Photo by Pixabay (Pexels)

Andrew Masson is an IPilogue Writer and a 1L at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Ěý

As a huge fan of science fiction and integrating technology with daily life, a recent Apple patent has piqued my interest. Although Apple seems to be under constant speculation, their patent (US patent 11086143) suggest the highly-speculated with augmented reality (AR) functionality may have legs. This patent is intriguing for three reasons: 1) it suggests they are developing glasses; 2) the lenses may be a universal corrective lens; and 3) the patent suggests AR integration. I believe in the latter because the technology in the patent appears to overcome a significant limitation for developers creating AR headsets.

The Issue

Functionally, without intervention, the human eye cannot simultaneously focus on both a real object and a virtual overlaid object because they exist at different locations. This is known as the .

For example, imagine wearing glasses and then having a virtual image projected onto them while you're looking at something on your desk. Our eyes are only capable of focusing on one thing at a time, so either the real object on your desk or the virtual object on the glasses will be in focus. This has been a the clear distinction between reality and the digital image breaks users’ immersion. Additionally, . Until the vergence-accommodation conflict is resolved, it is unlikely that AR functionality will be successfully incorporated into daily wear items like the highly-speculated Apple Glasses.

The Solution

Apple’s patent outlines an “electrically modulated optical material”, referred to as “lenses” for simplicity, composed of multiple layers of liquid crystals. The patent suggests that the lenses would be capable of continuous independent adjustment for each eye, while also allowing for different portions of the lens to have different phase profiles and fixation points. This patent is not the first time that liquid crystals have been described in this way to . However, I believe Apple has differentiated itself from the prior research based on its dual application of corrective lenses and an AR system.

The Cherry on Top

Although I find AR glasses interesting, I think they would be a niche market. However, creating glasses that can primarily function as a daily prescription glass will drastically increase public interest and adoption rate. This patent suggests that Apple recognizes this, and the technology’s main concern appears to be in the vision correction component. AR was only found in one section where it was only mentioned in two sentences. Time will tell if Apple revolutionizes the glasses industry by creating a near-universal prescription lens or if this technology is bound to the same fate as . The Apple Glass has the potential to be the next major step in wearable tech and several other patents filed by Apple suggest they have significantly invested in development around glasses (e.g., , , ). However, as I said previously, Apple is notorious for rumours about new technologies and is constantly filing patents that may never emerge. Nonetheless, it appears they are at least exploring glasses as their next tech innovation.Ěý

The post Can Apple Revolutionize the Prescription Glasses Market as a New Patent Suggests? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Capitalizing on massive public interest in the app, the University of Ottawa’s drew a large crowd for a series of short lectures titled “”. Each panel member discussed Pokémon Go through a lens of their own research and interests, and raised legal issues arising from such a novel and popular app—and similar apps sure to follow.

The event began with Sean Grassie, a University of Ottawa JD Candidate, explaining how Pokémon Go works from a technical perspective. He outlined the communication chain, from the app on your phone through cell towers, GPS satellites and layers of servers. He also explained the app’s gameplay. Users catch small characters—the Pokémon—as they move around the real world. Players then train their caught Pokémon to increase their skills and use them to battle other players in virtual gyms that are tied to real world places.

followed Grassie, and focused on the first link in his technological chain: the one between the player’s cell phone and their service provider. Pokémon Go, she pointed out, has the potential to transmit large amounts of data. She drew attention to the and encouraged the audience to familiarize themselves with their rights under the code. She added that the code allows users to authorize data overages, noting the potential for children receiving those notices and authorizing the overage.

Next up was David Fewer, representing the . He also took a consumer protection approach, but focused on the privacy issues that after the app was released. Pokémon Go initially required full, unfettered access to your Google account to operate. A and the problem was quickly fixed. As Fewer explained, though, the problem is not exclusive to Pokémon Go and other apps may not be so quick to fix these issues.

also discussed Pokémon Go from a privacy perspective. He noted that the grants different rights to residents of the European Union than to players elsewhere. He also pointed out that the policies on the website and the website of the app’s developer, Niantic, are different, raising the question of which of these policies even apply.

and PhD Candidate Tennille Brown took a property law approach to Pokémon. They discussed an based on the presence of a Pokémon Go gym on private property. They compared it to the case against MaxMind—a geolocation and online fraud prevention company—stemming from the . They asked whether placing a Pokémon Go gym on a property could be considered a form of trespass, despite the fact that it is merely a virtual construct rather than a real world intrusion onto the physical space. They also looked at the potential upside of being near Pokémon Go gyms, sharing real estate ads that touted nearby gyms as a selling point.

closed the lineup by further considering Pokémon Go and trespass. He considered the principle of attractive nuisance in tort law. A property owner is not normally responsible for injuries to trespassers. However, where their property presents an attractive nuisance like an unfenced swimming pool, they can be held responsible for injuries even for uninvited visitors. Could Pokémon Go gyms on private property be a virtual attractive nuisance? Could Niantic be liable for injuries to Pokémon-hunting trespassers? In response to a question I asked during the seminar, he also considered whether a lure—an in-game option to attract more Pokémon to a specific location—set by a property owner might constitute an attractive nuisance, and felt that would be an easier legal leap to make than transferring liability to Niantic.

During the question period, the panel also addressed the issue of public gathering spots and events for Pokémon Go. Members of the audience asked about the because the organizers did not have a permit and about the . Incidents like those create conflict between the right to congregate and use public spaces and the rights of cities to effectively manage the use of those public spaces.

The panel offered few answers to the questions posed, but providing answers was not really the point of the discussion. Simply raising the questions allowed the audience to see both Internet apps and traditional laws in a new light.

Jacquilynne Schlesier is an IPilogue Editor and a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Pokémon Go: Augmenting Legal Reality appeared first on IPOsgoode.