Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Applies For "Digital Manners" Patent

SirLurksAlot writes "Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has recently applied for a patent for a technology which would attempt to enforce manners in the use of cell phones, digital cameras, DVRs and other digital devices. According to the article, the technology could be used to bring common social conventions such as 'No flash photography' and 'No talking out loud' to these devices by disabling features or disabling the device entirely. The article also points out that the technology could be implemented in situations involving sensitive equipment, such as in airplanes or hospitals. The patent application itself is also an interesting read, as it describes a number of possible uses for the technology, including 'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles, to require the use of lights, to verify an indication of insurance coverage and/or current registration, or the like.' While this technology could certainly be of interest to any number of organizations one has to wonder how the individuals who own devices which obey so-called 'Digital Manners Policies' would feel about it."

219 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Innovation by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Funny

    So this is "innovation", eh?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Innovation by William+Robinson · · Score: 1

      So this is "innovation", eh?

      Don't you get it? They are just trying to establish Microsoft as most innovative and creative organization.

    2. Re:Innovation by Undead+NDR · · Score: 5, Funny

      So this is "innovation", eh?

      dgtlmnrs.exe: WARNING: No Microsoft bashing.

    3. Re:Innovation by JustOK · · Score: 1

      What? No Cancel or Allow?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Innovation by TechForensics · · Score: 1

      So this is "innovation", eh? To Microsoft, yes.
      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    5. Re:Innovation by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You would say differently if it was an open source project or by Not-Microsoft. This is really just keep the honest honenst policy. Say for example you go to the movies and you forget to put your cellphone on vibrate and in the middle of the movie it plays some obnoxious ring tone and bother a bunch of people. (Depending on demographics may or may not pumble you later) Yea there is the outlaw additude for tech people but why can tech be used to make sure the nice guy can stay nice.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Innovation by zapakh · · Score: 1

      You would say differently if it was an open source project Sure, because then it wouldn't be a harbinger of some new feature that will be forced upon the users of products that incorporate it.

      Open source = recompile without it.
      MS = bend over and take it.

    7. Re:Innovation by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Being that it is mainly used in Cell Phones and other imbedded technologies. Even if it was open source it would be on in your device because the manufacture decided to use it. The same as if they chose to use the Microsoft product if they wanted that feature the company will buy a license to use it and implement it in the phone. While in theory you could hack the GPL phone and turn off the feature a bit safer then with a Microsoft platform but still it could be a tricky hack depending on the device.
      Besides it is a patent not a device. The Cell Company could buy the use of that patent from Microsoft and implement it in their Linux based phones.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Stupid idea. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles, to require the use of lights, to verify an indication of insurance coverage and/or current registration, or the like.'


    And I, the consumer, would buy a new device that is explicitly less functional than existing devices... why?
    1. Re:Stupid idea. by Escogido · · Score: 1

      Because you still want to be polite and actually consider complying with a requests to shut off your phone?

      As long as there is a switch to use/not use this 'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.

    2. Re:Stupid idea. by Pofy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >As long as there is a switch to use/not use this
      >'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.

      You must have missed the new laws comming that will outlaw the circumvention of any such systems set up to add manners to digital devices. If you circumvent a system that was set up to protect the health and safety of the public, extra penalties will be added. In fact, just possessing such a tool with the intent to circumvent a "digital manner" system will carry harsh criminal penalties. This is needed since criminal organisations and drug dealers tends to use such devices and we need to combat them. There will also be a separate "digital manners enforcement police" set up as this is top priority for the goverment!

    3. Re:Stupid idea. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Expect this to me misused. Like police cars or police radios that will kill your video/photo ability on phones while they are in the area. Cops hate to be captured on film/video that they do not control. Or stoping photography/video in areas that would usually be legal, but due to actions that might be questionable like protest(riot) control where excessive force might be applied "don't tase me bro". Or where known/sanctioned violations are happening "terrorist detention/interogation centers", so that whitleblowers would have less evidence of the incident they need to document.

      This is like a proactive confiscation of your electronics, without having to ask for it.

      C.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    4. Re:Stupid idea. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because it'll be enforced by law, probably for reasons of safety, or by some company policy that effects you.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:Stupid idea. by rumith · · Score: 1

      Because none of the carriers available where you live sells devices that do not implement this functionality?

    6. Re:Stupid idea. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, thanks to this patent, these devices will only be Microsoft devices which few people buy anyway...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:Stupid idea. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because I could well see our governments passing laws that cells MUST have some sort of function that turns them off in hospitals or planes, I could even see a law mandating chips to keep your car under the speed limit.

      When you have no choice, you have to buy what you are offered. This isn't free market anymore. Do you want region locked DVD players? No. Of course, you would prefer region free players. But if there isn't anything offered like that, what do you buy?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Stupid idea. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What competition?

      We have five phone providers here. Five. For a market of maybe 10 million people. One should assume that there is some fierce competition.

      Still, you only get phones bundled from one single phone manufacturer. The reason is simple, all five phone providers have contracts with this phone manufacturer. And of course there is the clause that you may only bundle these phones if you want to get them cheaply enough that you can bundle them "for free" (and a 2 years contract...).

      So where's any competition?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Stupid idea. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      There will also be a separate "digital manners enforcement police" set up as this is top priority for the goverment! There's no real need for this. All those devices will contain a small quantity of C4 for this purpose.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    10. Re:Stupid idea. by thermian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not, after all millions of people have accepted Vista, and millions more are happy with DRM.

      By Happy I mean cluelessly accepting, but when it comes down to it, sales are what matter to the suits.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    11. Re:Stupid idea. by nickruiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed. I would take this one step further to suggest that it would only be a matter of time before the cryptographic key would get broken, unless we're talking about installing 2048-bit+ encryption keys (1024 isn't safe anymore...PC World Article).

      Since we're big on talking about terrorism in the US, I think that one of the biggest concerns would be a massive denial of service attack against cell phone providers to place the phones in their network in "Please turn off your cell phone during the movie" mode.

    12. Re:Stupid idea. by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      It's definitely not less functional.

      Now I would gladly use such a device...IF...AND ONLY IF... I could control which manners to obey.

      -turn cellphone to silet mode in Movie Theatre = YES...I do it anyways...so this would be more convenient.
      -control traffic speed = NO...

    13. Re:Stupid idea. by Isao · · Score: 1

      And I, the consumer, would buy a new device that is explicitly less functional than existing devices... why? You did it when you went from VHS to VHS with MacroVision.
      You did it when you went from those to DVDs.
      You did it when you went from DVDs to HD/BluRay.
      You did it when you went from NTSC to QAM or ATSC. (substitute your national standards)
      You'll do the NEXT time entrenched industry migrates to a new transport. Why? Because most people won't realize there's a choice and suffer the consequences of making it.
    14. Re:Stupid idea. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Cops hate to be captured on film/video that they do not control. It's funny; when I waited for my pizza, I browsed through the available newspapers. On page two (I think) it had the following story, which is poorly remembered, poorly translated, and poorly abbreviated:

      It's becoming ever more frequent that people pull out their cell phones or other cameras to shoot videos of police officers performing arrests or breaking up demonstrations.

      [someone in charge] "Well, that's just something we'll have to get used to. The actions of the police officers should of course be able to be filmed without us being ashamed of it. I live in Denmark (famous for its high taxes, protesting OOXML, sacrificing its citizens on Bush's Iraqi altar of oil, free education and health (see "high taxes") and a lot of other mixed blessings).

      You can mod me off topic now, I've used my box slot. This was the soap one :)
    15. Re:Stupid idea. by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      And I, the consumer, would buy a new device that is explicitly less functional than existing devices... why? Because:
      1) you want that kind of device, and
      2) all old devices of that kind are too old to be compatible, and
      3) all new devices only come with said feature enabled (because of you-know-who subsidising the device if it has an "MS Politeness Policy Compatible" logo on it, but don't tell anyone).

      BTW, I'm someone who bought a second-hand PDA full well knowing that it, at the time of purchase, was 'obsolete' and no longer supported by the manufacturer. I don't need the new stuff, I need reliability. Call me a nostalgic, but my gear works.
  3. Good job by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

    this technology is not already in Windows say I can still say what a bunch of

    [Bad manners deleted]

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Good job by jkrise · · Score: 4, Funny

      Will this technology prevent someone from throwing chairs, though? I think that is considered good manners by Microsoft!

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:Good job by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, throwing a chair at someone is always bad manners. However, its well known that manners don't apply to rich people, they can be as rude as they like to poor people.
      That's pretty much how it's always worked everywhere.

    3. Re:Good job by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      no, throwing a chair at someone is always bad manners. However, its well known that manners don't apply to rich people, they can be as rude as they like to poor people.
        That's pretty much how it's always worked everywhere. Kill yourself.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:Good job by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      You are trying to criticize a Microsoft Product.

      Cancel or Disallow?

