Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent To Safeguard 911 Cellphone Calls
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."
Many posters have already suggested that this should not be patentable because it's a potentially life-saving feature. Critical reflection shows why that argument does not hold much water.
A new treatment or cure for a fatal disease is also life-saving, but few would argue that drugs should not be patentable.
Alternatively, consider the invention of the automatic external defibrillator. This is also a life-saving device, and much of its utility stems from software and an effective user interface (e.g., spoken commands to the user), but there are no calls to force AED technology into the public domain.
Careful reading of the patent application shows that its essential features could be replicated on any smart phone and a subset could even be implemented on a non-smart phone. The fact that phone manufacturers have not implemented these features in the decade or so that it would have been possible to do so suggests two possibilities: One, that the features are actually not that useful or important; Two, that the features and their implementation here are actually far from obvious.
If the former is the case, then we shouldn't care about the application because it pertains to something of such limited value that the dozens of phone manufacturers and telecom companies never saw fit to implement it. If the latter is the case, then Apple is rightly to be rewarded for developing a useful feature and, presumably, bringing it to market. Without patent protection, Apple is much less likely to invest time and effort developing new features for its products, including potentially life-saving features like this one.
Finally, I think we should withhold our ultimate judgment until the patent is granted or denied. The examination process may turn up prior art that blocks the application entirely or it may cause the claims to be substantially narrowed. Faced with a less than optimal patent, Apple may abandon the application. This story is a bit like judging a piece of software based on an alpha version.
There is no reason the government should not pass a bill, that states that any such patent as this (safety, public good), could have a value assigned to them by an arbitrator.
There are very good reasons why that's a bad idea. First, patent valuation is notoriously difficult. The literature on this is extensive and there are no good solutions, despite decades of research and a small fortune to be made from accurately valuing patents, which has many, many applications (e.g., determining R&D priorities, evaluating mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy, etc).
Second, what is well established is that the market is a very effective evaluator of the worth of ideas and technologies. Patents allow innovators to let the market decide on the value of their products and services, which also gives them invaluable feedback on the direction their future R&D should take.
Finally, here is a hypothetical that demonstrates the above:
Consider a world without SMS, circa 1995 prior to the widespread use of cellphones. Some enterprising engineer discovers a slice of bandwidth that can be used for sending short text messages and patents it. Now imagine that the primary use envisioned for this is the sending of emergency messages to a 911-type service, which is very useful for someone who can't hear or speak because of the nature of the emergency or because they are deaf or mute. Under your scheme, the patent is seized and an arbitrator would probably decide that this is worth some modest amount as an emergency service.
Now, fast-forward 10 years and generalized SMS is an incredibly popular technology used for all kinds of purposes. Too bad for the inventor, of course, because neither he or she nor the arbitrator foresaw where the market would take the technology. If the property right had remained with the inventor, he or she could have licensed it to various phone manufacturers and telecoms and made a much more appropriate amount as SMS grew in popularity. Ex ante valuation of patents will always suffer such problems.