Apple Patents Tech to Stop iPhones Filming in Venues

An anonymous reader writes "A patent application filed by Apple, and obtained by the Times, reveals how the software would work. If a person were to hold up their iPhone, the device would trigger the attention of infra-red sensors installed at the venue. These sensors would then instruct the iPhone to disable its camera."

Comments

Deja Vue

[ColdWetDog]

Haven't we been here before?

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

If I can just patent dupes, I'll be rich!

Re:Deja Vue

[Thruen]

Maybe not. I don't see a reference to the actual patent application here, but from what I can tell, the previous story was about the infrared signal and the camera that can be disabled by it, this appears to be a method of triggering whatever infrared emitter. Unless I'm misunderstanding, this isn't quite about the same thing, although there's no need for Slashdot to cover them both.

Re:Deja Vue

[Jane Q. Public]

Nah, my guess is it's still about the first gadget, it's just that the reporter got it wrong.

The reason I say that is because there is absolutely no need for such a sensor: it's vastly easier and cheaper just to have infrared emitters constantly sending the "do not record" signal.

Re:Deja Vue

[znu]

For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent? Seriously, remember those articles about Apple patenting OS-level advertising that locked people out of their computers until they watched it? Seen any Macs or iOS devices doing that lately?

Re:Deja Vue

[Thruen]

Ah good call. I should've checked the source first, too. Fox never gets anything right.

Re:Deja Vue

[interkin3tic]

Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.

Maybe the application for patenting it on all cameras maybe got turned down. It seems like trying to patent anything but the sun gets approved, but maybe some government official realized that if Apple has the exclusive rights to this valuable censorship technology, that could prevent it from being rolled out. Maybe Steve Jobs would say "Okay, you've made it mandatory that all cameras have this in them, so now I have a monopoly on the whole camera market. You'll now have to pay $1000 for a legally-approved 4 megapixel compact camera." So everyone would just buy unapproved cameras and their dastardly plans would be ruined. Thus, the government had the broader patent application denied.

I consider this to be the most likely explanation. You can spout off about slashdot editors being careless, but we both know this is clearly the fallout of a fight between two forces of evil.

Re:Deja Vue

[Raenex]

For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent?

Why are you apologizing for objectionable behavior? If I drew up 10 objectionable plans, and only implemented 1 of them, does that excuse the other 9 somehow? Here's an idea: Don't draw up the objectionable plan in the first place. If you do, expect some grief over it.

Re:Deja Vue

[gl4ss]

well, their patent department probably gets bonuses on number of patents issued. so if they have one idea, they'll milk it over several patents - the basic idea here is just having a remote control off, some video recording hardware has that by default btw. haven't actually checked if this is really a different patent or not.

Re:Deja Vue

[JonahsDad]

Too much prior art.

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't we been here before?

Did gawker take over /. ?
I questioned a post yesterday that claimed it so, and I'm seeing more and more crap posted here... :(

Re:Deja Vue

[alta]

At 261 comments, it obviously didn't generate enough page views. We have to monetize these stories damnit. We're going to keep posting it until it meets the minimum ppc requirements!

Re:Deja Vue

[JAlexoi]

Owning an Apple device, never disappoints! They even think for you and disable things "you don't need"...

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

There's little reason NOT to react negatively if you feel strongly about it. That's part of why freedom of speech is so important so that, not only can the press inform people about this stuff but that the people can then express how they feel about it in public. In the past, that has gotten companies to either cancel or discontinue certain policies. Knowledge is power, ya know?

Besides, just because a patent hasn't been used yet doesn't mean that it will never see use in some form or another. I generally shy away from using words like "never" and "always" for that very reason. I agree that particular one probably won't see use in the foreseeable future though.

Re:Deja Vue

[Agent0013]

For that matter, do we really need another round of people who don't like company X attacking company X for filing a patent on something they object to, pretending not to understand that tech companies never implement 90% of what they patent? Seriously, remember those articles about Apple patenting OS-level advertising that locked people out of their computers until they watched it? Seen any Macs or iOS devices doing that lately?

That certainly sounds like patents are promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts. I say use it or lose it. And then nobody else can patent it either, because it was already patented and expired. This would stop the actual patent trolls too.

Re:Deja Vue

[node 3]

Except that last one was general to all cameras, this one is specific to iphones.

What? You don't patent something that only specifically applies to your own products by name. If you are the only one who can make an iPhone, patenting something that only affects those that are interested in making an iPhone is redundant.

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they don't implement these ideas because they see how much people don't like them?

Re:Deja Vue

[R3d M3rcury]

Nah. The appropriate fanboi opinion is, "Why should I keep track of whether or not it's legal for me to record things in a particular venue? This way, Apple and the venue owner can help me out so that I don't have to risk unnecessary lawsuits and the like. Thanks, Apple!"

Actually, IMHO, Apple does things like this in order to stay on the Music Industry's good side. But Apple will sell out it's customers to the music industry whenever necessary.

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

If I draw up 10 objectionable plans, and file patents on them all so that nobody can implement them, I fail to see why you consider that a bad thing.

If Apple ever actually go ahead with this feature, feel free to give them hell for it. Until then, if you want to bash them it'd probably be best to try and find something objectionable that they've actually done.

Re:Deja Vue

[Raenex]

Considering that Apple and the iPhone are prone to locking down devices, this kind of crap is right up their alley. Claiming that they're going to use this patent to prevent others from doing this is rather silly, since they have total control over their device.

If they're going to come up with even more potential, obnoxious ways to lock people out of their own devices, all the more reason to bash them. If they don't want to be bashed over this kind of shit, they'll have to stop (which they won't, because they are making billions).

Re:Deja Vue

[Narcogen]

What distinguishes "making an objectionable plan" from thoughtcrime? So now it's unacceptable to even consider doing something some people might consider unacceptable?

Re:Deja Vue

[Kuruk]

Give it a few more attempts and they will cripple us in a tiny enough manor we will accept.

Re:Deja Vue

[AmiMoJo]

It isn't that bad. If Apple own the patent then other manufacturers won't be forced to implement this technology, and only iPhone users will be prevented from using their cameras. They are giving everyone else an excuse not to put it in their own devices, and I for one thank them for this protection.

Re:Deja Vue

[dwightk]

Yeah I misread the headline because I assumed it was different. I thought it said "blah blah blah iPhone filming blah Venus" and thought the "send an iphone to space on a balloon" thing got way out of hand.

Re:Deja Vue

[Anonymous Coward]

If I drew up 10 objectionable plans, and only implemented 1 of them, does that excuse the other 9 somehow?

Are you seriously asking if they would be excused for things they didn't do? Isn't that an absurd question?

I see no way this can go wrong.

[rebelwarlock]

There's absolutely no way anyone would ever abuse such technology. Nope. Unpossible.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[creat3d]

I hope you're not thinking of law enforcement using such IR transmitters to prevent unwanted filming of unwarranted actions, because that's just crazy talk! You're crazy! Stop it!

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[recoiledsnake]

Lulzsec/Anon etc. are going to be using this at concerts,tourist places etc. etc. wherever people would want to take pics.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[magarity]

Lulzsec/Anon etc. are going to be using this at concerts,tourist places etc. etc. wherever people would want to take pics.

Nevermind that - what about mounting one on every police cruiser?

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[creat3d]

Did LS/Anon suddenly become posterboys for every criminal all of a sudden? What about the ones in uniforms?

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[jellomizer]

Except for bitching and complaining what a private company does with a product you choose to buy. You can usually check with the Freedom of Information act on what law enforcement is buying with your tax money. And raise hell if they are trying to stop you from such actions.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many if not all video recording technology using CCDs is susceptible to being blinded by IR light. I'm frankly surprised that theaters don't already use a powerful strobbing, patterned IR lamp on their projectors or next to the screen to make sure that boolegers get a really screwed up images. Not something like an over-elaborate over-engineered in-video encoding but something as simple as some remote control LEDs taped to the walls. Might not work on expensive, shielded stuff but el cheapo cameras more likely to get snuck in by are certainly screwed up by it.

In the end though, I guess we'll just have to go back to bribing the projector operators with free beer for a really clean copy of whatever the movie house is playing that week.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[john82]

Lulzsec/Anon etc. are going to be using this at concerts,tourist places etc. etc. wherever people would want to take pics.

Never mind them. The concert promoters are going to use this so that you're forced to pay their rates for media content.

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[Rolgar]

Like police carrying a portable dis-abler to prevent being recorded breaking the law so they don't have to come over and break your phone for you?

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking of making a mobile IR transmitter. . . . and lets see. . .the FCC does not regulate IR transmission.
Oh think of the fun you could have with this. . .. hopefully they will put in commands to shut the device down (like at the movies or in traffic)!

IR doesn't do anything to your retina's does it?

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a worthless arms race. Most cameras already have an IR filter. To defeat a stronger strobe, you just need a notch filter with a stronger extinction.

The theater will run into eye safety limits long before you run into thin-film dielectric manufacturing limits!

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[EdIII]

You're being sarcastic, but let's be specific.

Cop cars would have the infrared signals to prevent cameras and other such recording devices from recording their activities. It's amazing that a cop actually thinks it is/should be a crime to record their activity when we fundamentally have the rights to audit and review their performance.

Shopping malls and grocery stores would install it. How many apps are being developed (or already exist) to do price comparisons in brick and mortar retail stores?

I could go on, but public performances of music would be the very tippiest tipppest tip tip tip of the iceberg on this particular technology.

However, as Martha Stewart would say, "It's a good thing". Just to be really really geeky I will quote Princess Leia as well, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers".

I believe this will just encourage the use of jailbreaking and firmware modification to an all time high. Normal people, the Sheeple, don't react strongly enough to most situations to want to modify their phone. It's time consuming, they lack the sophistication, and probably lack the connections to people that do know how to do it.

That being said....... a Sheeple being informed by their pretty shiny Apple device that they are not allowed to do something that they really wants to do is an amazing eye opener to just what level of ownership they have over their device and can be an amazing catalyst to turn a nice little obedient Apple citizen into an underground renegade :D

P.S - Just so I can destroy and stop the thread I find that the behavior will be quite similar to the reactions and understanding the Jews had when they got their stars on their clothing and even more when they were wondering, "Why the fuck I am on this train?". That's Apple to me :) Apple fanboys calm down please and put down the pitchforks.... the shiny technology is impressive but even you have to admit that you are just citizens of a nice walled garden. Let's hope it stays the nice shiny Utopia you all love.......

Re:I see no way this can go wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if you lived under an oppressive regime, there is no way they would use it to stop your legitimate right to protest and record state sponsored human rights abuses.

I'm sticking with Android for now.

Easy Fix

[TheGatesofBill]

And there would almost immediately be iPhone cases for sale which cover the IR receivers. Or masking tape. Either way.

Re:Easy Fix

[geekoid]

Then the camera wouldn't work,

Re:Easy Fix

[haystor]

Or you could just hold it wrong so the transmissions don't reach.