  4. It's a feature not a bug by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Funny

    So this is "innovation", eh? It will result in The Most Broken Windows Yet(TM) once people get frustrated enough with devices that refuse to work.
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    1. Re:It's a feature not a bug by zeromorph · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, no, no, it's a great idea, now they can say: "It's not working? ... Yeah, that's a feature not a bug, we've got a patent for that one." Sounds like a proper business strategy for me.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
    2. Re:It's a feature not a bug by rcamera · · Score: 2, Funny

      you don't own a ferrari. if you did, you wouldn't have mangled the spelling so badly. and if you do, indeed, own a ferrary, then it's most likely a ferrari rip-off (like those "rolox" watches street vendors are constantly trying to sell me)

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    3. Re:It's a feature not a bug by Kvasio · · Score: 2, Funny

      you've got ferrari, so you may be chosen to become a tester for Pioneer Implementation of Manner Policy, or PIMP for short :-)

    4. Re:It's a feature not a bug by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      oooh, Ferrari. I though he was talking about a Ferry - they only go at about 10 mph most of the time anyway - I thought it was a bizarre example.

      --
      FGD 135
    5. Re:It's a feature not a bug by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Will it prevent flying chairs?

      --
      This space up for sale.
    6. Re:It's a feature not a bug by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'd think it would be quite a good excuse if you own a ferrary. "Yeah it's been limited to 10mph right now for consideration to others, it's not always this slow".

      I'd be pretty happy if MS got this patent - if they put it in their Zune and whatever other copycat products they have spawning in the bowels of hell.. uh.. Redmond.. then that means that nobody has to care. If they start licensing this kind of stuff out to other companies, and a product I actually care about ends up with this tech, then I'll be upset. I don't see Canon or any big camera companies putting this in their cameras though, it's just a waste of space and weight. I wouldn't be surprised if a few mobile phone manufacturers try to get on board though, they're quite into the whole DRM thing..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:It's a feature not a bug by somersault · · Score: 1

      No, it will prevent you from sitting in them though. It only affects normal operation, not projectile weapon usage. If the chair was designed especially as a projectile weapon then presumably it would stop it from flying though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:It's a feature not a bug by gtall · · Score: 1

      No but it will prevent variations such as this on the fucking joke that is Ballmer from being repeated ad nauseum.

      Gerry

    9. Re:It's a feature not a bug by xenotrout · · Score: 1

      and it will be a bug when it does work?

  5. manners by alxtoth · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..No Windows at MacWorld/Linux conferences

    --
    http://revj.sourceforge.net
  6. Bank robbers cheers by Pofy · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, bank robbers cheers at their new tool to bring along that will disable all cameras when performing robberies.

    Cell phone users are also wondering why their phones tend to stop working every other minute. Investigation shows one out of five person in the public carrying their own "no phone calls here" devices arround.

    Finally paparazzis express no worries. They will just keep a slightly longer distance to their targets and thus avoid any "no photos here" devices carried arround by most celebrities.

    1. Re:Bank robbers cheers by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Mobile phone blockers already exist ... and are banned because they might effect equipment outside your property

      Unless a government embraces this technology it is also likely to be banned .. it's an all or nothing

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:Bank robbers cheers by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Insightful. These issues will be real if they implement this technology.

      Manufacturers should at least give each device the ability to ignore these "manners" policies.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  7. if this is ever released as described by aeiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i give it one month until someone gets around the restrictions, and two months until someone makes a transmitter and shuts off all mobiles (or cars) in the area

  8. They just don't get it do they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, Microsoft really don't get it.

    I bet they peed their pants just a little when they finally found something in the world of tech that has little/no prior art.

    Never did it occur to them that the reason there's very little prior art is that the other people to try using technology to be restrictive, and annoying, go out of business quickly. Because -- like DRM -- it's a shit idea and consumers will hate it.

    1. Re:They just don't get it do they by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      That's your typical patent in the IT world these days. Amazon one-click: "hey everyone, let's store credit card numbers and make it effortless for people to buy things.. we won't even make them enter a password!" An idea so brain dead that they even stopped doing it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:They just don't get it do they by cammoblammo · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's your typical patent in the IT world these days. Amazon one-click: "hey everyone, let's store credit card numbers and make it effortless for people to buy things.. we won't even make them enter a password!" An idea so brain dead that they even stopped doing it.

      To be fair, they stopped everyone else doing it too.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    3. Re:They just don't get it do they by zeromorph · · Score: 1

      Yep, MS will apparently never learn that there are sometimes good reasons to channel the behaviour of users (Mac OSX does it quite well, or maybe Gnome or Python come to that) but there is nearly never a good reason to hinder a reasonable usage of something.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
  9. Okay by Auckerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So the camera I have now will magically follow this, as will the untold millions of cameras currently in use.

    I prefer the good old fashioned calling people out method of enforcement. I've had a professor who answered peoples cell phones, I've seen a recital stopped completely because of a camera and the person kicked out. Anyhow, anything I own should never be under your control. Sorry, but it's just that way.

    The only reason ideas of this caliber get used in mass is so that those who have power can remove what little power the rest have. Organize protest, sorry you cameras can't work, it's for the safety of those around you.

    I'm also seriously beginning to think that there is a group of people in this world who consider better communication and record keeping on the part of the masses is a bad thing and should be stopped.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:Okay by Weedlekin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I'm also seriously beginning to think that there is a group of people in this world who consider better communication and record keeping on the part of the masses is a bad thing and should be stopped."

      The English language, expressive beastie that it is, already has a term for such groups of people: governments.

      Governments classify monitoring and recording technology using the following simple rule:

      Technology which allows governments, their agents, and wealthy and powerful people who own both to monitor and record the activities of those who aren't part of the government or its owners is good, and therefore compulsory.

      Technology that allows others to monitor and record the activities of the government, its agents, or the wealthy who own them is bad, and must be outlawed or carry the capability to be disabled whenever there is a potential for inconvenience to government, its agents, or their owners.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    2. Re:Okay by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Asking politely to not use phones/cameras, and then embarrassing the hell out of them when they do is much more effective than any blocking technology could be ...

      Social pressure and fear of punishment stops most crimes

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    3. Re:Okay by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      Parent has it right. I'd like to add that this doesn't necessarely imply any ill will on the part of individual members of government at large. It is simply the nature of the beast. Governments govern, and to do that they must have authority. They are structured to inherently resist anything that undermines their authority, otherwise they would not exist.

    4. Re:Okay by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      Just pass a law that if anybody's phone goes off during a movie the offending twat has to reimburse everybody else's admission.

      On a second offense, it's popcorn all round too.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  10. So now by Yetihehe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So now police will disable any cameras in vicinity of "action"?

    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  11. Only if it's voluntary opt-in by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can select "Manual" or "Follow Local Convention" on something, it's fine. If it's meant to override any setting I put in, there's obviously going to be problems and abuse. In short, it should be there for the customer -- not big brother.

    1. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You haven't been for too long on this planet, have you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      If you are going to do that, why not just follow what the signs tell you? I don't really need my phone to tell me not to talk on it in places where I shouldn't be talking.....

    3. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 'ringminder' feature that shifted your phone over to silent or vibrate or whatever might be handy. Incredibly lazy, but it would be handy if the device response to the signal were configurable.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      I'd be entirely happy with my phone detecting I was in a Cinema, and setting itself to 'silent'. I would be much less happy to find that my phone was not possible to override in doing this. Sometimes there's stuff that overrides 'manners' (not to mention the possibilty for someone else to enforce rules inappropriately).

    5. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah. As a convenience feature, it is great. As an enforcement feature, it is a disaster.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by Rary · · Score: 1

      If you can select "Manual" or "Follow Local Convention" on something, it's fine.

      Of course it's opt-in. You opt-in by buying the device. You opt-out by not buying it. Don't forget, we're talking about a patent from a single company, not legislation.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    7. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by Bazer · · Score: 1

      That voluntary opt-in functionality is already on every piece of hardware.
      It's called an off button.
      If a big sign doesn't convince you to use it, then I don't see why would you use an automatic feature which you have to explicitly turn on.
      A feature like that is an additional attack vector and it is bound to be misused. A working implementation could also give funny ideas to the police, like adding a 3rd mandatory mode saying "fuck your settings, turn off NOW".

    8. Re:Only if it's voluntary opt-in by digitrev · · Score: 1

      For now.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
  12. Military/Industrial Recipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    1. "Digital Manners" Patent
    2. Pentagon Gets Kill Switch For Planes
    3. Profit!

  13. Self-prior art? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Didn't they already do this when they politely acquiesced to the broadcaster's non-copy bit in their Media Center (or whatever braindead application it was)? That cant-record-"American Gladiator" stuff I saw referenced here?

    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

  14. paparazzis by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    They will just replace the firmware, or shortcut a chip.

    So, Microsoft patented the broadcast flag?

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:paparazzis by Obsi · · Score: 1

      Or they could use a high-end 35mm camera. those are still sold. Hell, there's one in VERY good shape for sale for $40 in my local pawn shop!

    2. Re:paparazzis by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      I have one of those! Actually, two, but one was bought at a garage sale for use as extra parts, and does not always work. Manual cameras are awesomely fun to use! The control!!!

