources on the technology necessary to implement it!

It would be like someone realizing that we could send out electrical signals from a transmitter and catch them on a receiver. What would the radio guys have patented? They actually built a radio, the patent is for a broad idea.

If anyone brings this to fruition this should be invalidated. Someone must've patented wireless electric transmission decades ago (maybe even Tesla?) and having wifi for the content is even less special.

EDIT: typo.

[1] http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624944.600-sony-pate...

It's also not really the case for pharmaceutical research: http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf (Whole book: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...)

Good idea? Yes.

Patentable? No, thank you.

"Transferring power and data wirelessly to displays as described in the patent is currently infeasible"

So you can get a patent on something you actually have not invented? Just something you would like to invent - or perhaps prefer that someone else invents so you can then milk them for royalties.

The world has truly gone crazy.

With WiFi alone a tablet that is using the tablet equivalent of OnLive is possible.

Maybe that's the route to global peace: just imagine weapons, start patenting them, and charge trillions for licensing.

Still, i think that at least some form of prototype must be available or must be demonstrated within a certain timeframe. And the patent in question here is just ridiculous. Wireless displays must exist already?

Or, he has safe, wireless, power distribution in his hip pocket and wants to patent all the derivatives and applications before the big reveal.

Now that I think about it, I'm really OK with that one.

So when someone does the actual work of figuring out the hard part of this idea... they won't be able to use it because of this patent?

No, our patent system isn't broken at all. Whereas the patent system was made to ensure knowledge was transferred, now the people getting the patents don't even have to know how to build something.

It's also a continuation and claims priority from two existing applications, although unfortunately, documents are not available for those applications, at least from the system I use which is generally fairly comprehensive[1]

[1]http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDo...

This looks like a newer version of a thin client. See the Sun Ray from '99:

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

Logical conclusion: If you can patent a vision, without actually inventing it, then anyone can manufacture it afterwards, provided he/she doesn't envision it in the process.

What we're going to get is thick clients and thick servers.

* or you could skip verified and go with 123, but why wait?

[edited for clarity]

But the idea is great, I've had this repeatedly. I carry around at minimum 2 devices that are mostly redundant. It's wasteful.

I'd like one "base device" (today it would probably be a higher-powered version of your phone) and several satellite devices.

A big screen that my phone snaps into or talks with is #1 on my list

So now instead of having one device that's easily portable to anywhere you want to go, you have the device plus a base station that you have to carry around. Oh boy! What an improvement!

Are you really telling me that the Amazon base stations are going to be ubiquitous?

It's a bad design.

Something doesn't have to solve every use case to be useful.

FWIW, I tend to agree with you. I think the better problem to solve would be to have electrical energy generative/storage devices. But I've been wrong about these things in the past so I try to second-guess myself.

This is just an application. One which, with enough public input and complaining, will hopefully never be granted.

(...and maybe VCRs that prevent you from dubbing VHS to VHS)