Re:Easy Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a simple blue-tinted filter which would stop IR from getting to the camera sensor but leave visible light still usable?

Re:Easy Fix

[CohibaVancouver]

And there would almost immediately be iPhone cases for sale which cover the IR receivers

Dude, the "IR Receiver" is the camera lens. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Re:Easy Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The camera is the receiver... So if you cover the receiver it's not like you are gonna be recording anyway.

PROTIP: turn on the camera on your phone, then point the emitter of an IR remote (such as TV remote) at the lens. Press a button and see the magic!

Re:Easy Fix

[HTH NE1]

PROTIP: turn on the camera on your phone, then point the emitter of an IR remote (such as TV remote) at the lens. Press a button and see the magic!

That is in fact useful for determining whether it is your remote or the IR sensor in the device that has gone bad before investing in a replacement remote (particularly if it is a Sony device).

Re:Easy Fix

[perryizgr8]

the ir is detected by the camera itself, i think.

Re:Easy Fix

[perryizgr8]

the ir signals are probably gonna be coded in a specific apple(tm) way. otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell blocking devices to establishments.

Re:Easy Fix

[gatkinso]

Nope. The IR sensor is integrated into the camera CCD.

counter-measure is simple

[MoFoQ]

use an infrared filter to block messages from these "sensors"

Re:counter-measure is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better: don't buy an iPhone.

Re:counter-measure is simple

[TheRedSeven]

A) Infrared is line of sight, so if it's a separate sensor, you stick a piece of metallic duct tape over it, and problem is solved.
B) Companies will begin selling small dots of IR filtering tape that you can stick on the lens of the camera. Price is $5 for a sheet. Problem is solved.

It seems that no matter the implementation of this, the workaround is trivial.

Re:counter-measure is simple

[perryizgr8]

the camera sensor itself will be the ir sensor. ir pulses will be decoded from the incoming camera image.

Re:counter-measure is simple

[BradleyUffner]

the camera sensor itself will be the ir sensor. ir pulses will be decoded from the incoming camera image.

Not if there is a piece of IR filtering tape over the camera as the OP mentioned in Option B. The IR will be blocked, but visible light will be allowed through to the camera.

Re:counter-measure is simple

[djdanlib]

I suppose so. You can't just get a blanket IR filter - what frequency would you have to block, and can you easily come by such a filter? I'm pretty sure Wratten filters for iPhone don't exist :)

I read TFA, which was on Fox "News" and it had nothing to do with the Times, btw... nice job, editors.

Re:counter-measure is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Simpler than that; Duct tape to the rescue again.

That's why I don't own a iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they're lighter, thinner, slicker, etc.
My phone shouldn't try to restrict me.

Re:That's why I don't own a iPhone

[jellomizer]

My phone shouldn't prevent me from taking a movie... So I will buy a phone that cannot take movies, as it is not restricting me from making movies.

Re:That's why I don't own a iPhone

[Tasha26]

No worries, Geohotz is here!

Re:That's why I don't own a iPhone

[node 3]

Even if they're lighter, thinner, slicker, etc.
My phone shouldn't try to restrict me.

You don't own an iPhone because of patents for something that it doesn't even do?

Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has none.

Re:Freedom?

[jojoba_oil]

Apple has none.

Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.

Re:Freedom?

[node 3]

Apple has none.

Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.

You may be surprised to hear this, but I am writing this of my on volition on an Apple product. Amazing, right?!

Apple customers choose to buy Apple products voluntarily and knowingly. Apple can't do this if their products offend the user's sense of self-determination.

I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every police car will have one installed by the end of the year.

Re:I predict...

[node 3]

Every police car will have one installed by the end of the year.

Why? To block imaginary iPhones that have this feature? Because no existing iPhone does, and there's no reason to expect a future iPhone to have this either.

this is great for law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

so when will police start wearing a device that sends out IR that stops devices from recording?

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[mlts]

Actually, when will crooks start wearing the camera-stopper device? I'm sure people robbing a 7-11 wouldn't want to be spied on by random passerbys.

When technologies like this get out there, it won't just be the PD that uses them, the crooks will be using them to, so there is no footage at a murder scene.

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[Thud457]

this + this = paparazzi-proof . Sell 'em to celebs for $2500 a pop.

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[ColdWetDog]

Hey. Cool place (MPJA, not Amazon). More junk! Thanks.

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[Monchanger]

You gotta love how people take something and blow it completely out of proportion simply for outrage effect.

The cameras used for CCTV or at your convenience store are NOT GOING TO USE THIS PATENT. A surveillance device has no reason to implement a camera-disabling mechanism. If you buy one that does or you're a criminal who assumes an infrared signal is going to save your ass, you're a blithering idiot.

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[History's Coming To]

It's easy enough to do (and people make a fortune selling larger versions of this to rich people with yachts):

You're looking for a laser beacon - a bog standard IR laser diode with a mirror that spins to disperse the beam 360 degrees. It'll overload the CCD in cameras and leave them overexposed. Doesn't work with old school film cameras.

Re:this is great for law enforcement

[mlts]

This isn't to say that a criminal wouldn't use this in places where the main photographs would be pictures from phones taken.

All I'm stating is that it will become a standard part of a criminal's attire, with the ski mask and gloves. It won't stop everything, but if it keeps Joe Witness from snapping shots with his smartphone, the criminal is successful.

What if there's a crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if there's a crime and you want to use the camera for identifying those involved?

Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[Anonymous Coward]

And all they need is a software patch to detect whether or not the sensor is covered, after all it is a sensor, and disable the camera if the sensor is covered.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[Jason Levine]

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[gstoddart]

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

By putting this in the CCD that is the thing that takes the actual picture? If you do that, 'blocking' the filter means you block the lens.

Remember, these are digital cameras, so you do all of this stuff behind the lens. It's not like they're going to build a separate sensor which can be spoofed/blocked.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[Digital Vomit]

The iPhone 5 will have tape sensors around the IR sensors.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[panikfan]

How would you tell the difference (in software) between "no infrared signal because I'm not in a movie theater" and "no infrared signal because I am in a movie theater and someone put tape over the sensor"?

Or, no infrared signal because my finger is in the way...

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[creat3d]

Apple says you'd be holding it wrong.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[myurr]

So then someone invents an iPhone case with an IR filter covering the lens.

No, the only solution is to reverse the system and install IR signals everywhere that you're allowed to take photo's with the camera refusing to take pictures unless you have the express permission of the venues owner.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[Riceballsan]

if the sensor also can detect visible light?, very few situations involve filming in absolute pitch darkness.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[dgatwood]

And we'd build giant, terawatt IR emitters to blanket the entire world outdoors? Why do I have the feeling you haven't thought this one through....

Please tell me you're kidding.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[NevarMore]

I think we already have one of those. It rises in the east every morning.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[ByOhTek]

Aye, but Apple is unlikely to implement a patch.

Apples record shows them to be control freaks, but standard in a way. They want all the control for themselves, however any control they don't have, their first choice seem to be to give it to their users, not 3rd parties. At worst, they usually make some easy to get around 'fix' to make the 3rd parties happy, at best, they fight the 3rd parties (i.e. eventually allowing some DRM-free music from iTunes)

I can't see Apple bending over for the movie theaters (or at least, doing it without finding some way to laugh at the movie theater's idiocy). They are in the business of making others bending over, not themselves...

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[Sperbels]

Why is that? The CCDs used for the camera--while sensitive to IR--cannot distinguish between IR and visible wavelengths without expensive/additional camera hardware that serves little purpose. Not to mention the IR would have to be pulsed in a way so that you know the source of the light is one of the anti recording signals...the phone would have to do some heavy processing of each pixel to determine if there are any IR light sources pulsing in that manner...and the CCD may not even be acquiring an image fast enough to make this determination. Conclusion, the CCD is probably the wrong tool for the job. An IR detector is.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[PitaBred]

Shit. Posting to undo my modding. Meant to hit funny, accidentally hit overrated :(

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[tibit]

Wait a minute. The CMOS (not CCD IIRC) image sensor in the iPhone samples very, very slowly. At 30Hz, tops. The signal, to avoid problems with interference from flashing incandescents, etc, must be much faster than that. Think kilohertz. Probably the transmitter in the venue use standard 30-something kHz carrier used by remotes. You cannot sense this with a general purpose CMOS image sensor. You need a dedicated photodiode. Now of course they may go crazy and integrate a beam splitter in front of the image sensor to grab light for the diode, so that if you blind the photodiode, the image sensor is blinded too. This may add too much cost, though, so I'd think they'd slap the photodiode right next to the camera, but not in its optical path.

One thing I worry about is what sort of a transmitter optical power you need to make it reliably work. You don't want to scorch the retinas of someone who uses binoculars, for example. For that matter, there are binoculars with photo and video recording built in, even ones that look like old fashioned theater binocs ;)

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[nospam007]

I would like it to detect being in a movie theater and then disable the _screen_, not the camera.
Then at least I could watch my movie in peace and as an additional benefit, it's almost impossible to film the movie without screen.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[jellomizer]

The people of New Hampshire?

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[lostfayth]

Tell that to any of us who have done street photography. Not nearly as difficult as it sounds, though it takes a bit of practice it isn't nearly as difficult as it sounds.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[HTH NE1]

And that's why when you patent an interdiction technology, you should also patent the method for defeating that technology. That way you can sue everyone for infringement.

BTW, TiVo stumbled upon something similar accidentally. A Series2 or earlier TiVo that needs to control an external tuner via IR cannot not do so if it is being exposed to infrared light. It delays sending the signal until the common IR signaling bus is clear. So if you had IR remote repeaters that were prone to RF interference, you might not record what you had intended. Since it was the TiVo being affected, not the cable box, no amount of tenting the cable box would help. (One recording of mine didn't change the channel for 55 minutes, so I only caught the last 5 minutes of the program.) This however wouldn't qualify as prior art.

Re:Software patch for "Easy Fix"

[dgatwood]

Awesome. Now we just have to figure out how to modulate its emissions....

The real counter measure

[itchythebear]

Don't buy an iphone if this bothers you.

I like a lot of apple products, but in this case I think i'll pass on the new iphone.

Re:The real counter measure

[flaming error]

Ok, I won't buy one.

But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?

Re:The real counter measure

[Haedrian]

Don't worry, as the title says:

"A patent application"

So nobody can copy them for around 17-20 years or how long the patent is. So we're safe for now.

Re:The real counter measure

[jimmerz28]

Don't worry it'll never come to that.

It'll be illegal to film police period.

Re:The real counter measure

[tlhIngan]

The nice thing with this patent is it requires an IR transmitter. What about using visible light? Or RF? Or a coded audio signal? Or ... ?

Imagine everyone having this technology, but implementing them in patent-avoiding incompatible ways. Then any way to disable the camera would require a whole rack of equipment to be carried around.

Nevermind all the legacy equipment that'll be incompatible with it (when this comes out, the iPhone 4 will be out of support - it won't get this stuff), etc.