  15. Or here's an idea by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, or maybe we'll just vote that if you scream into your phone in a train, the cops shove your phone up your arse. It has to be good for the economy too, since it'll stimulate a market and R&D for smaller devices ;)

    So, really, which would you rather buy? The one which forces you to not disturb the others, or the one which will make you walk bow-legged to the nearest hospital? ;)

    Well, more seriously, currently the only choice is to disable them completely, for example with EM shielding or with a pico-cell that doesn't let anything through. If we can enforce some manners, maybe we won't need to go that far. Maybe we'll even let the heart surgeon in a movie theatre get his emergency phone call, if we're sure that (A) the phone is capped to vibrating inside the room, instead of playing a retarded tune at 80 dB, and (B) he'll have to walk out to actually talk.

    So basically, we're not going to give you the right to be an antisocial retard and annoy everyone else, one way or another. So you can choose between (1) losing any use of that phone in some situations and places, completely, or (2) having some lesser restrictions enforced by it. I hardly think that #2 is the less functional.

    And that's not even getting into situations where retards on cell phones actually endanger everyone else. Like retards who pay more attention to their phone when driving, than to the road.

    Yes, you may think that you're way above average as a driver, and you'd _never_ possibly cause an accident. Guess what? So does everyone else. Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible.

    At any rate, it's already proven that talking on the phone impairs driving more than being a little inebriated. So I'd like to see that enforced just like DUI. Forget points and fines, I want to see a few people go to PMITA state jail if they get seen doing that too often.

    No, I don't care how simultaneously that call is the most important call in your life, and you also absolutely need to be in some meeting in 5 minutes. Neither is _that_ vital as to be a blank pass to endanger other people's lives. Whoever called you, is still going to be there in 5 minutes or an hour or whatever. Whatever important customer you're running to, well, if it's that important, postpone the phone call. If you can't prioritize, well, it's not anyone else's fault, so they shouldn't be the ones taking extra risks.

    I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that horrible to have the phone remind you to park or use a headset then. Or not worse than the alternative.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Or here's an idea by cammoblammo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, you may think that you're way above average as a driver, and you'd _never_ possibly cause an accident. Guess what? So does everyone else. Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible.

      Not if the other ten percent are really, really bad.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    2. Re:Or here's an idea by transiit · · Score: 1

      This is mostly just a curiosity for me...

      "At any rate, it's already proven that talking on the phone impairs driving more than being a little inebriated. So I'd like to see that enforced just like DUI. Forget points and fines, I want to see a few people go to PMITA state jail if they get seen doing that too often."

      I'm a bit lazy when it comes to doing the research, so I've not seen these studies. I'm curious if they found a discriminator that proved the cell phone was any worse than having a conversation with a passenger in the same vehicle.

      Perhaps the next step from some of the "must use hands-free whatsits" (18 days until that becomes mandatory around these parts), should we also find ways to protect the driver from the living/breathing distractions that are in the same vehicle, demanding the same level of conversation?

      Pull that off, and the average road-trip family vacation homicide rate would likely get knocked down a little.

    3. Re:Or here's an idea by Imsdal · · Score: 2, Funny

      And they really are.

    4. Re:Or here's an idea by Minwee · · Score: 2, Informative

      So basically, we're not going to give you the right to be an antisocial retard and annoy everyone else

      Actually, if you read the US Constitution you'll see that people already have the inalienable right to be antisocial retards. What you're proposing is taking that away.

    5. Re:Or here's an idea by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... [is it] any worse than having a conversation with a passenger in the same vehicle ...

      The person in the veichle with you is aware of current road conditions etc ...

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    6. Re:Or here's an idea by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You don't have much in the way of personal acquaintances do you?

      Jerks trying to monopolize you on the phone aren't going to be any more considerate if they are sitting right there with you.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Or here's an idea by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      ... Jerks trying to monopolize you on the phone aren't going to be any more considerate if they are sitting right there with you ...

      If they are sitting right there with you then, if you have an accident, so do they.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    8. Re:Or here's an idea by devman · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't apply if the device is used on private property. Federal and state buildings probably won't be able to make use of such devices for the reason you stated.

      You can be an anti-social retard, just not on my lawn!

    9. Re:Or here's an idea by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

      And using a cell phone while driving is already illegal in all 50 states! Just never enforced. At a light yesterday, the car in front of me and the car behind me were both on the cell phone the whole time from before I first saw them, until after I got out of the lane they were in later.

      I want the design of a cell phone jammer I can run from my car with a radius of about 2 car lengths. Don't make it automatic either. I want to be able to switch it on and off manually. That size radius should be under the legal limits for broadcast power without a license, but should allow me to make sure that people driving close to me obey the law.

    10. Re:Or here's an idea by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the US Constitution you'll see that people already have the inalienable right to be antisocial retards. I almost made this my .sig.
      --
      Fnord.
    11. Re:Or here's an idea by eth1 · · Score: 1

      So basically, we're not going to give you the right to be an antisocial retard and annoy everyone else, one way or another. So you can choose between (1) losing any use of that phone in some situations and places, completely, or (2) having some lesser restrictions enforced by it. I hardly think that #2 is the less functional. It's a social problem, so I think a social solution would be better, not a technology that forces a "solution." Using technology is treating the symptom (rude cell phone use, etc.) rather than the disease (people have no manners).
    12. Re:Or here's an idea by chunkyq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible. No it's not. I hear this type of statement in many places, but it is simply not true. Consider the set {15, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 ,96, 97, 98}. The mean of the set is 86.1. 90% of the set is above the mean. No matter what size the data set, it is not mathematically impossible for 9/10 of the data to be above the mean. It is statistically unlikely for normally distributed data, but even then, not impossible. Try to understand what you're talking about.
    13. Re:Or here's an idea by overkill1024 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe we'll even let the heart surgeon in a movie theatre get his emergency phone call, if we're sure that (A) the phone is capped to vibrating inside the room, instead of playing a retarded tune at 80 dB, and (B) he'll have to walk out to actually talk. I'm a dumb, numb, amputee heart surgeon, you insensitive clod!
    14. Re:Or here's an idea by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      If they are sitting right there with you then, if you have an accident, so do they. Oh, I guess then it's ok!
      --
      This space up for sale.
    15. Re:Or here's an idea by Twanfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But private property becomes a little less private property when it's open to the public. Especially in cases like Hospitals, they cannot turn you away if you come in with an emergency, nor can they simply tell you to leave if they are providing care and it is still needed (anti-dumping laws). Besides, sensitive equipment that EM fields interfere with are or should be contained within shielded rooms anyways. Regardless if there is a cell phone within 15 feet, there is a lot of EM noise all about you on all frequencies. If the equipment is that sensitive, then you have to contend with far more than cell phones, and this 'manners' technology is useless against all that noise.

    16. Re:Or here's an idea by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      The guy sitting next to you in the car can see out the windows and will know if you're in a potentially tricky situation. If he's not watching the road he can probably observe your body language, which includes cues that you're not listening because there's a complicated situation ahead. That type of communication takes no effort, and is lost over audio-only channels like phones. At the very least, the person in the car with you knows that you're driving, which a caller might not.

      I heard a while ago (no citation, someone told me this on a tour of a lab at UIUC) of a study saying that hands-free phones are still a pretty large impairment to driving ability, and that people sitting in the car generally aren't as bad. It's not that they are necessarily less distracting by virtue of them being there, it's that because they're there it's much easier for them to be conscientious.

      I'm not going to claim that conversations with people in the car aren't a distraction, or that nav screens and radios aren't distractions. I will claim that voice conversations are a pretty bad distraction, that this is backed up by empirical research, and that there are plenty of good, common-sense reasons for those results to be true.

    17. Re:Or here's an idea by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      I should clarify, because it's on-topic, that I still don't think a device *enforcing* manners is a good idea. Maybe a cell phone that, when you pick it up while driving, advises you to pull off before having a conversation would be nice. Sort of like the sound a car makes when you open the door with the key in the ignition or turn it off with the lights on. Or like a "fasten seat belts" light. Those things remind me not to do stupid things, but give me the choice to do what I want. I do strongly support my city's no-phones-while-driving law, and wish it would be extended to hands-free devices and be more strictly enforced. Driving here is too complicated to do while distracted. If you're on a rural freeway in light traffic I have little problem with responsible phone use.

    18. Re:Or here's an idea by TheNucleon · · Score: 1

      I've wondered this, too. Are there actual studies that show the use of a cell phone while driving causes a non-trivial increase in the likelihood of having an accident? I can see how any distraction while driving is potentially dangerous, but I have to wonder if the "hang up and drive" phenomenon is about safety, or more about people's allergic reaction to type-A cell phone personalities. Should we also have laws against digging papers out of your briefcase, putting on makeup, dodging toys being hurled by your toddler, or fiddling with your iPod while driving?

      And what is up with the reaction to people using cell phones in public places? We talk to other people in public places, how is talking on a cell phone any more obnoxious than talking to the person right next to you? Shouting into a cell phone on the train, or shouting into one in the library seems no less or more offensive than speaking loudly to your nearby friend under the same circumstances. What am I missing?

