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."
Now when I pocket dial 911 there's even less chance of me pocket-disconnecting and more chance of my phone spouting emergency phrases!
My UID is prime... is yours?
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.
That would squeeze the last drop of energy out of the batteries, by stabbing them and causing a small explosion to attract help.
The protagonist is being tracked using GPS locked onto their phone, they realise this and dial 911 which puts the phone into a low power state and kills the GPS signal.
Trust me, it's a lot more exciting than just turning the phone off.
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."
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.
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.
I used to work for a major cellphone manufacturer.
Cellphones already go into a special emergency mode. All phones definitely scan for more towers beyond those in the PRL list (preferred roaming list). I believe phones may also increase Tx power if battery is good and the CDMA noise floor is high.
One big problem I recall: it is not as well tested. The Verizon phone guys aren't going to yell "do you hear me now" at 911 operators. We had once instance where it was discovered that the 911 mode had a software bug and caused the phone to crash. That caused an immediate "stop ship". We definitely had to improve the synthetic 911 testing environment...
Mod parent up. Most of this is already standard, and mandated by the FCC. The new stuff is just some iPhone-specific problems that Apple has to deal with. All the nonessential guck in the phone needs to be switched off during emergency calls.
911 calls have at least the following FCC-mandated features.
It's not like Apple just invented "emergency mode".
The important advantage people seem to be missing is the patent allows extended use of the battery. Li-Ion batteries have a discharge threshold, below which the cell is damaged and can not be recharged. The charge protection circuit usually cuts off the power, to save the cells, when this point is reached. In an emergency, it's a really good idea to be able to bypass this protection. It's an emergency, you're not going to care if you ruin the battery; but, you may care that you can get an extra 10-20% more talk time out of the battery.
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.
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.
I have the Chinese takaway programmed in my emergency button. You need that much more than 911 (or 112 in Europe).
-- Cheers!
this reminds me of an old phone I used to have that implemented perhaps the very opposite of this idea...
It would vibrate to tell me the battery was running low in silent mode. Problem was just by doing that it actually used up the last of the power it was supposed to warn me about being low, effectively making it some kind of ironic suicide warning.
throw new NoSignatureException();