Of course, it could very well be the plan - make it so inconvenient to carry around a rack of equipment to disable cameras that all recordings should still be allowed. Or maybe Apple's got holdings in film companies (ye olde film camera still works today)...

Re:The real counter measure

[itchythebear]

I was referring to people who were discussing various methods to circumvent the "feature". Which is why I suggested they just buy a different product that doesn't have such a stupid feature.

If police are taking advantage of the technology like you describe then the solution isn't to ban companies from making the effected product (people are not forced into buying the product). The solution would be to make it illegal for the police to do that in the first place.

But yes, I would very much like the average citizen to be able to document cases of police brutality.

Re:The real counter measure

[amicusNYCL]

But 5 million others will, and if something of public interest is going on, say police brutality, and they try to record it with their camera phone, but it's been disabled, say, by police IR equipment, that kind of affects us all, doesn't it?

Don't worry about it, it's not like we live in an iPhone-only society. The recent police shooting in Florida that made the news after it was filmed and the photographer was arrested was filmed using an HTC Evo, not an iPhone. There are enough people with non-Apple smartphones that make it so that anything that Apple does does not have the wide-ranging impact that everyone fears. Apple is just limiting its own customers, not everyone else. For now, anyway.

Re:The real counter measure

[flaming error]

> The solution would be to make it illegal for the police to do that

1) Whoever wrote that law would commit political suicide.
2) Enforcing a law against the enforcers of the law can be difficult.
3) At a time when SCOTUS shreds the Constitution into hamster bedding by repealing Miranda rights, allowing police to enter without a warrant and without knocking, allowing the feds wholesale warrantless surveillance of the entire citizenry, of what use is any law?

Re:The real counter measure

[ackthpt]

My extremely stupid Motorola phone will record everything Steve Jobs is afraid of.

Bwah ha ha haaaah!

Re:The real counter measure

[cayenne8]

The recent police shooting in Florida that made the news after it was filmed and the photographer was arrested was filmed using an HTC Evo, not an iPhone.

I'd not heard of this event.

Why was the photographer arrested?

Re:The real counter measure

[Combatso]

we could still protect ourselves the way we used to... before there we're iPhones... I don't recall Police Brutality stopping when the first iPhone dropped...

Re:The real counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people seem to misunderstand

It's not a new hardware feature. It's software. Apple can implement it on a phone you already own with a firmware update.

Re:The real counter measure

[geekoid]

No one can do i they way it was patent. That doesn't mean it can't be done some other way.

Re:The real counter measure

[jellomizer]

It is a PATENT not a FEATURE. Being that it is a Patent doesn't mean the new iPhone will or will ever have such a feature built in. So if you want the new iPhone check to see if it is a feature yet. Don't just go all whacked out because Apple is holding a patent.

Re:The real counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of what jumped out at me. Why patent something no user actually wants? Which company wants to license this device-crippling tech and which user wants it but won't buy an iPhone for it?

Re:The real counter measure

[Hognoxious]

Probably failure to obey a lawful order and resisting arrest, i.e. nothing.

I believe he was charged with illegal wiretapping, even though there could be no expectation of privacy and there was no wire.

Re:The real counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

How does the fact that it's patented help? All the patent does is ensure that Apple can collect license fees from camera manufactures after governments make the possession of any phone without such technology built in illegal. For "national security" purposes, of course.

Re:The real counter measure

[amicusNYCL]

There's an article that includes the video here:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/flor-j11.shtml

I've also seen a top-down video online somewhere taken from one the tall buildings around the intersection.

Re:The real counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Or make it illegal to use anything but iPhones in demonstrations.

Re:The real counter measure

[tepples]

Or maybe Apple's got holdings in film companies

When The Walt Disney Company bought Pixar Animation Studios, Steve Jobs became Disney's largest individual shareholder.

Re:The real counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if most vendors got pressured into implementing this technology, and then having a camera without this technology was considered evidence of intent to commit copyright infringement.

that's where Apple is going with this.

Re:The real counter measure

[bloodhawk]

IA : "Officier why did you disable those iphones from filming the incident"
Officer : "Wasn't me, I know I am not allowed to do that, must have been someone else trying to get me in trouble"
IA : "Oh ok, your free to go then"

I know if I was an cop I would carry one with me, try proving it was me that disabled them without actually catching me in the act with the device. In today's litigation happy society they would be fools not to carry one.

Maybe it's a preventative patent

[Anonymous Coward]

To keep other people from doing it...legally.

Dupe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Already covered two weeks ago: in this story

Do the "editors" even read Slashdot anymore?

Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

with electrical tape. or IR filtering plastic, or sitting out of sight of the IR transmitters....

Next up in Instructables and on Ebay

[Wrath0fb0b]

Camera-disabling sensors and signaling for everyone! Apple might win a court case on distributing the devices but a PDF of the plans and some software isn't really injunction-able.

I don't see any reason not to put one of these on my house, car, bike and sweater either. It's the ultimate in privacy!

Re:Next up in Instructables and on Ebay

[Rainer]

A few of those might accidentally shake loose when you pass well known tourist locations...

Enjoy your

[geekoid]

fenced* garden.

*Fenced because some other players are allowed in.

Re:Enjoy your

[betterunixthanunix]

Hm...a "garden" surrounded by a fence, patrolled by a team of guards, and in which a select few people are allowed to come in for "visits." I think I have heard of real-life examples of such a set up, although people don't usually live in such facilities voluntarily.

Re:Enjoy your

[itchythebear]

ohhhhhh, I see what you're insinuating. The iPhone is like a golf course... Although I don't know if I'd refer to beverage cart girls as guards, you must be playing golf at a different country club than me.

Re:Enjoy your

[UnknowingFool]

No but many people work in such facilities where camera phones are forbidden. Also some places like bathrooms where you would not want cameras to work

Re:Enjoy your

[MonsterTrimble]

Bin Laden did as I recall. Of course he was a whack job and was the most wanted man on the planet.

Re:Enjoy your

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Thanks! I had to fence it to keep the neighbour's dog from eating my tomatoes.

Re:Enjoy your

[NevarMore]

Also some places like bathrooms where you would not want cameras to work

The admins of http://ratemypoo.com/ will be coming over to speak with you shortly.

Re:Enjoy your

[Anonymous Coward]

fenced* garden.

*Fenced because some other players are allowed in.

I will. But doing so here's some things I can't enjoy: Another wave of malware apps removed from an app store; An open source OS that isn't being released; Being held hostage by a carrier who won't release a vendor patch or upgrade; Native at rest encryption.

I don't care that every bush looks like Jobs. That's why I have a dog.

Apple Favoring Corps?

[ctrimm]

Apple favoring corps over users. Gee, didn't see that one coming.

Re:Apple Favoring Corps?

[just_another_sean]

Or even scarier, Apple favoring Cops over users.

My question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Why buy a device that gives control to OTHERS ?
Very soon, we'll all be REQUIRED to buy APPROVED devices, ie those that keep us safe from ourselves . . .
For our own benefit . . .
Maybe Apple was the machine in that 1984 commercial . . .

Seems a bit overly complex

[Zouden]

Why detect the iPhone? Wouldn't it make more sense to constantly emit the infra-red signal so that it affects all iPhones?

Re:Seems a bit overly complex

[Anonymous Coward]

This would make an awesome andriod app.

Re:Seems a bit overly complex

[QuasiSteve]

Wouldn't it make more sense to constantly emit the infra-red signal so that it affects all iPhones?

Wouldn't it make even more sense to just use a high power broad-spectrum IR emitter element in the projector and ruin the picture for practically all video recording equipment that doesn't run well into the thousands of dollars to block the IR completely?

Or maybe it makes even more sense to just ignore the people who are recording a movie off a theater screen even if they use an Arri cam to do so, as the quality is always crappy enough that most downloaders are going to wait for a screener/R5 rip or better anyway?

Instead, of the last 3 movies I went to, 2 had warnings about recording equipment before the movie started; it was like watching a comedy, so amused the audience was - one of them recording a part (first 5 minutes or so) of the movie with, indeed, an iPhone - while at the same time annoyed that they would have to even be bothered with such a message at all.

Re:Seems a bit overly complex

[toriver]

Select Android phones with IR transmitters? ANDROID FRAGMENTATION ALERT!

Worry when the government starts mandating it

[MobyDisk]

The police will love it once this is mandated by law in all phones!

Back in the day when we all whined that Microsoft was evil, we had *NO IDEA* what evil really was.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[KDN]

Hm, I sense an aftermarket for infrared filters. I also wonder how long before hackers start leaving infrared transmitters all over the place to annoy anyone with an iphone.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

I also wonder how long before hackers start leaving infrared transmitters all over the place to annoy anyone with an iphone.

It depends on when I get the specs on the signal the phone is looking for, and whether Digi-Key has the needed parts in stock. I'm guessing about a week, mostly for the former.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day when we all whined that Microsoft was evil, we had *NO IDEA* what evil really was.

You're right. Any claim that companies like Microsoft, Apple, or Google are evil shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of what evil is.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

The police will love it once this is mandated by law in all phones!

Back in the day when we all whined that Microsoft was evil, we had *NO IDEA* what evil really was.

IF the law mandates this tech, it's not Apple's (or Microsoft's, or Nokia's, or Motorola's, or RIM's) fault.

It's ours, for putting the clowns in office.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree! Can't we get a BORG version of Jobs?

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember those throwable LED's? Now add in IR LED's!

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really think Apple is evil, maybe you should try living in under the government in Syria or lack of government in Afghanistan for awhile. You, and more importantly, Apple, knows perfectly well that any attempt to implement this will result in a mass exodus of paying customers. "You should buy our phone because it will not allow you to film something that someone else doesn't like" is hardly a selling point. More likely they're using it to ensure contracts with the media industry, or possibly just to keep others from doing the same thing. And another thing, Microsoft used its monopoly status to hinder innovation in the market. If you don't buy Apple products, you have a number of other options that you could buy instead.
 
As an aside, I'd almost forgotten how ridiculously paranoid and downright bizarre slashdot has become, but every time I dare to navigate here and even more to read the comments, I get a hard lesson.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[guspasho]

I know, right? When MS does it, it's anticompetitive, when Apple does it, it's "vertical integration" and they have an "interest in maintaining the quality of the ecosystem".

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Gonoff]

But if we all use Android, anyone who feels strongly about it can have the module disabled.

Everyone else can just get an IR filter for their phone,

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[sl4shd0rk]

Back in the day when we all whined that Microsoft was evil, we had *NO IDEA* what evil really was.

Not true. A lot of people cautioned on the evils of vendor lock-in, monopolies, and strong-arm business tactics back in the 90s. Problem was, the Windows crowd didn't want to hear it. Same thing, different era.

Re:Worry when the government starts mandating it

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if "Airplane Mode" would disable what ever radio receiver would instruct the shutdown of the camera?

So could a person wear one?

[davidiii]

Maybe, say a, a cop?