      --
      My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
    19. Re:Or here's an idea by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      I meant, they are not going to do anything to put themselves in danger which includes distracting you from difficult road conditions which they can see when they are in the car with you.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    20. Re:Or here's an idea by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      Yes, you may think that you're way above average as a driver, and you'd _never_ possibly cause an accident. Guess what? So does everyone else. Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible. Well, actually, it isn't mathematically impossible. If 10% of people are bad at driving, and everybody else is equally good at driving, then 90% of people are above average.

      However, this is certainly not the case, and I understand your point.

      On another note, studies show that headsets are no better than just using the cellphone. Participants talking did not notice obvious things, such as a person walking around in a gorilla suit.

      As for the movie theaters, if people really cared all that much, the theaters would already be lined with lead to block the signal. Obviously, people don't care that much.
  16. Imagine... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... no, not a beowulf cluster of those. Imagine if this was $good_company making this patent:
    - Hooray, now everyone will be less obnoxious!
    - Yeah, it will be easier now to obey those "no calling" in theaters. It was such a pain to remember to turn of phone.
    - Good, no more accidental flashes when I'm in a museum.

    //$good_company==apple||google||...

    --
    Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    1. Re:Imagine... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, $good_company would probably have created the patent to ensure nobody gets the braindead idea to actually build something like this.

      If they had the idea to patent something like this at all.

      That's the difference. The potential of abuse for such a "feature" is high enough to make sure no $good_company would want to implement it.

      Then again, I recently checked $good_company returns an empty set when queried against $corporations.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Prior Art ? by DrYak · · Score: 5, Informative

    This patent has just been filed, not just granted.

    Details of similar systems have been recently described, including a summer of code project for OpenMoko (that wasn't accepted) which wanted to put a dbus architecture to let the user add conditions which cause profile to switch, for example: going to "silent mode" whenever the phone's gps detects it has entered into a meeting room.

    The summer of code project wasn't accepted, thus this system isn't currently implemented. Never the less, it's described on the OpenMoko wiki, and similar strategies have regularly been described on the web, including here on /. each time some company tries to market a GSM signal jammer, where approach similar to openmoko and microsoft have been said to be safer.

    To what extent can these description without implementation represent Prior Art ?

    I also fail to understand why microsoft is trying to patent this. For this to work, it must reach widespread usage, which means it must be an open standard (a real one, not an OOXML-like one), so that both all constructor can implement it easily, and some places or legislation can require it, without those requirement forcing people to give cash to a particular private company.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Prior Art ? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you can't see legislation coming that would demand such a feature in various hardware, I can. And then imagine you have the patent for something that HAS TO be in your hardware. If there ever was a license to print money, this is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Prior Art ? by cas2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      > To what extent can these description without implementation represent Prior Art ?

      legally? a written description is certainly adequate prior art.

      the classic example is that of the waterbed. which was unable to be patented in 1968 because Robert Heinlein had described it in three of his novels: _Beyond This Horizon_ (1942), _Double Star_ (1956), and _Stranger in a Strange Land_ (1961)

      practically? you can patent whatever you want in the US these days. all your idea are belong to US.

    3. Re:Prior Art ? by skolima · · Score: 1

      It's not "description without implementation", there are Symbian programs for Nokia phones doing precisely this. My brother's cellular switches to "mute" when he's on university campus and cranks up the ringer volume when he's at home (because he tends to leave his phone on the desk and close his room, then go out into the garden).
      The difference is, this is not forced behaviour but user-configurable.

    4. Re:Prior Art ? by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Informative

      And it sounds like MS has found a stack of Popular Science magazines in a second had book store in Redmond somewhere.

      Digital Manners? hahahahahahahahaha So much has been written that could be prior art for this in science fiction that it's not even funny. Since the first brick with an antenna on it, people have wanted to control when cell phones could be used. Enforcing driving habits? SciFi has it covered. In fact, I'm not certain, but I don't think there is anything you can call novel or non-obvious about it. It's just always been impractical or unpopular. Getting a patent on it won't make either of it.

      Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers.

      Say you try to control these things anywhere, there is a scenario not unlike that which could happen. Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal. The remote kill switch functions some people have tried for stolen vehicles have NEVER passed muster for insurance companies. Why would MS get to do it?
      All it would take is one fatality and the class action law suit begins.

      In fact, where ever there is a human involved in controlling a machine or gadget there has never been any successful method to wrest control from the human in favor of a machine as far as I know. The cruise control is the best attempt that I know and that is a simple assistive technology.

      Sure, alarm system replaces security guard, but does not take control from a human over a machine. There are gray area examples, but you see what I mean. Getting a patent for doing so is like trying to get a patent on breathing air.

      If MS tries for the breathing air patent, I give up.

    5. Re:Prior Art ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      The summer of code project wasn't accepted, thus this system isn't currently implemented. Never the less, [...] More over, the prospective summer of code candidates got to get her to discuss the topic. Further more, they strongly agreed that the project should take place. Google disagreed. There fore, it was abandoned.
    6. Re:Prior Art ? by lolop · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The PhD student who was in my room one year ago (Cyril Rousseau) already worked on context adaptation of devices communication modalities.

      See:
      http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148558
      http://www.limsi.fr/Individu/rousseau/most/index

      He wrote a phone-like prototype and used his software in an industrial project.

      Where is Microsoft innovation ?

      --
      -- Laurent Pointal
    7. Re:Prior Art ? by darthflo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I call prior art on the profile switching. There were many more apps similar to this back around '06 when I had my last S60 device.
      (Yeah, I know the SoC project didn't involve trying to patent it - just sayin' it ain't all that new and fancy).

    8. Re:Prior Art ? by nrdlnd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles, to require the use of lights, to verify an indication of insurance coverage and/or current registration, or the like.' This is definitely Prior Art! It was demonstrated many years ago here in Sweden with cars equipped with a speed limit controller that was activated with a radio signal. Maybe it's already patented?

    9. Re:Prior Art ? by silent_artichoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers. Yet millions of people enjoyed movies without email alerts on their cell phone for decades. Why aren't they at home watching their kids anyway? Were they really stupid enough to hire a babysitter that can't even manage to get the kids out of the house before they got burned? Or did they abandon their children to go see a movie? Sounds like the parents are the villains here, not the movie theater. Just turn off your phone, dude. The rest of us paid to watch the movie, not hear your phone call.
    10. Re:Prior Art ? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      A license to print money in a fascist society. It seem the day is rapidly approaching when the government will have complete access to and control of every thing you own. Personal property will no longer be truly personal. The potential for abuse is mind boggling and you only have to look at the recent FBI abuse of national security letters to see that this is a really, really bad thing.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    11. Re:Prior Art ? by leonardluen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Who really cares about prior art for this? i hope MS does get their patent. i also hope that they use it to send their lawyers after anyone that even thinks about implementing something like this.

      this is something i don't think any of us want implemented. i hate cellphones, and would very much like it if they could be disabled in some public places, but it concerns me that if we let this "Digital Manners" propagate it will get out of control.

    12. Re:Prior Art ? by sdpuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Look it'll never work.

      Once its turned on and acquires AI capability, it'll realize that it is quite impolite to turn off other folks' electronics without permission and thus shut down itself

    13. Re:Prior Art ? by ruin20 · · Score: 1

      Open standard? almost every business in the world already has a micros*ft computer. If M$ makes the technology, then how wide spread the implementation is dependent on how much they want to offer it for. If they offer the software for free and then little sender for $10 bucks, it won't matter that they're the only one on the market. And anyone who doesn't believe this look at web development five years ago. I still need to use IE to render pages "correctly" despite Firefox penetration. IF they pull this off and get a wide enough market share then again, they'll be the de-facto standard.

      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    14. Re:Prior Art ? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Yet millions of people used to get along fine without electricity.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    15. Re:Prior Art ? by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      Mr McCain, please go back to sleep. It's nappy time.

    16. Re:Prior Art ? by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

      I also fail to understand why microsoft is trying to patent this.

      Companies usually patent things to make sure that no one else can make them. Either they want to be sure there will be no such products at all, or they want to control what products are allowed. Altruistic companies sometimes patent evil things just to prevent the evil companies from marketing them. Evil companies usually patent them to increase their own profit or power. I leave to the reader the exercise of deciding what kind of company Microsoft is.

    17. Re:Prior Art ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If MS tries for the breathing air patent, I give up. You may very well have to...
    18. Re:Prior Art ? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Informative
      Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal.

      Actually, systems that do that are already very common in industry and railways. It may not be welcomed by the driving public, but there's plenty of other applications.

      In fact, I'd be very surprised if automation and controller companies like Sick didn't already have off-the-shelf solutions.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    19. Re:Prior Art ? by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 1

      The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. Also, if you have an alarm system that notifies you, I'm pretty sure it'll notify the fire station too. And if your house is burning, you're better off letting the firemen work their magic.

      Either way, I agree with parent, shut your cell phone off in the movie theater.

      If you want to have it on vibrate, that's fine with me, as long as you don't bother anyone else. From what I understand of the patent application (and no, I didnd't rtfa) this system could just force silent mode on phones rather than shutting them off entirely.

