Apple Patent To Safeguard 911 Cellphone Calls 226
MojoKid writes "Engineers from Apple have applied for a patent on an 'emergency' mode for cell phones that would squeeze every last drop of energy out of the batteries. The phone would recognize emergency calls when the user dialed an emergency number, such as 911 in the United States. But another number could also be stored as an 'emergency number' on the phone (a spouse, child, or parent, for example) or the user could manually put the phone in emergency mode. The process would do a variety of things. It would disable 'non-essential hardware components' and applications on the phone, reduce power to the screen and potentially reduce the phone's processor speed. It also would make it harder to disconnect the call and enable 'emergency phrase buttons' on the phone."
This should not be exempt from patentability (Score:5, Interesting)
Many posters have already suggested that this should not be patentable because it's a potentially life-saving feature. Critical reflection shows why that argument does not hold much water.
A new treatment or cure for a fatal disease is also life-saving, but few would argue that drugs should not be patentable.
Alternatively, consider the invention of the automatic external defibrillator. This is also a life-saving device, and much of its utility stems from software and an effective user interface (e.g., spoken commands to the user), but there are no calls to force AED technology into the public domain.
Careful reading of the patent application shows that its essential features could be replicated on any smart phone and a subset could even be implemented on a non-smart phone. The fact that phone manufacturers have not implemented these features in the decade or so that it would have been possible to do so suggests two possibilities: One, that the features are actually not that useful or important; Two, that the features and their implementation here are actually far from obvious.
If the former is the case, then we shouldn't care about the application because it pertains to something of such limited value that the dozens of phone manufacturers and telecom companies never saw fit to implement it. If the latter is the case, then Apple is rightly to be rewarded for developing a useful feature and, presumably, bringing it to market. Without patent protection, Apple is much less likely to invest time and effort developing new features for its products, including potentially life-saving features like this one.
Finally, I think we should withhold our ultimate judgment until the patent is granted or denied. The examination process may turn up prior art that blocks the application entirely or it may cause the claims to be substantially narrowed. Faced with a less than optimal patent, Apple may abandon the application. This story is a bit like judging a piece of software based on an alpha version.
Re:Not too bad.. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of patents related to automobile airbags. Hasn't stopped them from becoming pervasive.
These days patents aren't about differentiating your product, they're about protecting yourself from infringement charges from others through cross-licensing agreements. The bigger your patent portfolio, the more leverage you have.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:R&D costs, solutions are easy (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no reason the government should not pass a bill, that states that any such patent as this (safety, public good), could have a value assigned to them by an arbitrator.
There are very good reasons why that's a bad idea. First, patent valuation is notoriously difficult. The literature on this is extensive and there are no good solutions, despite decades of research and a small fortune to be made from accurately valuing patents, which has many, many applications (e.g., determining R&D priorities, evaluating mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy, etc).
Second, what is well established is that the market is a very effective evaluator of the worth of ideas and technologies. Patents allow innovators to let the market decide on the value of their products and services, which also gives them invaluable feedback on the direction their future R&D should take.
Finally, here is a hypothetical that demonstrates the above:
Consider a world without SMS, circa 1995 prior to the widespread use of cellphones. Some enterprising engineer discovers a slice of bandwidth that can be used for sending short text messages and patents it. Now imagine that the primary use envisioned for this is the sending of emergency messages to a 911-type service, which is very useful for someone who can't hear or speak because of the nature of the emergency or because they are deaf or mute. Under your scheme, the patent is seized and an arbitrator would probably decide that this is worth some modest amount as an emergency service.
Now, fast-forward 10 years and generalized SMS is an incredibly popular technology used for all kinds of purposes. Too bad for the inventor, of course, because neither he or she nor the arbitrator foresaw where the market would take the technology. If the property right had remained with the inventor, he or she could have licensed it to various phone manufacturers and telecoms and made a much more appropriate amount as SMS grew in popularity. Ex ante valuation of patents will always suffer such problems.
Re:Screams "action movie" (Score:2, Interesting)
It might be better to keep the GPS on in situations of 'extreme' distress. Let's assume you are so sick you can't even talk. Then when you call 911 the phone might recognize you are not talking and synthetise a message saying for example 'The owner of this phone appears to be in extreme distress and at this moment the GPS says that he is at X address. Please send an ambulance at the address'.
You could apply the same concept to action movies too. Like Jack Bauer being trapped and unable to talk that calls CIA head quarters :)
Re:Not too bad.. (Score:1, Interesting)
no, dipshit, his solution equals "buy a slice of bread". It'd be very nice to have a simple, cheap, mechanically sound cell phone. Can I get one? No. I can't. I can get a razr that does all sorts of shit I don't want to pay for. I don't need a VGA screen on my cell phone. Seriously, about 2 lines of characters would do just fine. I don't need java on a cellphone. How about a lighter processor that uses less battery. I don't want to take shitty, grainy pictures with my phone. I want something that can take a drop into a puddle with good call quality. Nothing else. I'm not even that interested in super battery life, or super 911 or any of that bullshit.
America and its stupid patents again (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure, one could argue that this is a display of freedom; the freedom to take away this same freedom which allows others to implement these basic ideas. But to me its simply disgusting. To allow a company to patent merely the idea, not even the technical implementations, which allows common people to reach out for help?
I can imagine some business to come up with this idea, after all; its all within the boundaries of the law. But what sick system would grant such a pathetic idea and even grant rights to it? This display makes me really happy to live in Europe. Not just that; I'm close to thinking that the common joke "patenting breathing" might not be so ridiculous after all. I mean; when creating an android you might also want to implement a function simulating breathing in order for the android to look more human. Then; why not patent the idea, and when doing so why even stop at the simulation part?
I'm but an outsider, I'll grant you that, but if the US would really wish to remain capable of claiming to be the land of the free they sure would be smart if they rehauled their patent system so that it would once again help people to protect their ideas, while also making sure that its a genuine idea. Not some easy scam in order to generate lots of cash.
Where will they draw the line?
I think I've heard of this before (Score:1, Interesting)
At one point in time, you could get an auto-dialer for a burglar alarm. Upon a burglary occurring, the dialer would call 911 or your police department switchboard, and play a pre-recorded message announcing a burglary. You could imagine these weren't exactly popular with law enforcement.
Nowaways, most burglar alarms are monitored through a central station that calls you to confirm the alarm. Alternately, you can self-monitor by having the control panel page you.
A friend of mine once had a Cingular phone I could page by dialing Cingular's 800 number, then his phone's 10-digit number, then my numeric message. Anyone know if Verizon has a number for doing that?
Re:Great. Just amazing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I accidentally dialed 000 (the emergency number in Australia) once on an old phone of mine because the phone allowed emergency numbers to be called without unlocking the keypad. I thought that was a really stupid feature, because it increases the chances of dialiing it accidentally and when it does happen, it just wastes the time of the emergency response staff who could be dealing with real emergencies instead.
Re:Not too bad.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Not everything there is all that obvious except in hindsight (some of it is). But that's beside the point.
"The patent covers the fact that the phone will do these things (the easy part), not the technical details of how it will do them (the hard part)."
Patents *can't* do that. I can't find the original patent application but I'm pretty sure if you drill down into the claims they will explain "the hard part". In slashdot stories, nobody ever does that, and they handwave that the patent system has been corrupted such that concepts can be patented, but I've not actually seen that happen.