Off-topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Has there been a day in the recent years when there was no iphone story on slashdot?

DUPE

[arielCo]

Apple Camera Patent Lets External Transmitters Disable Features
Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 03, @10:31AM

Maaan ...

Wheres the innovation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just not seeing it. Anybody can do that, and is an obvious solution. Maybe I should get hired as a patent examiner. It seems like anybody can do it, and if you screw up, there isn't any liability. Sounds like a good job.

easy to disable?

[Anonymous Coward]

this might not actually be a additional sensor on the phone. infared light will show up on the camera. it may not just be an issue of blocking a sensor to disable it

Fair Use?

[erroneus]

On its face, it is easy to imagine how this could infringe upon fair use rights among others. For example, if there was some person doing something annoying or funny or illegal or whatever and it happens to be in a theater, you should be able to record it for your purposes, needs or requirements. The fact that it is in a movie theater should not trump all other uses and needs.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you crazy? You already paid to watch the movie, concert, whatever, so you are going to be bombarded with anti-piracy ads, messages, threats, suspicions and now this and like it!

Bad for more than just iPhone users

[macwhizkid]

Those darn infrared sensors ruin my day when I'm at a concert and need to transfer data with my IrDA port on my PowerBook 5300. I've been thinking about upgrading to 802.11a, but I've never really thought of myself as an early adopter and I'm really upset that Apple pulls these stunts to make us upgrade all the time.

Wouldn't it be easier

[codewarren]

Wouldn't it be easier to just project a big infrared "COUNTERFEIT" or "VOID" across the thing to be protected? Then it works for all cameras (that pick up IR which is all small cameras)

Re:Wouldn't it be easier

[dotgain]

Given the quality of cinema captures I've seen, I can't see this making an appreciable difference.

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[sandytaru]

Just hold your thumb over the sensor, that should work.

Filming? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we all please stop using the word "Filming" when referencing digital video recording? There is no film involved anywhere. Unless you're a Hollywood DP or an "artiste" making an art school film, no one "films" anything anymore (and haven't for about 15 or 20 years.)

That is all.

Bad idea ...

[gstoddart]

Yes, this story is obviously a dupe.

But I think as soon as we start making such devices so they are geared to have copyright (and whim) enforced upon you, it's a bad thing.

Sooner or later, governments or police will be sure that you can't film them doing things they don't want by blanketing the place in IR that says "no recording". And, really, this will be abused both domestically, and abroad. Having the ability to shut off recording devices remotely is a horrible idea.

This is caving in way too much, and continues the trend that sooner or later we won't be able to have general purpose computers because rights-holders figure they're all going to be used to steal their stuff.

Re:Bad idea ...

[girlintraining]

Umm, has anyone bothered to consider that this could be disabled by placing a small piece of tape over the sensor? Just saying...

Re:Bad idea ...

[Microlith]

People think that Apple is some hero for convincing the media companies to release DRM-free AAC files, but you don't have to look hard to see that they're big friends of the media companies and will happily push DRM if it suits them.

Re:Bad idea ...

[Duradin]

Just an FYI, Amazon got DRM free MP3s, from the media companies, to counter the powerhouse, even with DRM, that iTMS had become. So you can thank Apple for your DRM-free *legal* MP3 files.

Apple does what they have to do to get content and then, once they have leverage, pushes the providers to get rid of DRM. You really think Apple wants the hassle of DRM? Obviously a rhetorical question there.

Re:Bad idea ...

[drinkypoo]

If it's the same sensor used for light metering and/or AF then that's not a working solution. Just saying...

Alternately it could just be behind the same window, then it would take surgery to disable it.

Re:Bad idea ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse is that the concept of civil vs. criminal illegality will becomes blurred beyond justifiable common sense. Is patent or copyright violation really equivalent to physical harm, armed robbery, or the like? That's exactly where this is heading, and the penalties will be on par or worse for those who violate these 'legislated rights'.

There's a breaking point that society will not tolerate with regard to such unjust control of simple daily life and social interaction. I do not enjoy the thought of how we will react, nor expect it to be civil.

I know what I'm building

[Anonymous Coward]

A portable IR rig that I wear on all my clothing. As bright as I can make it, broadcasting the signal to not record. I will thus create my own, wandering, IR-protected bubble where recording is prohibited.

I'll make it a point to go to museums, concerts, public gatherings, and scenic tourist spots.

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[bbeagle]

What if the sensor is inside the lens?

You guys have it all wrong

[0xdeadbeef]

This technology is a Hammer of Freedom thrown at the screen to prevent your phone from being indoctrinated by Big Content. Apple is always looking out for your interests, which the haters just don't understand.

Jobs should call Gates

[CLaRGe]

Gates understood, according to his testimony in the Clinton Justice Dept case, that it only takes one mistake to wipe a company out. This comes right on the heels of the location scare. This could blow up into "next they'll shutdown cameras during a Rodney King beating", and iPhone becomes the Brave New World gateway device.

AAPL must come out quickly and deal with this, otherwise this news could send customers and devs right into Android's welcoming arms.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[gstoddart]

This could blow up into "next they'll shutdown cameras during a Rodney King beating", and iPhone becomes the Brave New World gateway device.

And, given that I'm one of the people saying that ... I personally fail to see how this technology wouldn't be abused.

Apparently, you can't publish pictures of the friggin' Eiffel tower, because some company owns the copyright on the lighting. Concert promoters will be all over this. Fireworks. Buildings. Public art. Free Speech Zones. Governments who have no qualms abusing their people (ok, that's all of them).

As someone who tends to carry a camera around an awful lot, the idea that someone else can disable that is a little worrying ... if I'm in public, and if I can see it, I'm entitled to take a picture of it. I don't give a damn that some idiot asserts he owns the copyright to a building ... I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences.

Sure, Apple can use this to negotiate better deals on iTunes. But, speaking as someone who actually owns some Apple products ... if they think I'm going to accept a limitation on when I can use my camera, they're horribly wrong.

This just puts too much power in the hands of people who I don't place any trust in.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[Registered Coward v2]

Apparently, you can't publish pictures of the friggin' Eiffel tower, because some company owns the copyright on the lighting. Concert promoters will be all over this. Fireworks. Buildings. Public art. Free Speech Zones. Governments who have no qualms abusing their people (ok, that's all of them).

First of all, it's the SNTE; and the copyright may be valid in France but not necessarily elsewhere. As for publishing pictures, it's the commercial use that would be limited.

As someone who tends to carry a camera around an awful lot, the idea that someone else can disable that is a little worrying ... if I'm in public, and if I can see it, I'm entitled to take a picture of it. I don't give a damn that some idiot asserts he owns the copyright to a building ... I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences.

You can certainly take the picture (except for a few rare exceptions) - it's how you use it and the composition that comes into play when deciding if it's a copyright violation. It partly boils down to how significant is the copyrighted image in your photo - you couldn't take a picture of a copyrighted object where the object is basically the picture; and how you use it - and then use it commercially. Your snapshots are safe.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[gstoddart]

It partly boils down to how significant is the copyrighted image in your photo - you couldn't take a picture of a copyrighted object where the object is basically the picture; and how you use it - and then use it commercially. Your snapshots are safe.

Sadly, I've heard numerous stories about security guards telling people they can't photograph a building or a piece of art.

How much of that is legal and now much is rent-a-cops trying to enforce a policy which is utterly indefensible, I don't know. But, security guards (and even police) have been known to assert than you have to delete the pictures from your memory card despite that being patently untrue. You pretty much need to know how to navigate that and say "wow, fascinating" and walk away from them. I've known people who have had to tell rent-a-cops that if they actually lay hands on their person, they will be charged with assault -- some times they mistakenly believe they can compel you to delete the pictures they believe they're entitled to prevent you from taking.

But, the assholes who would abuse this technology to disable photography of stuff they don't want you to take pictures of ... they won't care so much about the niceties of it. They'll just blanket everything.

I just find it obscene that the SNTE feels they can take a 120 year old landmark, and copyright the lighting on it and have any legal standing for anything. It's stupid and a gross violation of what copyright is intended for.

And, it's one of those things where they claim to be able to confer obligations onto me without me actually being involved ... as much as possible, I ignore those. So, I hereby claim that all people driving on the road near me owe me money ... because it's about as sensible as saying you own the copyrights to all night-time pictures of the Eiffel Tower.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[binary paladin]

" I'm not copying the building, I'm taking a picture of my experiences."

Hmmm... maybe you should sue the owners of the building for taking part in your experiences!

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[gstoddart]

Hmmm... maybe you should sue the owners of the building for taking part in your experiences!

No, but in this context, I just think copyright is totally mis-applied. You don't want me to be able to see and photograph your building? Don't put it in public. :-P

If it's visible from blocks away, and all over the place ... can you really assert copyright on it? And, is taking an image of its likeness a copy? Once it becomes part of the skyline, well, that's why companies pay to put logos on them.

Taking picture of a building is not depriving them of use of the building, nor is it depriving them of any revenue. It mostly means you get a bunch of idiots trying to tell tourists they can't photograph something due to copyright restrictions.

And, really, I also just don't get why it makes any sense to be able to prevent me from making money off my picture of the building if it's an especially cool shot. That would be like saying I can't photograph the Chrysler building or the Sears Tower or the Golden Gate bridge or the Atlantic Ocean or Hoover Dam ... I just don't understand how copyright law is even applicable here. The object is not being copied, and I'm not using the picture to create my own copy of the building.

In fact, photography of a building which is visible from public places to me seems like exactly the kind of exceptions we should be explicitly preserving.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[Archwyrm]

It partly boils down to how significant is the copyrighted image in your photo - you couldn't take a picture of a copyrighted object where the object is basically the picture; and how you use it - and then use it commercially.

What if I run a site that links to a site that links to this guy's pictures of copyrighted works? Will I get extradited to Guantanamo Bay?

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] the copyright may be valid in France but not necessarily elsewhere [...]

So if the Eiffel Tower ever leaves France, I can take a picture of it? Or if I'm not in France but, say, sitting off the coast with a really really good telephoto lens, I'm good?

Well, I'm sure that we can trust that the people who would block this would have appropriate "country codes" built in so that, as an American, I can take a picture of the Eiffel Tower but a Frenchman cannot.

Re:Jobs should call Gates

[yeshuawatso]

Copyright law doesn't prevent you from taking a picture of something. A sculpture can have a copyright to it, but if I take a picture of the sculpture, the picture is mine. It is original content. I chose the angle, the focus, even lighting if possible. Furthermore, lights are a function and therefore cannot be copyrighted (look up the "useful article doctrine"). Now, the Eiffel Tower is in France, so their copyright laws may differ; however, in the USA, pictures are an original expression and therefore are copyright-able (I would find the case law for reference, but it alludes me right now).

this is why i dont buy Apple

[FudRucker]

they are so damn sycophantic its pathetic, i dont want some over-priced crappy phone obeying big brother

Re:this is why i dont buy Apple

[creat3d]

My phone cost me less than 75$ CAD (that's about 20$ for you yankees) and it does wonders for me, such as making calls, receiving calls, etc... It also takes pictures and serves as my mp3 player! Yeah I know, I'm really missing out on all those great apps but someway, somehow, my life is unaffected by not owning one of 'em geniusphones. Hopefully, someday, I will be able to afford so high a price for a fucking phone... might as well get oversized hipster glasses to go along with it!