      This being said, I imagine that if cars suddenly had speed-control systems, people would be disabling them, just like people mess with their scooters in Europe to get them to go faster than the maximum allowed 50km/h.
      --
      This space up for sale.
    20. Re:Prior Art ? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers. Wha? Why wouldn't the alarm be setup to phone the fire services rather than send an email? Not the best situation you could have thought up, despite the "think of the children" at the end causing over-riding of all rational thinking. Perhaps if you include your heart-tugging sentiments earlier then it would help to shut people's logic circuits down before their BS meter starts going off..

      How is *limiting* the speed of a vehicle or shutting off the engine the stuff that class action suits are made of? Plenty of cars have immobiliser tech, and some have remote shutdown ability (the recent Ford GT does for example). Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist..

      I hate the idea of control being forced for me, but if there were an optional system in place to limit the speed of my car to speed limits, I would probably choose to use it in all built up areas (but not out on more open roads).

      And as for the sci-fi stuff, are you saying that Gene Roddenberry or whatever other sci-fi author came up with it first gets the patent on warp drive even if someone else works out the implementation? I know those authors will be dead by the time (if ever) that we work out how to sidestep the speed of light limitation, but still I would have thought that patents have to have a bit of detail to them rather than just for example having a patent on something trivial like a 'vehicle with four wheels that can travel over 50mph'.
      --
      which is totally what she said
    21. Re:Prior Art ? by CompMD · · Score: 1

      "going to "silent mode" whenever the phone's gps detects it has entered into a meeting room."

      Maybe the patent was rejected because GPS requires line of sight to a satellite, and ceilings and walls make that really difficult...

    22. Re:Prior Art ? by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Phones automatically going to silent in a cinema is cool.

      Being unable to prevent it happening is what people find objectionable.

      There are things that override 'manners', because otherwise they wouldn't _be_ manners. For example my gym has a 'no phones' policy. I'm required to carry my phone, because I'm on call. The gym staff actually don't mind this in the slightest.

      That's before we get into the realm where some monkey fails to configure his 'manners broadcasty thing' correctly, either due to stupidity or malice.

    23. Re:Prior Art ? by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 1

      I prefer this solution!

    24. Re:Prior Art ? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Get this installed into Skynet ASAP!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    25. Re:Prior Art ? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Since the first brick with an antenna on it, people have wanted to control when cell phones could be used. Enforcing driving habits? SciFi has it covered. I know I've posted to Slashdot about using a method (such as doppler shift of the radio signal) to detect when someone is using a cell phone in motion (say more than 10-15 mph*) relative to the tower and disallowing or disconnecting the call. It could be implemented in the handset or at the tower. Since it is simply velocity based, it cuts out uses on planes, buses, and cars (even by passengers).

      * Definitely something higher than the highest natural relative angular velocity you'd have due to the spin of the Earth within the operating range of the cell tower. Someone want to do the math?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    26. Re:Prior Art ? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers. Being able to come up with a constructed, unlikely, hypothetical example of what could perhaps, maybe, theoretically go wrong does not make a proper counter-argument.

      Besides, how about the speed limit on his way home to save his kids? He'll not get there in time unless he goes at least 100 kph in the inner city. So by your logic, we should remove all speed limits everywhere, because you never know when someone has to get somewhere in a real hurry.

      Finally, if you wire up your fire alarm system so that it tells you, but not the fire department, you're a ridiculous dumbfuck.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    27. Re:Prior Art ? by a1englishman · · Score: 1

      You're probably not a parent. You see, as a parent, you worry about your kids -- even while they're being cared for by a trusted baby sitter. If something goes wrong, you want to be notified of it right away. There may be information only you can provide and waiting only makes things worse. Movies are a source of entertainment, and I think an emergency overrides you need to be entertained. I, on the other hand, do not want to hear people yak about their personal issues while I'm watching a flick.

    28. Re:Prior Art ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then stay the fuck home, frankly. I understand you worry about your kids, but I don't, and you have no right to disturb me because you're a shitty parent.

    29. Re:Prior Art ? by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal.

      Actually, systems that do that are already very common in industry and railways. It may not be welcomed by the driving public, but there's plenty of other applications.

      In fact, I'd be very surprised if automation and controller companies like Sick didn't already have off-the-shelf solutions.

      Such systems are already mandated in the EU for trucks weighing more than 10 metric tons. Speeds are reduced to 89 km/h or less.

      This is the best source I could find.

      Doesn't really seem to work, though.

    30. Re:Prior Art ? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to cut cell phone use for passengers? It's not about my wants. I'm just acknowledging the effects of the proposed technology.

      Meanwhile there have been studies suggesting that any conversations going on while driving are a distraction to the driver. They also cite listening to the radio as a distraction, but I'm not seeing laws banning integration of stereo speakers in cars.

      However I would enjoy not having the rhythm of the heavy bass line of rap music forced upon me from tunelessly vibrating car panels from three blocks away.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    31. Re:Prior Art ? by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      either that or it will attempt to turn off the user of the device

    32. Re:Prior Art ? by English+French+Man · · Score: 1

      I believe the former example was the waterbed patent, I see a huge difference between this and a warp drive, the first clearly describes its own implementation...

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
    33. Re:Prior Art ? by somersault · · Score: 1

      There are a few ways you could literally have a 'water bed', so it's not exactly clear. If you go beyond the word and describe the object then yeah. I suppose it counts as prior art unless there is some glaring problem that needs to be overcome to put the idea into use.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    34. Re:Prior Art ? by rand0mbits · · Score: 1

      My university has an alert system similar to the one described by the above poster. Once something happens on campus (fire, shooting, whatever) we get calls and sms messages on our phones. They are, actually, pretty useful. Should the phones then be completely turned off in classrooms? Yes, prior to cell phones we either didn't get any notice or maybe there was a siren. This isn't a reason to ignore the advanced technology we have now because sometimes its uses are impolite.

      --
      If only one could get that wonderful feeling of accomplishment without having to accomplish anything.
  18. DRM for your actions by NoobixCube · · Score: 2

    First they try to foist "Digital Rights Management" on us, to the applause of many organisations, and now they try to force digital management of my right to be a prick on me? I hate hearing a phone ring at the movies (even more, I hate hearing someone answer it) as much as anyone, but people shouldn't have to have good manners forced on them by their tools/toys. If I may compare control of one's manners to control of one's bladder, this is worse than grownup diapers. It's like underwear that plugs your urethra against your will.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  19. Similar to DVD players... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "And I, the consumer, would buy a new device that is explicitly less functional than existing devices... why?"

    Because you have no choice, perhaps? Take DVD players as an example. DVD region-codes have no legal basis, that is, makers of DVD-players do not have to respect them. Yet all major manufacturers do, in fact, respect the codes.

    For the electronic manners, it could easily go the same way...

    1. Re:Similar to DVD players... by debest · · Score: 1

      I'm not positive, but if a manufacturer wants to produce a DVD player, they must purchase a license to do so (too lazy to Google the consortium's name). Part of the license would be the demand that the manufacturer not sell units that lacked respect for the region codes.

      I could be wrong, but I've got to think that I'm not. If there was no contractual (and, therefore, legal) requirement to respect region codes, *of course* there would be region-free DVD players available everywhere! Why not? If the manufacturers are part of some cabal whose purpose is to restrict access to "illegal" content, why the hell does every single player on the market play VCDs and Divx discs? How much "legal" content is available in those formats? Why wouldn't they refuse to play those as well?

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    2. Re:Similar to DVD players... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's take DVD players as an example. According to this Froogle google, I have approximately 53 kilochoices for a "region free DVD player." Demand, meet supply.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  20. misnamed by cas2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's interesting that they call it 'Digital Manners'.

    it's almost as if they want people to think it's just benign reminders and opt-in enforcement of polite social niceties rather than a method for enforcing mandatory external control over all your devices.

    1. Re:misnamed by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

      You got it right. It about more power for Big Brother, not manners. MS quit being about empowering little guys years ago.

      --
      If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  21. All hail Ms. Manners... by Genda · · Score: 1

    BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING....
    And he looks just like Martha Stewart!!!

  22. Manners? by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that I have to be rude to avoid paying M$ a royalty?

  23. New slogan by tsa · · Score: 1

    Microsoft. We KNOW what's good for you!

    --

    -- Cheers!

  24. Demolition Man, anyone? by joefish_only_one · · Score: 2, Funny

    "You have been fined one credit for the violation of Digital Manners Act."

  25. Potential for good by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this kind of thing could have potential for good, as long as it isn't enforced. The classic example is the mobile phone in a theatre or cinema - it would be nice if the phone could know to automatically switch to silent mode, with user override possible.

    In other areas like not being able to record things with your DVR it's just evil. In other words, it needs to act like a polite sign that a device can "read", rather than be enforced.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  26. Why stop with digital gadgets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow! Once we have computers in our body that control and supplement our being, then we can implant this technology in every citizen.

    That allows us to enforce the wishes of the religious right and disable the mothers that attempt abortion. But that would be counter productive, wouldn't it?

    We could also zap those pesky homosexuals and zap the libido of everybody that makes love to anybody he is not married to. Amend the constitution!

    And off course we can disable everybody's arm that does attempt to vote the wrong party at the ballot box. Then we can finally use clean voting machines that can't be tampered with.

