Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Wants Patents For Crippling Cellphones

Posted by kdawson on from the say-it-ain't-so-steve dept.

theodp writes "Evil is in the eye of the beholder, but there's certainly not much to like in the newly-disclosed Apple patent applications for Systems and Methods for Provisioning Computing Devices. Provisioning, says Apple, allows carriers to 'specify access limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device.' So what problem are we trying to solve here? 'Mobile devices often have capabilities that the carriers do not want utilized on their networks,' explains Apple. 'Various applications on these devices may also need to be restricted.'"

3 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Not defective by design by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This story is tagged "defectivebydesign", but what Apple wants to do is anything but.

    Operators have a hard limit on the amount of service they can actually provision. Allowing any and all devices to run willy nilly on the network would be certain death, even for the best-laid network. By throttling certain services, turning off certain capabilities, and allowing remote provisioning management, Apple is making sure that the device they are providing to users will work and continue to work on the network.

    This is a very important feature not only for the NOs, but also for businesses who would provide these phones to their field teams. Though, to be honest, restriction of features doesn't seem very patentable, at least there are other implementations that already exist. WinMo has had this since WM6.1, for example.

    1. Re:Not defective by design by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I didn't make that argument; I made the argument that $20M executive pays add up to a tiny fraction of the money they need to execute those sorts of projects. If your business turns a $1M profit a year, you'll salary yourself somewhere below $1M; if it turns a $1000M profit a year, why the hell not throw $100M at the executives and throw $900M at the projects? 5 executives, $20M each, sure. Now we're talking about market-dominance telcos that turn well more than a billion a year before projects ("Operating Costs" "Expansion Costs" etc), that $20M is like ... pocket change. It's NOT the spending problem.

      You don't seem to understand AT ALL why these CEO's get those bonuses. Epic fail.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  2. Re:Confirmed by DECS · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Is everyone on Slashdot really so ignorant as to never have bumped into the concept of provisioning?

    That's what corporations do when they assign employees mobile devices. They may disable the camera or require encryption features. Or if you are China or Verizon Wireless, you turn off WiFi.

    Holy Jesus, is Apple also "evil" for offering Parental Controls and MCX Managed Preferences? How about file permissions? Yeah that's right, I'm afraid Unix has been denying people their "rights" for some time now with those pesky rwxrwxrwx and execute bits.

    Sounds like a fantasy libertarian circle jerk has bukakaed Slashdot. The ignorance of this site is getting embarrassing.