Re:this is why i dont buy Apple

[geekoid]

A) 75 CAN is 76 US.
B) We can get an iPhone for 49 dollars. albeit previous gen.

C) I paid 99 dollars for my Nexus S, and I get 119 in credit at Best Buy when I turn it in.
  D) It is incredibly useful to me.

Re:this is why i dont buy Apple

[creat3d]

A) I was making a joke about your economy. B) I didn't know that, still don't want one. C) Good for you. D) Good for you!

You know what this means . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . politicians will start wearing camera-disabling gear except when attending authorized photo-ops.

D.C. area strip clubs will proudly tout their camera-disablers.

Soon to be installed on law enforcement vehicles

[crakbone]

Mainly in Florida, Boston and Compton, California

Re:Filming? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Words change meaning, bro. Although actually in this case "film" as a verb never meant to record onto film specifically, at least according to MW:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/film?show=1&t=1308241787

How the mighty is falling...

[GodfatherofSoul]

"The hipsters outside looked from Windows to Mac and from Mac to Windows, but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Re:How the mighty is falling...

[amicusNYCL]

Eh.. not so much. Windows is the more free and open one.

I know, it sounds weird to me too.

Re:How the mighty is falling...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linux then stepped behind the hipsters, clapped his hands on their shoulders, and exclaimed 'So, may I be of assistance?'"

Re:How the mighty is falling...

[toriver]

So, which parts of Windows are open source? Most parts of Mac OS X are, except a small number of features like the Aqua user interface. Does Windows ship with GCC etc. like Mac OS X does?

Re:How the mighty is falling...

[pnot]

For my part, I became suspicious when they dropped the "one button good, three buttons bad" mantra.

Re:How the mighty is falling...

[amicusNYCL]

Windows doesn't ship with GCC, due to the fact that roughly 99.99% of computer users don't know what it is. But don't worry, because anyone who knows what GCC even is in the first place also knows how to get it. Or one of the other compilers for Windows, for that matter.

But I can say with a decent level of certainty that Windows will never require you to install applications only from "trusted sources", such as a store run by Microsoft, where all applications get approved by Microsoft. I can't say the same for OS X with any certainty.

You're also allowed to buy a copy of Windows and install it on any machine you damn well please. Not the case with OS X, sorry, you're not free to do that with your largely open-source OS that comes with GCC. That's OK though, because "most" of it is open source, and it comes with GCC. Right? Or, wait: you wouldn't install it on any non-Apple hardware anyway, would you? Yeah, that's the ticket. You don't need freedom, because you wouldn't use it anyway. Good argument.

Re:Deja Vu

[Megane]

It's also being reported on The Sun and linked via Drudge.

Apparently someone just discovered this two-week-old non-news.

Maybe not so bad...

[Ken Hall]

Since Apple patented it, this means it doesn't (and theoretically can't) apply to anything but iPhones. So everyone else who has an Android, or Windows, or BB, or any other dumb camera phone is not only free, but PROHIBITED from having this "feature" unless the manufacturers license it from Apple.

Way to go, Apple, you just gave everyone one more reason NOT to buy an iPhone. I'm sure the theater owners will love installing a (probably) expensive IR gadget to catch the small percentage of camera phone owners who will be covered by it.

Re:Maybe not so bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of licensing? Big bucks in it for the patent holder I understand...

Re:Maybe not so bad...

[amicusNYCL]

So everyone else who has an Android, or Windows, or BB, or any other dumb camera phone is not only free, but PROHIBITED from having this "feature" unless the manufacturers license it from Apple.

It sounds good, until Apple bribes the government to make it a requirement for phone cameras. Then everyone else is required to license it from Apple, and Apple gets more money to think up new ways to limit their customers and then apply it to everyone else.

A Good Patent

[KPU]

This is dumb. Patenting it will prevent others from being dumb in a similar way.

Re:A Good Patent

[geekoid]

No. It will prevent them for doing it in the exact same way. There are dozens of other ways to do this sort of thing.

Re:A Good Patent

[ChefInnocent]

No, it's probably a brilliantly evil plan. Apple knows the MAFIAA has legions of lobbyists working to prevent "piracy". If they can convince the MAFIAA that this is a required technology, then other phone makers will be forced to either pay extortion fees to Apple, or put out of business since they will be unable to comply with federal law.

Re:A Good Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it smart? If it becomes government-mandated in all phones, Apple's going to make a pretty penny off the rights.

Re:A Good Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, all actions can go one way or another. If Apple uses this to say "We own this you can't use it." To which others say "But you're NOT using it..." and Apple says "We know, just trying to protect you from yourself you greedy bastard..."

Granted this is an altruistic outlook, I don't wish to negate the possibility.

Re:A Good Patent

[AnalogDiehard]

Macrovision (author of the copy protection system we all love) has a similar approach. In addition to patenting the protection scheme, they patent any alternate scheme or any circumvention scheme they can think of. They have used them to squash circumvention devices (such as DVD Decrypter) out of the market.

Re:Soon to be installed on law enforcement vehicle

[night_flyer]

and in "townhall" venues where politicians often make fools of themselves

Fuck Apple

[MacGyver2210]

Buying (or even finding and using) an iPhone is saying that Apple is right to do stupid shit like this. Please, please PLEASE be smart, and vote with your wallet.

The iPhone means no freedom to use your purchases as you want, and no avenue for recourse because "whatever they say, goes". Buy something else.

Re:Fuck Apple

[gilesjuk]

That's funny because almost all Apple software (bar the high end pro stuff) doesn't have licence keys, online activation and all the other crap Microsoft and others have forced on users over the years.

A patent is just protection on an idea, the idea may not be a good one but one that may eventually become a reality.

Re:Fuck Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying (or even finding and using) an iPhone is saying that Apple is right to do stupid shit like this. Please, please PLEASE be smart, and vote with your wallet.

The iPhone means no freedom to use your purchases as you want, and no avenue for recourse because "whatever they say, goes". Buy something else.

I did vote with my wallet, I bought an iPhone. I don't want to worry about viruses on my phone, I want a seamless user experience, and I wan't it to work well with my mac. No other phone on the market gave me those things. I am not saying the iPhone is better, just better for me. I don't really see how the way apple has set up the iphone ecosystem is any different than buying a game console, wether it is an X-Box, PS3 or Wiii. They all control what is allowed on their system. If you don't like it you can buy a computer. Same with cell phones, if you don't like it then you can buy and android phone, although even google is starting to tighten down on who is allowed to make android phones and what is allowed to be in their store, I think you will see them tighten down even more as time goes on.

In this case it is just a patent, so settle down. Companies pantent crap all the time that never sees the light of day. They may be patenting it to protect someone else from doing it. Take a deep breath, everything will be OK.

Re:Fuck Apple

[R3d M3rcury]

That's funny because almost all Apple software (bar the high end pro stuff) doesn't have licence keys, online activation and all the other crap Microsoft and others have forced on users over the years.

Uh...have you checked out the Mac App Store lately? That's the only way to get Apple software on your Mac...

Re:Fuck Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone means no freedom to use your purchases as you want

I'm using my iPhone purchases exactly as I want, thankyou.

What I don't want is for hackers to use my phone as they want

The very reason I bought the iPhone is because of the locked up app store.

Back on topic...

[cayenne8]

Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.

I don't want my electronic gadgets to be told what to do by other sources....I want it up to ME what I film and don't film,etc.

So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?

I mean, aside from the lameness of this, fixing a problem that isn't there....what about the abuses of this?

Re:Back on topic...

[netsharc]

No, customer.. you will take it up the butt because that's what the MAFIAA wants.

Isn't it also the fact that BluRay players need extra CPU power just because it has to decrypt the disc content, and probably re-encrypt it for the HDMI stream, which your display unit then needs to have CPU power to decrypt? Geez, I wonder who's paying for all that hardware?

Yeah... yet another confirmation Apple is working for the evil assholes.

Re:Back on topic...

[Scarletdown]

Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.

I don't want my electronic gadgets to be told what to do by other sources....I want it up to ME what I film and don't film,etc.

If you were a typical iPhone/Apple customer, would you even be considering questioning anything they implement in their products?

Re:Back on topic...

[icebike]

Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone?? Rather limiting I'd say.

 

Exactly so. What a huge sales disincentive.

Far be it from me to suggest Apple is doing something altruistic, but let me toss this out there:

Were they doing us all a favor by locking up this technology so that venues couldn't deploy it and/or demand it on all smart phones?

Seems vaguely possible, since without wide adoption in all handsets, this technology is useless, and won't be deployed anywhere. A patent is actually counter productive in the eyes of the venues and rights holders, as it limits the ability to deploy this.

Apple themselves would have little incentive to add yet another cripple feature in their phones considering that the competition would add no such thing. Unless Apple lobbied for smartphone exclusion zones, with the iPhone given a pass there would be no market incentive for this feature.

So why patent something that would be a huge sales disincentive if actually deployed?

Some middle eastern countries are cracking down on photos in public places, but I doubt they have a big enough market for this.

It makes no sense.

Re:Back on topic...

[Culture20]

You would be when you find out you cant take a picture of your friends at a venue. You would post a question to apple.com forums, and it would be deleted. You would then post another question, thinking you made a mistake posting the first one, and your forum account would be banned. Then you'd google the problem and find this and other articles.

Re:Back on topic...

[jellomizer]

1st. It would nice not to get a lawsuit for an innocent act, if the phone stopped you from doing it, you won't get in trouble for doing it.

2nt. It is a Patent not a Feature. How they use this patent is up to Apple. because of #1 I would be iffy if apple uses it, as it opened a wider can of worms, if the iPhone will stop you from doing an illegal act then who would be responsible for other illegal acts done by the phone... If Apple is going to be the guardian, then it may mean your safe. Apple may have no plan on using this feature, but they want the patent to prevent other from doing this, to make sure they done become better buddies with the recording industry then Apple is.

3rd.The Recording Industry can just as easy search you for recording devices before you enter, and if you have an approved device you can be let in.

       

Re:Back on topic...

[Sloppy]

Ok, and exactly WHY as a iPhone customer, would I want such 'feature' on my phone??

No reason, except that the fact that you bought an iPhone, is itself a statement that you desire electronics which serve other parties' interests in preference to your own.

The reminds me of peoples' complaints about Windows. A Windows 3.0 user probably deserves to be cut some slack when he bitches about it. Maybe an iPhone 1.0 user does too. But surely at some point, when certain properties of the platform are well-known (and arguable indirectly even parts of its marketing), people who buy it are implicitly consenting to -- nay, even choosing -- those properties.

iPhones consider the users' desires to be of secondary importance to certain other things. You know this before you buy one. You know that you are not allowed to run certain types of applications if Apple or Apple's partners feel is it contrary to their interests for you to do that.

