Headlines aside, this isn't a patent on remote cameras.
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.
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.
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.