    1. Re:Why stop with digital gadgets? by deck · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you just described what the Leftist Socialist Liberals would do with such technology.

      They would "totally disable" individuals who spoke about religion.

      They would zap those individuals who spoke against homsexuality.

      If a person were offended by or took action against their spouse for extra-marital sex they would be "totally disabled".

      They would force abortion on their opponents so that their oppnents would declince in number to total extinction.

      Quoting you "And off course we can disable everybody's arm that does attempt to vote the wrong party at the ballot box." Then we dont have to worry about using clean voting machines that can't be tampered with becasue we won't need voting machinces since the government will know what the people want and need. And the big thing the people don't need is to interfere with the Leftist Socialist Liberals' "good" govenment.

  27. NO MORE TOP-POSTING by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

    I'll settle for a kill switch on users who top post. Thank you so much, Microsoft, for innovating that ...

    http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/Net_Resources

    1. Re:NO MORE TOP-POSTING by bloodninja · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with top posting?

      I'll settle for a kill switch on users who top post. Thank you so much, Microsoft, for innovating that ... http://what-is-what.com/what_is/top_posting.html
      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
  28. Follow social conventions people, its the law! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah people are so rude these days. The other day I saw some pictures by reporters from a warzone!! What would become of the world if you can not even commit war crimes in privacy of your own prison camp? And remember when ABC did that terrible rude thing an filmed the giant halliburton logos on the trucks at an Iranian oil field? How rude!

    I am sure the "You are being rude [Cancel], [Continue] dialog will work just as well when I try and take a picture of the chemical waste coming from a pipe outside the canon factory. Afterall with Canon, you can!

    In fact why not let technology enforce all humanities morals? Smart card chastity belts for everyone!!! Yay!

    1. Re:Follow social conventions people, its the law! by sjs132 · · Score: 1

      Psst... New black market device: Smart card reprogramers...

        "Surprise her with full open access today!"

      --
      --- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
  29. Where do you want to go today? by Yousef · · Score: 1

    Well you can't go there cos it is restricted.

    You spent HOW MUCH on that Digital Camera? Well, we'll still tell when and where and how you can use it - for your own good, of course...

    You think that you're free to use your purchases as you see fit? Well Big Brother Bill knows best. He'll even tell you what accessories you must buy to get it to work.

    --
    -- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
  30. Technology versus normal user by Exlee · · Score: 1

    And once again Microsoft "invented" technology which will work against normal user.

    People who will be aware of the technology will either accept it, try to avoid devices with it, or simply disable it in devices they own.

    However the ones who won't know about this will be unpleasantly surprised. No harm done if Microsoft "invention" will prevent them from making photo of a bee in restricted area. But - for example - what if law enforcement agency will overuse their power combined with no photographing/video recording portable device?

  31. Talk talk by Wowsers · · Score: 4, Funny

    You will be nice to your copy of Microsoft Vista at all times. If it registers dissatisfaction about Vista through the use of the webcam or via voice control, Vista will shut down until you start giving it nice thoughts like "Bill Gates is great really", or "I didn't really mean to attack my machine with a chair".

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Talk talk by nicodoggie · · Score: 1

      Then after a while people will start to smile nervously around Vista-controlled machines, saying: "We have to always think happy thoughts around Vista...", otherwise, they get teleported to an endless corn field, never to return

  32. Any relation to... by klecu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...kill switches in planes? Seems like a frightening trend toward behavior enforcement.

    --
    Wisdom, knowledge, and truth - found only in one Place.
  33. And tell me, Mr. Anderson... by katz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...what good is a phone call if you're unable to speak?

    "According to the article the technology could be used to bring common social conventions such as 'No flash photography' and ****'No talking out loud'**** to these devices by disabling features or disabling the device entirely." [emphasis mine].

  34. Manners are patented? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    HI! YES, IT IS ME!

    Sorry, I do not want to be rude, but being polite would be a patent violation here. Even if I am not a device, obeying the signal would be a patent violation, yes? (IF it gets granted, off course)

  35. Bizarre twist on old theme by codeButcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When they enforced digital rights, I didn't raise my voice, because I didn't have any rights.

    When they enforced digital manners, I didn't raise my voice, because I didn't have any manners.

    When they enforce digital voting, it will be too late to raise any voice.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  36. New Market Genius by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

    It's pretty smart, in an evil way. What to you do when you foresee the end of your days as a darling of the consumer? Create products for Big Brother!

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. the irony, by zakkie · · Score: 1

    oh my god, the irony. It broke my irony meter.

  39. Prior Art by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe there was a patent applied for sometime around 2000 for cell phones to voluntarily go to vibrate or silent mode if it was within range of a special code transmitter, which could be installed in theatres, churches, etc. I know because I thought up the same thing were I was working at the time, but was just a few months too late. I don't have the patent number, but I know it was in the US and I saw a photocopied newspaper article on it when I got the "close but no cigar" letter from upper management.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  40. WHY OH WHY by Woy · · Score: 1

    WHY IS EVERY MICROSOFT INNOVATION ABOUT DISABLING SHIT????

    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

    --
    "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
  41. Digital Manners Patent Royalties. by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    Thank you so much, Microsoft, for innovating that ...
    ...you now owe Microsoft 5 cents.
    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  42. Again, I'm glad I live in Brazil by protomala · · Score: 1

    A pre-requisite for field a patent here, besides not being commons sense as US allows, is to have MADE a device that works and implement the patented method. You can't patent ideas here.
    I do not know how a country allow such a thing, exepts... that they want to enforce those patents in the rest of the world to make money.
    Sad, really. :-(

  43. Rude by KasperMeerts · · Score: 1

    I anyone ask me politely to turn my cell off or not take pictures, I will gladly oblige. But remotely turning them off? Now that's rude.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
  44. I know the perfect application for this by LM741N · · Score: 1

    To kick trolls off of Slashdot or to automatically mod down posts.

    Of course, just by saying it, this post will be mod'd as a troll.

    A patent for good manners on Slashdot- could it really be done?

  45. Even without hackers... by smwny · · Score: 1

    Lets just say for a moment that these machines could not be used badly. Also, people would actually buy them. Now what?

    Case 1: The car that won't move
    So, there is a fire in the parking garage I am in. Being nice to their customers they only allow them to drive at 5mph. Well... I won't live to sue

    Case 2: NO ME GUSTA CELL

    I don't like people talking on cell phones. I think it is not nice. When I walk past people on the street their cell phones stop working. It turns out one of them was calling 911. Of course the powers that be made sure 911 works even with a kill switch. What they did not expect is that a defect in the phone causes it to malfunction when it gets the signal after the call has been started.

    I could continue. But limiting people by technology does not work. If a person enforces a no phone policy, he will make exceptions in the case of 911 or something else. He will not care you are driving 50mph in a 5mph zone do to fire about to engulf you. Computers are just not smart enough to know when to bend the rules.

  46. There better be a 911 over ride that fully unlocks by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There better be a 911 over ride that fully unlocks the phone.

  47. And the option to such a patent is..... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    .... don't use it.

    So whats the problem?

  48. NovaHorizon by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

    This is a great Idea! Why? Because it will do 2 things. 1) support the education of electronics to a huge growth almost overnight as everyone looks up how to remove it from their device! xD 2) Support the booming growth of electronics shops as people just simply pay to have it removed from their device xD

  49. Had this idea for years... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Signal sent that automatically turns cell phones on to silent/vibrate when in say movie theatres, hospitals, etc.

    The exception being that you could register your phone as an emergency response phone if you're a fireman, law enforcement, doctor, and so on.

    We so need to disband patents.

    1. Re:Had this idea for years... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      An emergency responder can have their phone set to vibrate too. If they're 'on call' to the point where they need to be that much of a disruption, they don't get to attend plays when they're 'on call.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Had this idea for years... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "We so need to disband patents."
      That would be very bad. Patents provide many good things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Had this idea for years... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Considering how few "inventors" actually benefit from patents or the fact when the patent is owned by a small company they get trampled on - those actually responsible seldom get much of anything.

  50. Gah... by Entropius · · Score: 1

    Manners is a property of PEOPLE, not of devices.

    I should have the manners to not use my camera's flash at a concert. My camera is my property, it should do whatever I damn well tell it to do.

    Now, an automated feature that, when turned on, automatically puts phones on vibrate in the theater is fine -- since that's just the user choosing to use it. But enforcing things like that in the name of "manners enforcement" is ridiculous.

  51. Re: Patenting Air by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1


    "Don't Encourage Ballmer!" /You Can't Do That In Redmond

    "A mechanism for dispensing bio-supportive gases in controlled amounts according to managed criteria".

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  52. FCC Violation by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1
    Also, upon further reading of the patent application, this line can be found.

    Cell phone 180 may be operable to comply with such a DMP by shutting down So.. Microsoft is trying to find a way to Legally break federal law? (shutting down the phone prohibits emergency transmissions and is therefore against the law by FCC regulations) Good job Microsoft.
  53. One step closer... by MacOSR · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has us one step closer to their hive. I can't wait to be part of their collective ;-)

  54. Nonsense by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    "The article also points out that the technology could be implemented in situations involving sensitive equipment, such as in airplanes or hospitals."