If that sounds bad, one way people look at it (which I think is horrible but I sort of see the point of view), is that your impulsive desires may conflict with your rational interests. (If Apple were to allow you to make a VoIP call over a certain cell network whose contracts with users prohibit that, that would eventually get the users in trouble with that provider, or otherwise result in the provider increasing their rates. If Apple were to allow you to use your camera in theaters, the theater might call the cops on you.) By denying you the capability to offend other parties, they're keeping you out of conflict.

(You must remember that we have always been at war with Eurasia. If you sometimes mistakenly feel an impulse to claim otherwise, isn't it in the interests of truth and accuracy that your mistake be censored, until you have time to catch it yourself? It's really for your own good that you have someone helping you do what you really want.)

But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others). If you buy it anyway, then you're actively taking a postition in favor of that behavior. Claiming ignorance of this property of iPhones, is like claiming ignorance of Windows' friendliness to malware.

If someone says they don't know that iPhones have this sort of relationship with their users, I find that far-fetched, but I guess I can't contradict what someone else claims to have in their head. But let's get serious: how many more years of this, before it is reasonable to expect people to be aware, and call them careless and negligent (rather than innocent victims) if they continue to maintain they don't know? We eventually need to draw a line.

So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?

They will not be preventing the general public from recording them; they will be preventing Apple customers from recording them, thereby keeping cops from feeling like they have to go over to the Apple customer and beat them too and stomp on their phone. This means that if you buy Apple products, you will have a more harmonious relationship with authorities. (I don't know whether to put a smiley after that last sentence or not, as I'm being both sarcastic and sincere at the same time.)

Re:Back on topic...

[houghi]

Why? Because it is an iPhone. More explanation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

Re:Back on topic...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Well... on the flip side, couldn't you wear an IR thing to prevent people from photographing you?

Re:Back on topic...

[wiedzmin]

Ok, and exactly WHY as a customer, would I want an iPhone?? Rather limiting I'd say.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Back on topic...

[Runaway1956]

In how many places, at how many times, can it be "illegal" to snap a photo, or to record a video? Jello - you sound almost as if you've been drinking some funny flavored Kool-Aid.

I have NEVER considered whether it might, or might not, be legal to snap a photo. Well - maybe I fib, just a little. Cameras were forbidden around certain armaments in the Navy. So, I took no photos of weapons systems. Other than that - I took just as many pics as I could afford to have developed!!

Re:Back on topic...

[smooth wombat]

In how many places, at how many times, can it be "illegal" to snap a photo, or to record a video?

Concerts (unless told otherwise), Smithsonian exhibits (flag, first lady dresses, similar other exhibits), museums for certain exhibits, shall I go on.

Movie theaters are not public places. They are private places which allow the public in subject to certain rules. Not taking a video of a movie is one of those rules.

Re:Back on topic...

[timster]

No reason, except that the fact that you bought an iPhone, is itself a statement that you desire electronics which serve other parties' interests in preference to your own.

This is such a misguided statement that I don't even know where to start. You really aren't thinking that through.

I think the problem here is that Slashdotters are always comparing Apple's successful mass-market products and services to some Stallman-esque ideal service that doesn't exist -- or, worse, falling for some transparent marketing (like thinking the PS3 was a great console because it "ran Linux").

In the case of the iPhone, it's worth remembering the cell phone market that existed before iPhone 1.0. Those devices were entirely beholden to the interests of your cell phone provider. If they had an app store (and many did) it would be controlled by your provider. If they could play music, your provider would determine where you could get that music from. Your phone would be loaded up with crapware out of the box, again controlled by your provider.

For typical users the iPhone is way more open than the previous situation. iTunes allows music from virtually any source and any music you buy there will work on any modern device. Although there are restrictions on the app store, it is far more open than the previous carrier-curated equivalents. Music services like Pandora/etc, video services like Netflix, etc are available without having to pay any any additional monthly fee to your provider. I think it's absurd to suggest that the only reason anyone would want access to the Apple app store is because they don't care about their own interests.

So now you're comparing to Android, and I guess you think you have your utopia platform, but I'm here to disagree. If you're rational about the parties involved in Android, you have to see the way the product is designed to serve their interests over yours:

1. The carriers. With Android carriers gain more control over the software delivered on their phones than is available with iOS. Some carriers abuse this, others do not; the point is that they have additional power over the user and they are going to use it if it serves their needs. This is why it's not surprising that the carriers have stocked so many Android phones in their stores and pushed them to their customers. When people say that Android is "open", what they mostly mean is that the carriers have control.
2. Google. Android on the Google side is conceived as a powerful platform to sell the users to advertisers. While Apple runs an advertising platform, iAd, that is optionally available to app developers, no ads from iAd appear on the device unless a user installs an app that uses it. In contrast, Android phones are deeply integrated with Google's very profitable ad-supported services -- GMail, Google search, Google Maps, etc. For Google, the user is not the customer; the advertisers are. So whose interests are being served here?

We can argue all day about whether it matters who the customer is, but I think it does. I prefer to pay for things myself rather than be sold to someone else, partly because I don't trust myself to be immune to the influence of pervasive advertising. If I wanted to run something on the iPhone that wasn't allowed on the app store I'd just jailbreak it, like Android people do when their carriers lock the phone down. So far I haven't encountered such a need.

Re:Back on topic...

[Runaway1956]

Nope, nope, and nope. I don't believe that there is a criminal law concerning photographs taken during concerts. Museums? Again - are you talking criminal law? Come on - you're talking about "terms of service" kind of "agreements", when I asked about "legal".

Hey, I DO NOT agree to have my camera confiscated, disabled, or blocked if I go to a concert. Nor do I agree to refrain from snapping photos of anything I might see at a museum. Everyone carried cameras on our class trips in school!

Re:Back on topic...

[gilesjuk]

I'd love such a feature on all phones. Then I could watch a gig without some idiot in front taking an extremely rubbish video with clipped sound blocking my view.

Why pay £20-30 for a concert ticket then spend half of the gig watching it through a 3 inch screen?

Re:Back on topic...

[KingMotley]

Isn't it also the fact that BluRay players need extra CPU power just because it has to decrypt the disc content, and probably re-encrypt it for the HDMI stream

No, this is not a fact. That is handled by ancillary chips, not the CPU.

Re:Back on topic...

[Obfuscant]

Hey, I DO NOT agree to have my camera confiscated, disabled, or blocked if I go to a concert.

Then you are free not to attend that concert, and the concert promoter is free not to let you in. Your choice.

Nor do I agree to refrain from snapping photos of anything I might see at a museum. Everyone carried cameras on our class trips in school!

Someone asked about "legal" and then complained when examples of "legal but contractually prohibited" were given. Well, here's an example of illegal: you may not take photos in certain museum/national historic exhibits in Great Britain. If you don't agree to refrain from taking photos there, you can have your butt hauled out and your camera confiscated. You don't have to go in, so it is your choice.

Re:Back on topic...

[Hatta]

Easy, so you can hack it and disable it. Then, when the theatre goons go around looking for cameras, they won't take yours because they think it can't take pictures. Now you can take all the pictures you want with your iPhone in the theatre.

Re:Back on topic...

[node 3]

But whether this way of looking at it makes sense or not (I think it's disgusting), you know that the device is hostile to your desires (if not hostile to your ultimate interests of getting along with others).

Apple's customers are their users. That's where they get their money from. This is in contrast to, say, Google, whose customers are the advertisers, and their users are the product.

The flaw in your argument is this: the FSF nerd is not Apple's target demographic. *YOU* want something that almost no one else wants. Apple wants to sell things that are more desirable to more people. In fact, it's *YOUR* desires that are hostile to the wants and interests of the average person. If you had your way, people would be struggling with systems they can't understand, or simply foregoing technology altogether. If you want to call something disgusting, I submit something like that as Exhibit A.

You see, people just aren't all that interested in open source. They'd rather have something that works well than have access to the source code. Complete control over their hardware and software is something they can never have no matter what the license, so of course they will give up a theoretical benefit in exchange for a very real one.

The outrage over this story is especially twisted. It's a *patent*, not an actual iPhone feature. There's no reason to expect Apple to implement this.

Re:Back on topic...

[realisticradical]

Not that it's a worthwhile reason but I can come up with one.

If you've ever been to a pre-screening of a movie they take everyone's cell phone at the door. A technology like this would let you keep your phone in your pocket because it wouldn't be able to record.

(Again, not a good enough reason, but something.)

Re:Back on topic...

[Mister Whirly]

"Illegal" - no. Against the venue's policies - yes. Last time I checked venues did not have the power to pass laws - only Congress can do that. Taking a video in a theater has nothing to do with being in a theater. It would be illegal because you are filming copyrighted material, not becasue of theater rules. If you break a private companies rules/policies the only thing they can do is kick you out of their establishment.

Re:Back on topic...

[anyGould]

So, when the cops are beating someone, will they be deploying or wearing these nifty IR devices to prevent us, the general public from filming them?!?!?

I mean, aside from the lameness of this, fixing a problem that isn't there....what about the abuses of this?

Oh, I'd expect to see this "feature" deployed damned near everywhere. Museums, theme parks, schools, jails... yeah, I'd be amused to see where you *would* be allowed to take a picture once this was commonplace.

I suspect this is a defensive patent, though - being the first with "third-party deactivation" is a sure way to tank market share (yes, yes, Apple does lots of dumb-ass things that hose security - but generally not as overt as a user getting told "no, you may not take this picture").

Re:Back on topic...

[sl149q]

These ancillary chips are provided for free? Paid for by who?

Processing takes CPU power regardless of where the CPU is located.

Re:Back on topic...

[anyGould]

Well... on the flip side, couldn't you wear an IR thing to prevent people from photographing you?

Probably, but I would expect that any cameras that you'd want to prevent from photographing you (security, journalist, paparazzi) won't respect the IR signal.

Re:Back on topic...

[wickedskaman]

They should also ban tall people from these venues. Down with tall people!

Re:Back on topic...

[toriver]

You need to learn that electronic devices can have more than one (type of) processor. The C in CPU is for central. The GPU on your computers graphics card, for instance, is not the CPU, it's a graphics processor. And the specialized circuits that perform encryption and decryption in a Blu-Ray player are not the CPU either.

Re:Back on topic...

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's the party line ladies and gentleman. Not at all convincing is it, especially if you, like me, would like to see the back of Mr Jobs. I'm sure these fanboy creeps will fade away once the king of selling utter crap to idiots shuffles off this mortal coil. iCoffin - this will change everything.

Re:Back on topic...

[alexandre_ganso]

Pictures of Morocco King's palaces are strictly forbidden. If you try, they come, in not very friendly terms, and make you remove the picture or give them the film roll. If you don't, you are arrested. That simple. And then they remove it for you.

