Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patent To Safeguard 911 Cellphone Calls

Posted by Soulskill on from the in-case-of-seizure-please-shake-your-iphone dept.

MojoKid writes "Engineers from Apple have applied for a patent on an 'emergency' mode for cell phones that would squeeze every last drop of energy out of the batteries. The phone would recognize emergency calls when the user dialed an emergency number, such as 911 in the United States. But another number could also be stored as an 'emergency number' on the phone (a spouse, child, or parent, for example) or the user could manually put the phone in emergency mode. The process would do a variety of things. It would disable 'non-essential hardware components' and applications on the phone, reduce power to the screen and potentially reduce the phone's processor speed. It also would make it harder to disconnect the call and enable 'emergency phrase buttons' on the phone."

27 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Not too bad.. by log0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually doesn't seem like that bad of an idea for a patent. Granted the system is full of abuse, but at least this one is well intentioned and could save a life.

    1. Re:Not too bad.. by GrpA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean only save the lives of iPhone users... Everyone who chooses a different phone will be punished to death for their arrogance...

      Sadly, this scenario seems more likely IMO given Apple.

      After all, if they intended to patent it "to stop others blocking it" they could just as easily have made it into prior art and it would have been cheaper to do.

      GrpA

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    2. Re:Not too bad.. by MLCT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but at least this one is well intentioned and could save a life.

      Not if phone manufacturers are dissuaded from adding this feature because they would either have to pay Apple royalties or risk being sued by them. In that case the fact that it has been patented may actually cost lives.

      If Apple came out and guaranteed royalty free licensing for all then it would be a positive move for society.

    3. Re:Not too bad.. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not if phone manufacturers are dissuaded from adding this feature because they would either have to pay Apple royalties or risk being sued by them. In that case the fact that it has been patented may actually cost lives.

      The obvious counter argument is that it wouldn't have been worked on in the first place because it would have given them no competitive advantage without the patent, so the 'life saving feature' would never have been developed, and those "lives would not have saved".

    4. Re:Not too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I dunno.. OTHER phones have batteries that are easily replaceable by the end-user (almost always way cheaper than Apple's $85.95 per battery change, too; and phone internal memory doesn't get wiped), so they can swap their failing battery for a new one and not end up needing this "emergency 911 mode" because they couldn't afford the new battery (or going without their precious iPhone for a few days).

      This "new" development by Apple sounds like a pretty complicated way to fix an easily fixable design flaw in their phones....

    5. Re:Not too bad.. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The obvious argument is that we've had phones that do that, they've just gone out of favor as cell phone companies have largely stopped releasing basic phones.

      With the added bonus of not having to pay patent ransom or waste battery with bullshit functions you didn't really want in the first place.

    6. Re:Not too bad.. by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt they'll grant royalty free use but I do suspect they'll assure competitors "you don't get twitchy with your patent portfolio and we won't get twitchy with ours." Sorta like most major companies already do - using patents as defense against other company's patents...

    7. Re:Not too bad.. by YourExperiment · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Worked on"? While it's easy to say this with hindsight, all of the ideas that make up this "emergency mode" are pretty obvious. It did not require anyone to "work on" them. The patent covers the fact that the phone will do these things (the easy part), not the technical details of how it will do them (the hard part).

      I have no objection to Apple protecting the hardware and software that allows their phone to do these things. I object to them being able to stop others from implementing these obvious ideas without paying royalties, and thereby ensuring that less phones will have these features in the long run than would otherwise be the case.

    8. Re:Not too bad.. by rpopescu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, like, if you've been injured, the first thing you do before calling 911 is changing the battery in your mobile. Also, your non-Apple phone allows you, like all phones which are not made by Apple of course, to replace the battery during the call, should you notice you're battery's running out...

    9. Re:Not too bad.. by DannyO152 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is a sensible idea - it is software as is any process where a program assesses a situation, so it shouldn't be patentable in my opinion - and I hope that this is being patented defensively and will be implemented widely.

    10. Re:Not too bad.. by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The obvious argument is that we've had phones that do that, they've just gone out of favor as cell phone companies have largely stopped releasing basic phones.

      Those aren't affected because they don't violate the patent. The patent covers shutting down extraneous features, not 'not having them to begin with'.

      With the added bonus of not having to pay patent ransom or waste battery with bullshit functions you didn't really want in the first place.

      So buy one of those phones then, if you want one. They are still out there.

    11. Re:Not too bad.. by TheSambassador · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because Apple has a patent on it, it doesn't mean that other phones won't have it. They may have to pay royalties, but most things on cell phones are patented.

      They're not going to be "punished to death for their arrogance," if their phone didn't have it then they're in the same situation as everybody right now, and probably most of the people with phones. This is an extra feature... if people want it, they can buy phones with it.

      I don't think see most people using this as an "emergency" such as a life-threatening situation. I see people using this as an "emergency" as in they're wasted and their phone is dead and they need to call for somebody to pick them up, or the "emergency" of being bored with a dead phone.