    Both these places are safe to use phones. it has been proven that current cell phone technology does not affect sensitive equipment in either place.

    I know the first time my phone automatically turns off I will cancel the service and get another phone that doesn't. I do turn my phone to silent in movie theaters as all good movie goers should. This is a free country and people have the choice to leave it on and be ass hats if they want to.

    All that on top of the fact this is just ridiculous and hopefully won't get patented as prior art is definitely already out there.

    --
    WTF?
    1. Re:Nonsense by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Both these places are safe to use phones. it has been proven that current cell phone technology does not affect sensitive equipment in either place."

      No it has not. In fact, it is well know that it can.

      "This is a free country and people have the choice to leave it on and be ass hats if they want to."
      No, they shouldn't.

      "All that on top of the fact this is just ridiculous and hopefully won't get patented as prior art is definitely already out there."

      poster decries patent has prior art without reading patent.
      shocking I tell you, just shocking~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. Microsoft forcing manners? by Tim4444 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that like Hannibal Lecter forcing people to be vegan?

  56. Good Idea by mzkhadir · · Score: 1

    Its a good idea. I think everyone that goes to the movies have had a cell phone go off near them or around them. Yes there are more practical uses than not and people would get accustomed to not turning it off. They can let the company do it for you.

  57. They are late by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i already got the patent on 'online shitting'. constitutes prior art ...

  58. technology isn't the answer to social problems by corbettw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shamelessly copied from the standard this-anti-spam-solution-sucks template.

    This patent advocates a

    (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

    approach to enforcing manners. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea.)

    ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will improve manners for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
    (x) Users of electronic devices will not put up with it
    ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
    (x) Apple will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    (x) Requires too much cooperation from asshats
    (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    (x) Many electronics users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
    (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    (x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority
    (x) Asshats
    (x) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
    (x) Unpopularity of weird new devices
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
    (x) Susceptibility of protocols other to attack
    (x) Willingness of users to install OS patches to their existing devices
    ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
    ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra in the movie theater without being censored
    (x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of privately owned devices
    (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
    ( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
    ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    (x) I don't want the government controlling my iPhone
    ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
    (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  59. Hacked firmware in 3... 2... 1... by Megatog615 · · Score: 1

    If this patent were granted and devices really did contain chips designed specifically for this purpose, what are the odds of people reflashing the firmware in their devices to disable this "feature"?

  60. A clockwork patent by underworld · · Score: 1

    Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?

    If a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man.

    Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses to be bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him?

  61. Denial of service by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    If you make it possible to disable or impair the functionality of a device remotely, then that's exactly what people will do...
    And if you rely on the device responding to the disable command, a market will spring up for people to fix these devices by removing this undesirable functionality.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  62. Re:I don't like BIll or Steve... by Miseph · · Score: 1

    Well bollocks to that, they're a bunch of tossers on your carriage. Sounds like your neighbourhood is full up of twats and idiots.

    I don't include you in that, of course, you seem like a decent sort. I'm sure you're just about the only decent bloke living there. Yeah.

    My apologies to anyone who is actually British for mauling the slang so badly.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  63. We already have this, don't we? by ibanezist00 · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever heard of Digital Rights Management? Next it will be DMM, Digital Manners Management. Microsoft is now your pinnacle of morality!

    --
    There are mountains to cross for those that are willing.
  64. This just in by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Microsoft wants to control when and how people use there electronic device.

    No one was surprised.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  65. Prior Art by zolltron · · Score: 1

    Several years ago, my undergraduate university was planning on having officially licensed cell phones through a particular carrier. One of the features discussed was the ability to have instructors turn off text messaging and internet access on the phones during tests to reduce instances of cheating. They also considered blocking the cellphone use entirely during classes, but decided this wasn't appropriate because some students had legitimate reasons to have them on.

    This seems pretty similar to me, but it never got out of the planning stage.

  66. Marketing: Digital Mom by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    No talking out loud.
    • No running or jumping - especially with scissors.
    • No gum chewing.
    • Chew with your mouth closed/open.
    • Elbows off the table.
    • [Don't] Slurp your soup.
    • . . .
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  67. Anyone else by edittard · · Score: 1

    Anyone else see that as "Digital Manure"? I guess that would be vista they're referring to.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  68. Yep, I still say it's impossible by Moraelin · · Score: 1
    Yes, I still say it's impossible for a Gauss distribution of skills, which is what you get in practically any skill. A situation where 90% of the drivers are 100% perfect and 10% are at a pure 0% skill is so far from the normal distribution, that it would be a revelation and breakthrough discovery in itself.

    Plus, it has a few more touches of SF. A 0 skill driver would be one who doesn't know _anything_ about driving, not even in which lane he's supposed to drive, or how he can turn right. Even if some of those managed to pass the driving test, they're not going to drive for very long until either the cops or natural selection gets them off the roads. It's a ludicriously unrealistic premise right there.

    My point: stop being cavalier about using "mathematical certainty" ass hat!


    _My_ point is, learn a bit more maths before calling people "ass hat". Yes, so you managed to use elementary addition and even multiplication and division. I'm sure your parents are proud of you. Get a bit further, say up to statistics, and then we'll talk ;)

    Since I hate it when idiots claim mathematical certainty when they can't back it up, I'm calling you out on your obvious error in your understanding of averages.


    That's ok. I hate it when idiots pollute a thread with posts just to the effect of, "look, I found someone who made an error!" as their only claim to glory. But you don't see me trying to stop you from posting. God knows that if you're at the stage where you have to "prove" that there's someone between you and the bottom of the proverbial barrel, you already know you're a loser. Anything I could say here won't be any worse anyway.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  69. Re:Prior Art ? [Auto-control] by futuramarama · · Score: 1

    Airplanes have a system that gives votes to the meat pilots and to the AI piloting systems. The AI pilots outnumber the meats, so if the all agree they can control the plane's actions. I'm not in Aero, though, so this might only have been a tested system (there was at least one fatality as a result) not one that made it into production, but I believe it did (with modifications).

    --
    "And that solves the mystery of the missing ring" - Bender
  70. Idea is OK, patent is not OK by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    I don't have a problem with the idea of my cell phone automatically switching to vibrate when I walk into an auditorium. What I *do* have a problem with is the idea of one company owning a patent on the implementation technology, because then the marketplace can't offer competing implementations.

    At some point one must strike a balance between complying with social conventions, and maintaining control of one's own device. If there is only one company selling "polite" devices (due to a patent), then *they* decide where to strike that balance. If there are many companies doing it, then *I* get the choice by deciding on the vendor whose products make the feature useful rather than obnoxious.

    It's a stupid patent application anyway, because there's a ton of prior art.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  71. Distributed Big Brother by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

    Only Microsoft could figure out how to take the distributed power of the internet and modern technology and turn it into some sort of perverse distributed Big Brother.

    I can certainly see the use of such a technology. I wouldn't mind putting my phone in a mode where it would automatically switch the ringer off and switch to vibrate whenever I walked into a theater, for example.

    But, if for example I were a medical professional, I might want the ability to opt out of "digital manners", because saving lives is far more important than being polite.

    The "proof of insurance" example is particularly scary. I can envision a world where half of our cars and ambulances stop working because the DrivesForSure authentication server is down.

    From the Microsoft FAQ:

    "In the event of the collapse of civilization into a Mad Max-esque dystopian future, we will issue a patch on our website that will allow your car to continue to function."

  72. Might be a good technology.... NOT!!! by shadowen1977 · · Score: 1

    I do enjoy these technologies when they get out into the public. I hope this one doesn't actually get implemented. Why? Say I'm a terrorist or general bad person.... like a school shooter or something.... As we know there is cell phone alert mechanism when things go "south", you get a phone call or text message. Ok... So where would microsofts technology be used.... a library... maybe at the movies? Or how about..... a SCHOOL or UNIVERSITY. Great!!! We have technologies in that alert us when things are going bad, like a school shooting or something, but hey, microsoft will disable your device from RINGING to alert you that the shooter is about to mow you down in the location your currently at. GREAT!! Might not be too bad, but its going to have to be thought through a lot more to come into "production". You can't control the stupid with technology this way, its much better to reach out and slap the idiot you refuses to follow the rules or put their phone on vibrate.

  73. Manners? Misnomer! by haralds · · Score: 1

    My dictionary definers 'manners' as 'polite or well-bred social behavior. It is learned to improve social integration. It is also based on individual decision making. The value is that I make a choice, my manners imply a respect for others.
    Not uncharacteristically, the Microsoft solution presumes to remove that freedom of choice, and thus limiting individual freedom. It also undermines the true meaning and value of conscious manners, without choice there is no conscious respect.
    This is not unlike an Orwellian society, which removes moral choice by simply making it impossible to make the wrong choice to begin with; means may include continuous surveillance and the removal of all potential implements of violence such as pocket knives and toiletry liquids more than 3 oz in volume...

    --
    Harald Striepe
  74. It looks like... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

    It looks like you're going into a fit of "Road Rage," would you like to...