Re:Back on topic...

[gmack]

Then you will get angry but forget all about the whole incident when the next iphone comes out and you rush out and buy it. No matter how angry Apple users get they still buy whatever Apple puts out so Apple doesn't has no reason to pay any attention to angry users.

Re:Back on topic...

[toriver]

some Stallman-esque ideal service that doesn't exist

Sure it does: Or haven't you heard about the resounding success on OpenMoko, crushing competing closed phone platforms with its Open Fist? Or how the GP2X wiped the floor with proprietary Nintendo DS?

Re:Back on topic...

[easyTree]

If you were a typical iPhone/Apple customer

Couldn't resist :D

Re:Back on topic...

[easyTree]

Some day you filthy little geeks will realize not every action in life has some sort of deeper meaning or politics attached to it

I guess non-geeks don't have a subconscious mind...

Quality insult/compliment though - it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D

Re:Back on topic...

[Kalriath]

Let me ask you one question: if Microsoft were the one patenting this, would you have come up the same conclusion? I would say no, you'd decry it as being a disgusting abuse heaped on unsuspecting victims - er, customers. As you should. Remember, Apple is a corporation just like Microsoft. If Microsoft would do it, so would Apple.

Re:Back on topic...

[Archwyrm]

Morocco has its own laws and I would imagine that many of them are different than in the US and EU. If Apple was doing this to uphold the laws in Morocco, then they should have filed their ridiculous patent there.

Re:Back on topic...

[icebike]

Calm down big guy, I only threw it out there only as a half baked Idea.

Personally, I do trust Microsoft more than Apple, they are far more open and less restrictive. But that's a side topic.

  Microsoft does not have a 30% share of the handset market. They don't make any phones.
So they would be hard pressed to implement this even if they wanted to.

Apple could implement it on their own phones but only by doing a certain amount of damage to their brand.

The whole thing makes no sense, UNLESS it was going to be MANDATORY across all
cell phones.

The only way that could happen is if it was built into the camera module themselves, which are
typically manufactured by third parties, not by phone manufacturers themselves.
If someone wanted to make it mandatory, then Apple holding the patent stands to make a lot of
money, or block the deal with patent fights.

All I'm really saying is Apple would be unlikely to add this to their phones and damage their brand
unless all phones were to have it.

Its really not needed, because there are other ways.

Re:Back on topic...

[alexandre_ganso]

So far, the only place with ridiculous software patents that I'm aware of are US and Japan, with US pushing both EU and, individually, every EU country, into establishing patent laws, as US politicians don't care to be puppets of lobbies and corporations. And unfortunately, EU politicians are as stupid as politicians everywhere.

What baffles me is how small the businesses like the mafiaa are, in comparison to, say, the software industry. But their tentacles seem much longer...

Re:Back on topic...

[Archwyrm]

Android phones are deeply integrated with Google's very profitable ad-supported services -- GMail, Google search, Google Maps, etc. For Google, the user is not the customer; the advertisers are. So whose interests are being served here?

I rather like that integration. It allows me to use these fine services quickly and efficiently. As far as ads go, I have yet to see one on my Android phone while using any of Google's services (some apps have ads, but I tend to avoid those and wager that there are ad-supported iPhone apps as well).

You could make the argument that using the service on the phone gets you hooked on using the service on the PC where you actually see the ads. Well, I use mutt's IMAP support with GMail so rarely log into that and I have no problem with the unobtrusive ads on Google Search and Maps. I know that I should use the ad-free iSearch and iMaps like you but I have been suckered into Google's services by my phone.

Re:Back on topic...

[2short]

Yes, the iPhone is comparable to a heavily locked-down Andoid phone.

Which is why I have a non-locked-down Android phone, and I "guess I think I have my utopia platform" since neither of your disagreements apply.

"With Android carriers gain more control over the software delivered on their phones than is available with iOS."

Carriers have less control because Apple keeps the control. Wow, that's great for me.

iPhone: as open as Android if you only consider Android phones the carrier locked down as much as the iPhone. Also as open as various other not-very-open things.

If you don't care about it being an open platform, fine. But your suggestion that people who do care should think the iPhone is fine because there are other similarly closed platforms out there is weird. There are perfectly excellent, far more open platforms available too. So I'm going to keep buying them and thinking they are better by my criteria, because they are.

Re:Back on topic...

[Anonymous Coward]

shall I go on.

Please do. You haven't hit on anything illegal (in the US) yet. Do you know what the word "illegal" means?

Re:Back on topic...

[RobbieThe1st]

Not all corporations are created alike, though. While I'm not an Apple fanboy, MS has *proven* themselves to be extremely evil. They also have the marketshare to implement anything they want in their Windows os, and then force everyone who wants interoperability to some standard. Apple, on the other hand, has a fairly "nitch" OS, and even their phones aren't a majority of smartphones. So, no matter what they do to their phones, consumers can just switch to Android etc.
As such, I would consider MS to be more evil than Apple, due to their influence.

Re:Back on topic...

[RobbieThe1st]

That's actually a good point. And that *will* happen if this gets implemented

Re:Back on topic...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you consider Microsoft to be extremely evil, how do you rate Oracle?

Re:Back on topic...

[KingMotley]

They are the chips that are responsible for converting data to and drop the HDMI signals most likely. They aren't free, but they wouldn't be free if they didn't need to do the decryption either. Are they more complex? Sure. But if they didn't need to do the encryption/decryption it wouldn't make your other stuff run any faster/lag any less either. Or are you upset about the $.0001 extra that the chip costs to manufacture?

Re:Back on topic...

[mattr]

Evil x sqrt(2)/2 ?

Re:Back on topic...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

So why patent something that would be a huge sales disincentive if actually deployed?

Some middle eastern countries are cracking down on photos in public places, but I doubt they have a big enough market for this.

It makes no sense.

Because this patent isn't about what the paranoids think it is. It's about getting all sorts of information into your phone just by pointing your camera towards it, which will see some infrared pattern. One possible application would be to turn off recording - which is the only one the paranoids can see.

Doesn't make a lot of sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't read the patent, but why bother "attracting attention?" If they have an IR signal that shuts down iPhone cameras, just saturate the area with it. It could be built into police car car light arrays, locker rooms, .....

So, will we need an infrared-absorbing case, or will just a stick on filter for the camera lens be enough?

gosh

[tibbar]

and a infra-red filter (hot mirror) wouldn't stop this ? .. helloooooo...

So when do they issue these transmitters to cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

And politicians? You know, to "protect" them from citizens filming their activities.

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the sensor is inside the lens?

I think your GP already covered that: infrared filter over the lens.

Move Along, Citizen.

[zigziggityzoo]

How long till cops put these on their cars, or make some belt-attached version to stop citizen recordings?

Re:Move Along, Citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least then they won't have to break the phone if someone catches them shooting innocent people. They can just press the Brutality Button on their utility belts.

Re:Move Along, Citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, how long until the average citizen has one of these on their belt to stop anyone from recording them?

Re:Move Along, Citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

How long till cops put these on their cars, or make some belt-attached version to stop citizen recordings?

Or someone sells these on eBay for 99?

Re:Move Along, Citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm getting one for my underpants, just in case the phone slips and mails a shot of my junk to somebody.

Re:Move Along, Citizen.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're not a citizen.
you're a consumer.

This is one patent I want Apple to win.

[TavisJohn]

And I want Apple to defend it with all the power it has... So that only Apple devices are blocked and all other devices are unaffected.

Re:This is one patent I want Apple to win.

[scrib]

Abso-friggin-lutely!

As long as you don't buy from a company that pays Apple a license fee to make sure their hardware quits working, you should be good!

Re:This is one patent I want Apple to win.

[smellsofbikes]

And I want Apple to defend it with all the power it has... So that only Apple devices are blocked and all other devices are unaffected.

As if. Apple will get this, then they'll license it for an enormous sum to all the other cellphone companies when the Apple and police lobbies manage to get mandatory implementation of this enshrined in law.

Venue = Cop beatdown?

[ProfanityHead]

This isn't going to end well.

STOP BUYING APPLE PRODUCTS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

JUST STOP.

DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like DRM.. just in real life!

Just Another Reason That Proves Apple Knows Best

[Nom du Keyboard]

Just another reason to (not) buy Apple in lieu of any other competing (cheaper, more flexible, less restricted) product in the marketplace. Can't wait to hear how the Apple Fanbois spin this one into making Apple products BETTER than anyone else's.

Before you know it you won't be Buying your next iPhone at all. You'll be Licensing it to use only under an ever increasingly long list of Terms & Conditions.

[/sarcasm]

could be, could be, but WHAT?

[Adam Appel]

In the main CCD sensor there is an IR filter. So how would this work if you cover the other sensors with tape (that is a clear no brainer)? I have an iPhone and I am getting pissed at all these companies trying to protect me from myself (That's the BS premise protect the copy write holder by preventing me from breaking the law). Imagine a gun or even motocycle company trying to prevent people from doing illegal things with their products. Why the iPhone, get a FLIP (I know it's a POS) or the any dozen of pocket cams offered by companies like thinkgeek for under a $100. If you are going to bootleg something why not go the extra inch. And not that I have ever recorded a protected event other then taking ironic photos in the bank of their VERY customer service oriented posters with a line of 20 and only one teller.

IR blast?

[greywire]

Arent these cameras pretty sensitive to IR light anyway? Wouldnt it just be easier to blast a bright IR flash every few seconds that would just wash out the image, making any recording impractical?

Re:IR blast?

[Anonymous Coward]

This does make sense :-). The idea posted for the patent looks a failure from the concept. What stops me from wraping the iPhone or say any other camera in a cloth and just exposing the lens to shoot.

IR blast definitely solves that. Nice thought, don't know how practical it is. may be IR filters sale outside the concerts will grow :-)

Re:IR blast?

[toriver]

No, most have a filter that blocks IR in front of the sensor, otherwise pictures would look "unnatural". We are not cats.

Re:IR blast?

[greywire]

Makes sense.

Still, it seems a solution similar to this would be much more effective.

Perhaps this is why the strong push for 3D? I guess in theory you could rig something to be able to record this as well, but it would much harder than just whipping out your cell..

This patent already exists

[itamblyn]

I remember thinking it would be useful to use the SSID of wireless access points to issue commands to cameras to disable things like the flash (useful in an art gallery for instance). It turns out there are already a whole bunch of patents which have been issued in the last 10 years which cover this idea.

Re:This patent already exists

[yeshuawatso]

Patents don't protect ideas, they protect inventions. If I can do something similar that's not simply an equivalent substitution (see doctrine of equivalents for more information).

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[Nom du Keyboard]

Ah good call. I should've checked the source first, too. Fox never gets anything right.

Fox gets far more right than you'd ever like to admit. Anytime you say "always" or "never" you're automatically wrong. Fox News is worth watching for the stories that they uncover that the rest of the media tries as hard as possible to Ignore. If you want to remain in your blissful ignorance you can ignore FN, since it is only for those who want to be as informed as possible. Without FN you might not have heard about this story at all.