    12. Re:Not too bad.. by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean only save the lives of iPhone users... Everyone who chooses a different phone will be punished to death for their arrogance...

      Ah, but we can't assume that such measures would exist without apple. If not having this does so much damage, perhaps we should be thankful that it exists at all, that we even have an option of using it.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    13. Re:Not too bad.. by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prior art? How about the reserve tank on a Motorcycle? You move a lever, and you can operate the motorcycle to the nearest gas-station. I can't see this patent passing.

      So, you're saying that one skilled in the art of electronics telecommunications devices, viewing a motorcycle reserve tank, would instantly understand how to apply it to a phone?

      Anyways, no, this isn't a reserve tank. This would be closer to a multi-cylinder engine shutting down several cylinders or reducing horsepower to save fuel.

    14. Re:Not too bad.. by smbell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should crumple zones be patented? No. Should seat belts be patented? No.

      These aren't novel ideas. They weren't when they were created (and I question that there is a patent on seat belts, citation?). If the patent system was working correctly we should be seeing tens of patents a year rather than tens of thousands.

  2. Is a Good Idea = a patent? by Teun · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have trouble accepting this type of Good Idea needs to be patentable.

    But then, when the same institution makes computer algorithms patentable maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

    This is very much comparable to the One Click fiasco, you get a couple of desirable but common applications linked to a single action and Bingo!

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  3. Re:Great. Just amazing. by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A big problem for you?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  4. save power make noise by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    would "unncessary power use" include loud audible alarms?

  5. Prior Art? by cnaumann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have turned off the AC in my car and reduced my speed in the hopes that I could get to a gas station before running out of gas. Isn't that about the same thing?

    How about a car with an emergency reserve gas tank that is activated by a lever inside the car?

    I suppose that running the batteries completely flat may harm them. Basically they are claiming a patent on overriding the shutdown feature designed to protect the batteries and using a low power mode. That does not seem original. Granted, coupling this with a 911 call is kind of clever.

    1. Re:Prior Art? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you'll find that most patents are actually ridiculously specific. If you tried to claim prior art with that car analogy, you'd be laughed out of court.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. Re:This should not be exempt from patentability by Grond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AED's are not a common device like a cell phone and should only be used by people trained and with a ticket to use them not Joe-blow member of the public.

    Common enough that they are in virtually every mall, casino, and airport in the US. But that's ultimately beside the point: that Apple's life-saving invention can be used by just about anyone actually argues in favor of its non-obviousness because it's harder to develop effective technologies that everyone can use. For example, despite years of development and lots of potential value, no one has yet developed an AED that can be safely used by someone who has no training.

    Regarding the screen dimming: the patent does not claim all uses of voltage lowering to dim the LCD. It claims only the use of this power-saving feature when an emergency call is placed.

  7. Why is this only an emergency feature??? by booyabazooka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The phone's purpose is making phone calls. If a phone is low on battery power, and I'm making a call, by all means, ALWAYS cut power to non-essential components.

  8. "Ideas" should not be patentable by volpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Patents should cover an apparatus or method (the "how"), not the idea (the "what").

    Every patent application should first identify the "what", and then identify the "how". If the "how" is obvious after being told the "what", then the "invention" is obvious, no matter how novel or non-obvious the "what" is.

    1. Re:"Ideas" should not be patentable by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're just not drilling down far enough. You're basically still in the "what" territory.

      As an analogy: a new, more efficient car battery is produced and patented. The patent says they made a new longer-lasting battery by using a process that wastes less energy. Then it details the process. The "using a process that wastes less energy" part is obvious. How to go about doing that is not.

      I gave up finding the original patent (couldn't be bothered) but I guarantee that if you look through the claims, you'll find something that's at least questionable whether it's obvious or not, and I bet you'll find a lot that's clearly non-obvious (and I bet you'll be able to think of a way to implement the "what" without using their methods).

  9. Re:Great. Just amazing. by Smurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mmmmm... Do you realize that pocket dialing on an iPhone is way, way harder?

    Hints: The special gesture to unlock the phone. The fact that you normally have to navigate to the phone app and the numeric keypad (easy when you intend to, hard too do by accident. And, specially, the fact that the touch screen doesn't work through cloth.

  10. Re:Great. Just amazing. by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It takes special talent to do it with a normal phone. I mean, shocker of all shockers, I carried a candy bar phone for a couple of years and never accidentally dialed, let alone accidentally dialed 911.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. Re:Great. Just amazing. by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    000 is the emergency number in Australia, and it's quite easy to dial it in a pocket.

    There's been more than one occasion where I've checked the phone and it has "000" and "SEND" under the very large, central softkey. I always thought keylocks were there to, you know, lock the keys. Don't give me that crap about, "OMG ITS AN EMERGENCY YOU WONT HAVE TIME TO UNLOCK A PHONE" , just lock the damn keys like I told you to.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.