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  75. Re:There better be a 911 over ride that fully unlo by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    for one thing it maybe help to a speaker phone when calling 911 so you can talk to help while having your hands free to help people.

  76. Product X is not for YOU by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    one has to wonder how the individuals who own devices which obey so-called 'Digital Manners Policies' would feel about it."

    We're talking about Microsoft customers. They are used to the idea of the products they buy, being intentionally designed to serve the interests of other parties, in preference to the users' interest.

    How will they feel? They'll feel vaguely frustrated, but unable to see what has gone wrong, because they have conditioned themselves to accept such a bizarre, alien situation as "normal."

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Product X is not for YOU by pumpkinsquash · · Score: 1

      That's the interesting part. So much of what Microsoft does these days seems to indicate that they have forgotten what a customer is, or should be. Wouldn't it make sense for Microsoft to make products that work so well for the end user that people would be happy to buy them? Every instance of a Microsoft customer leaving to other ways of doing things probably has something to do with products that either don't perform as well as they should, or Microsoft deliberately limiting what the customer can do with the product. It make me wonder who Microsoft's actual customers are, because it probably hasn't been a single user with a single computer for a long time. Or, maybe, if they are not actually doing evil, then they are just confused. Yeah, that's it, confused.

  77. 9.11/Flight 93 by jafac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had the cell phones of the passengers on flight 93 been disabled by this technology, the passengers might not have learned of the hijackers' plans, and the hijackers might have succeeded in reaching their target. (speculated to have been Sears' Tower in Chicago, or possibly the US Capitol).

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:9.11/Flight 93 by moxley · · Score: 1

      Even if there were no cell phones on that plane, the story would have been the same....It's what the script called for.

  78. Most Asinine patent EVER. by Odder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Digital Manners" or "Digital Domination"? Who wants Steve Ballmer or other rich and powerful people to be able to turn off their cell phone, camera, automobile, headlights and anything else with a Genuine Advantage embedded in it? On call doctors and industry people don't want to miss calls because it might have been rude to save someone's life or property. Imagine ambulances getting stuck in traffic because all the polite cars respect the mayor's motorcade. Government officials and cowards want the kill switches for airplanes, so there is market for it that may soon have the force of law. Please, God, give me better government than that. Only the US government would force everyone to pay a patent tribute to a private company when they require oppressive devices to be installed in all forms of digital equipment, transportation and communications.

  79. Paving the way for the evil overlord by Fat,+Dumb,+and+Happy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Screw the patentability of it. It is disturbing that they are thinking in those terms. Today's benevolent technology aids are tomorrow's tools for oppression.

  80. Re:I am glad it is patented by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    I hope that Microsoft winds up not building anything with this patent (or building just a few things that don't do well), and yet insists on holding on to the patent (and charging expensive royalties for devices that do anything like this). That will ensure that we won't ever have to worry about this technology creeping its way into our stuff. So you plan to expire before the patent does, eh?

    Remember, these are patents we're talking about, not copyrights. Patents can actually expire within the patent holder's lifetime.
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  81. Masters of Courtesy by ichbineinneuben · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know that when I think of courtesy, politeness, and good manners the name Microsoft springs immediately to mind.

  82. patenting unfeatures by Khashishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope more corps. patent unfeatures, so it becomes impossible to copy them.

  83. That Does It! by flyneye · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm filing for a patent not for an OS but one for installing Microsoft.Not the installer mind you,but for the act of installing Microsoft.
    Anyone who actually installs Windows as an act whether scripted or not will have to pay me a fee for doing so.
            This also applies to anyone working for Microsoft and right down to Bill Gates.
            This in no way applies to any other OS besides Windows.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  84. Good for the technology illiterate and forgetful by overkill1024 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure about the patent itself or the notion of "enforcing" these things but I can say that it would be convenient for myself if my phone would automatically switch to vibrate in a theater, classroom or other noise-sensitive environment. It would also make a nice default setting for the breed of people that cannot determine how to operate the devices or be bothered to do so. There's even a financial incentive for businesses to implement this sort of thing. Keep manual mode setting for people who want it and to prevent abuse and everyone wins. (completely disabling should always be out for reasons already discussed)

    Also, a personal anecdote for "no flash photography". I was at an aquarium with an octopus, which is apparently sensitive to light. There are gigantic "no flash" signs and symbols all around the tank and even on the floor, yet there are no less then three people using their flash. Again, I can only see this as a good thing. Well, in my fantasy world where ideas like these are implemented in a reasonable fashion and misused by no one.

  85. OCP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does this mean we can't call Bill Gates a [xxx]? What the [xxxx]? And Robocop can't arrest an Officer of OCP?

    Or gosh I saw Senator [xxxxx] give [xxxxx] to [xxxx]!!! Arrest his [xxx]! I have pictures.... oh [xxxx] wait, never mind.

  86. Re:Innovation What it takes to get Americans to be by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    nice. Or, considerate.

    That patent is just plain fucking stupid, and should have been refused on the grounds of obviousness. People should be policed by social or public mores, not by some awarded, dubious patent. I suspect that in Asia, this patent will be ignored because in general, if you talk like a loud-ass westerner, people WILL stare you down, and the "manners police" in the Tokyo and other Japanese subways WILL dress you down.

    Not to say the patent won't affect bad-mannered media device users, but somebody needs to reign in the USPO and deprive them of taking corporate money that fast-tracks patents of dubious nature.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7312672.stm

    WHERE are the FOSS tools that SHOULD be pervasive? Geeks need to get more proactive and create prior art to prevent this kind of bullshit from taking hold when user-feedback and social observations could have preempted the patent from being deemed valid or worthy of issuance.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  87. Sorry mom... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...I would have sat up straight and eaten my vegetables but that DLL was corrupted and since you grounded me and took away my Internet privileges so I can't get a replacement from Windows Update. Also, since Tommy hit my hand with the hammer yesterday, my fingers don't work right so I can't enter in the Windows product key to authenticate. Not to mention that little stuck up sister of mine thought it would be soooo funny to take a razor and scape the key sticker off the box and put a Brittney Spears sticker in its place.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  88. oooookay... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like another reason to avoid Windows Mobile, "Microsoft powered" vehicles, ...ur... Windows for Warships... (wow, that's a scary thought... "Fire control is down, sir. The popup says we're being rude.")

    They're not even confined to building "manners" into new devices -- just include it as part of the next Windows Mobile update. Whee.

    Seems to me that the SDK and private keys (if it even uses a secure mechanism to shut down the device -- you never know with these guys) are going to be highly sought-after in the criminal world. Wow, to partially or completely shut down any device running a Microsoft OS... what a capability.

    So, lessee... I can get this Symbian device that works everywhere, so the babysitter can call me during an emergency, or this Windows Mobile device that won't work in theaters or restaurants. What to do, what to do...

    In a few months, Thinkgeek offers a new product -- a universal remote that disables any Windows Mobile-based device. Think of the fun you could have at the mall. I wonder if they're taking advance orders.

    Yeah, that's a great patent...

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  89. wow, disable my camera in certain places? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this all seem a bit like Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Hu Jintao, Kim Jong-Il, and Hugo Chavez had a meeting and thought about what ways they could best stifle communication, expression, and freedom?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  90. Matrix? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    So we have to be nice to machines now? Well fsck you Redmond! Every single day /. reminds me (and gives me more reasons for) why I switched over to Linux completely. I don't even think that I would have completely switched (had to give up some games, and needed to stop buying new ones) if it wasn't for this website. No seriously... /. educated me about: DRM, NSA backdoors, user locking practices, mafia-like activity from Redmond, ET-phone-home-activity, automatic 'we know whats best for you so take this unwanted update even though you stopped wanting to receive updates'... and the list goes on and on and on.

    Thanks to all the people who tip/post these stories on /.!

    --
    Here be signatures
  91. stupid, but good by nguy · · Score: 1

    This is another one of those stupid patents that gets granted these days.

    But... I think this one is good. Think about it: only Microsoft-licensed products will be shut down: Microsoft phones, Microsoft cameras, Microsoft laptops, etc.

  92. time to go back to analog devices? by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    I think I'm going retro. meaning old Film camera, analog land line with a scrambler and breaking my old VW out of storage. now I'm not sure I would want to go back to sneaker net but ...

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  93. Former Art? by TB42 · · Score: 1

    Isn't this called an EMP?

  94. How soon... by owndao · · Score: 1

    Sounds great. And I can't wait until I'm required to get my new wetware version implanted.

    --
    Be as you would have the world become.
  95. already done by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

    'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles south korea has this implemented in metropolitan areas
  96. First DRM, now Microsoft wants to be my Nanny by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    Dear Mr. Gates I already have a mother. Piss off. Yours sincerely Me.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  97. Ok this is realy usefull... by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

    "[...]'No flash photography' and 'No talking out loud' to these devices by disabling features or disabling the device entirely.[...]"

    "as it describes a number of possible uses for the technology, including 'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles"

    Situation: An accident happening nearby
    The driver shouts: "HOLY FSCK!"
    ... and the car stops responding...
    Great 'invention' dipshits!

    --
    Here be signatures