Nothing about wearable camera tech should be patentable in the first place. Cameras exist. Networks exist. Making them work together is an obvious extension.
Bingo!
Yes, the real innovation is in using accelerometers to detect a fatal beating and switch off the camera.
When activating this feature, be sure to kick the suspect vigorously before planting evidence. Remember, you can wash the blood off your boots, but you canāt wash the video off the internet. Only you can prevent internal affairs investigations.
The data generated by these devices are at least as important as that created by polling machinary. Both should be profoundly transparent in design and operation.
Whoah, buddy; itās not so easy. Any prior art is accepted, but if you have no prior art that matches the device, it is usually assumed to be non-obvious, and you have to prove it isnāt. Have a search for āGillette Defenceā. Someone else patented the Gillette safety razor after Gillette had been making it for years. Obvious. But back then, proof of prior art had to be proof in writing; and āeverybody knows thatā counted for squat. Gilletteās defence effectively made new law, so we donāt have that problem these days; but that cost Gillette plenty at the time. But someone else has patented a blue squash ball (citing bogus but original vision theory). Sony patented the Walkman, which is a cassette recorder without a record feature. I think the second one was original. I donāt think the first one was. But how do you argue that in court?
Welcome to hell, kid.
Taser is selling the cops cameras?
I feel safer already
could be worse. could be a basilisk cam.
Well, come on, itās not worth making if someone canāt lock that shit down and get hella-rich off of itā¦ other wise, itās worthless. /s
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