The next step...

[knorthern knight]

...will be to patent the concept of defeating the tech that stops Iphone from recording video. Licence it for $1,000,000 per day or portion thereof. If you're caught defeating the anti-filming tech, Apple could bankrupt you. Remember also that in a civil lawsuit, they can destroy you financially just by suing you, even if you're eventually found not guilty.

Be Happy That Apple Patents This

[Nom du Keyboard]

Be happy that Apple patents this. That might mean that it will be limited exclusively to Apple products and that they'll sue any competing product out of the marketplace. I mean, who REALLY wants this in their next camera equipped product?

Re:Be Happy That Apple Patents This

[toriver]

... and if Ford patented the hovercar, only Fords would hover. BUY FORD!

This is merely a patent, not something that actually is or will be implemented.

Yea Apple!!

[WaffleMonster]

You go patent that tech and be sure to make licensing fees extra expensive so as Google and Microsoft continue to eat into your market share your "technology" grows incresingly irrelevent.

It is the height of hubris when one believes they have a market position allowing them to seek to actively prevent their customers from doing what they want with their devices. If you want to increase the rate of exodus to droid by all means full steam ahead.

Can you sell this to Hollywood stars?

[Nom du Keyboard]

Could this technology be sold to the rich, famous, and powerful? The next time you want to take a legal snapshot on a city street of your favorite star, might your iPhone suddenly refuse because they have a do-not-photograph beacon on their shoulder? Awesome!

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd assume that the IR sensor would have to be built into the camera sensor chip. That said, to send the signal would still require direct line of sight to the device transmitting the signal. This could work for protecting a movie screen, but not really feasible to cover something like a football stadium.

The *real* use. . .

[JSBiff]

"If a person were to hold up their iPhone, the device would trigger the attention of infra-red sensors installed at the venue. These sensors would then instruct the theater employees to come take your phone, escort you out of the theater, and beat you till you pass out."

There, fixed it for you.

All your iphone

[King-Raz]

All your iPhone is belong to us!

Version 2.0

[JSBiff]

"If a person were to hold up their iPhone, the device would trigger the attention of infra-red sensors installed at the venue. These sensors would then instruct the theater employees to disable your arms."

uh

[Anonymous Coward]

bye bye iPhone

Re:So when do they issue these transmitters to cop

[Ken Hall]

Apple will probably sell a "special" iPhone that includes the transmitter.

Or a big red eye that one wears in the center of his forehead. Maybe with a big "L" on it.

Yeah, this'll work *snort*

[Anonymous Coward]

Crack to disable this feature on jailbroken phones in 3...2...1...

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

So movie theaters will have to purchase and install equipment, then hire someone to maintain the technical aspects of a system that is a countermeasure for only one of THOUSANDS of tools that can be used to screen a movie?

I think this is an example of a big company hiring lawyers to develop as many patents as possible to insulate their product line

potential for abuse

[frovingslosh]

What an absurd concept. It is just asking for abuse. Lets not even get into why I would want a camera that bends to the will of a group like the MPAA, who have publicly stated their intention to thwart the Constitution of the United States as it pertains to copyrighted property passing into public domain. But lets ask how soon it will be before cops start wearing IR transmitting badges that instruct all cameras to not record them while they abuse their positions and beat defenseless people or worse. They have already made it abundantly clear that they don't like that happening, how nice for them when cameras can just be told "you didn't see nothin' !" And I expect it will take a while longer, but if this technology eventually finds it's way into all cameras then criminals will start using it also, thwarting all of those security cameras. Of course, it will quickly become illegal for normal citizens who want to maintain their privacy from using privacy badges, but "public servants" who should be doing their business in public and should be watched to prevent abuses that have historically happened will be allowed to hide their actions behind privacy badges. Just as gun control laws only serve to disarm the honest public who want to protect themselves but do not keep guns out of the hands of those who disregard the law, this technology will be twisted into the most absurd violation of privacy that you can imagine. Normal decent people will further be denied their basic privacy while criminals and supposedly public officials will use it to hide their actions.

Re:potential for abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

You're exaggerating greatly.

1) The technology is not backwards compatible, older devices will always be immune
2) Police also use cameras in the line of duty (dashboard cams in patrol cars) and would want cameras not affected by such technology - hence there will always be cameras immune to this system available through some means.
3) Your question about "how long until the cops wear infrared badges" - oh, very very long time. It's one thing for officers to seize cameras at a scene (can possibly be explained situationally or a bad apple for an officer) but a blanket procedure would be contested.

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[jellomizer]

I agree but you need a balance to "Fair and Balanced" The problem there are so many people who just watch Fox news, as the other guys are all part of the big conspiracy to hide the truth, are missing the stuff that Fox news wants to try as hard as possible to ignore. Fox new is a tool of the Right Wing, it's media is slanted/warped to the right, You are not getting the whole picture but you are getting an other side of it.

I'm Invisible!

[jjm496]

hmm...I think I'll just show up at an event and hold up an iPhone so I can capture the signal. Then I'll set up a rig with a few ir leds on my person and walk around transmitting it all the time. I'll become invisible to all hipsters.

I'll just disable the iPhone's radios

[Anonymous Coward]

And proceed to take pics and video of whatever the hell I want to. Fuck the police state.

Just another reason to avoid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just another reason to avoid iApple products

Police

[Kamiza Ikioi]

So, instead of police busting up iPhones when they shoot someone down in their car, they'll just flash your phone with some twisted Men in Black device?

Yet ANOTHER reason I'll never go back to an iPhone.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of police busting up iPhones when they shoot someone down in their car, they'll just flash your phone with some twisted Men in Black device?

Yet ANOTHER reason I'll never go back to an iPhone.

Dude, it is just a patent, Doesn't mean that they will actually make a product with this in it. If anything they might even be patenting this to prevent other people from using it. Or they could be thinking that it might become law and if they have a patent then they can collect licensing fees. Save your judgements for shipping products though, as this is far from it.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

And the smart person will stick a big fat Apple sticker on their Android so the police 'think' they have disabled a camera....

the usual wrong answer

[Anonymous Coward]

four different ways.

1) Android does not have and cannot have (cannot enforce) such a feature, so it promotes the sale of non-apple phones.

2) Police Cruisers will soon have such systems. Criminals will buy knock-offs to wear on their hats.

3) Can no longer record violent fights happening in "venues".

4) If the "venue" i a theater, for instance, what people really want is to turn off all phones period. Apple, don't protect the studio, protect the people!

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime you say "always" or "never" you're automatically wrong.

You don't sense a problem with this statement?

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[lostfayth]

Except for the fact that we heard about this 2 weeks ago, without the help of Fox News. They're the ones racing to catch up on this one.

The complainers make the worst movies

[kawabago]

It always seems like the people who are complaining the loudest are those who would have no audience at all were it not for file traders.

If it's infrared...

[broginator]

...couldn't a potential bootlegger just cover the infrared sensor to get around it, since it would need line-of-sight?

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from that, does the patent really only mention IR? Or is it just one example of possible transmission technologies? Couldn't find a link to the patent, so I'm guessing, but I doubt it's worded this narrowly.

WLAN, audio, bluetooth, visual, etc. it's not like you couldn't transmit some signal via other means.

If it starts with an "i"...

[n0tWorthy]

I won't buy!

Big Brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a company that used the Big Brother motif in its advertising compaign, this 'feature' is shameful. Apple is going to rot in hell.

IR Cut Filter

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't an IR cut filter in front of the camera disrupt the process?

Kissing up, Not New Development

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just one way that Apple continues to market itself to the music and film industries. Apple could careless about this technology and patent, but it scores them, ITunes and the rest of the team bonus points over Google, Facebook and others in planning and negotiations with Big Media. That's what this is.

Thought Crime

[gsslay]

Objectionable plan != Objectionable behaviour.

What you are suggesting is punishing people for thought crime. Thinking of something does not mean doing it, or having any intention of doing it. Otherwise crime writers would be in pretty deep shit.

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

Perhaps you've never heard of "conspiracy to..." There's a difference between engaging in fantasy, and coming up with specific, actionable plans. Apple is a for-profit company and doesn't produce patents for kicks.

Yet another apologist.

Re:Thought Crime

[node 3]

Apple is not engaged in "conspiracy to..." implement this patent. It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of. Unless this ever actually makes it into an iPhone, you're getting worked up over some imaginary harm.

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of.

They do this so that they may at some point make use of it. They made decide not to. The fact that they see potential in it is the problem.

Yet another apologist.

Re:Thought Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

hey it's node3- I was wondering what your perspective on this issue might be...?

well what a surprise - he seems to be supporting apple on this particular one. you are possibly the most pathetic of the apple trolls who show up at this website and you're about as welcome as a rattlesnake in a lucky dip. what on earth makes you think otherwise?

please fuck off and get back to giving mr steve jobs' pecker one of your special shines!

Re:Thought Crime

[node 3]

It's just an invention that they are making a legal claim of ownership of.

They do this so that they may at some point make use of it. They made decide not to. The fact that they see potential in it is the problem.

Yet another apologist.

Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.

Reality is Apple has countless patents that they never make use of. Reality is some companies reward or otherwise encourage employees to submit patents. Reality is simply having a patent, even one a company never intends to use, can be of strategic value. Reality is, this is an invention, worthy of patenting.

And reality is, iPhones don't do this now.

It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.

Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.

It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.

If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.

Re:Thought Crime

[node 3]

Sorry, being able to discern between reality and fantasy does not make one an apologist.

Patents are not fantasy. Corporations don't engage in fantasy as a general business principle.

Fantasy is thinking a patent is the thing it describes. Apple has a patent, that doesn't mean they will implement it. They have *loads* of patents they haven't implemented. That's reality.

It's definitely possible, but makes little sense, for Apple to implement this patent. Acting like they are going to is not rational.

If it makes little sense for them to implement the patent, then it makes little sense to patent it. Any supposed "strategic value" of a patent you never intend to use is frivolous. Don't patent crap that is objectionable, and you don't get objections. If you do, it's completely fair to voice those objections.

Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.

Having a patent isn't the same as implementing a patent. No one's saying you can't object to the content of the patent, but I am most definitely saying you can't criticize something that isn't implemented, or publicly planned to be implemented, as though it were. To do so is to engage in fantasy.

Re:Thought Crime

[gsslay]

I've heard of "conspiracy to...". It's when it is believed that a plan someone has was formed with the intention to perform an illegal act. Care to explain how this fits with patenting some technology performing a legal function?

Apple is a for-profit company and doesn't produce patents for kicks.

No, like too many other companies, they patent the hell out of every idea they can think of that may possibly be used either by themselves, or any competitor, at any time in the future, just in case there's money to be made from it, even in ways that may not be dreamt of currently.

But I'd really like to explore you're thinking here further. (Well, not really, but let's just go as far as pointing out the absurdity.) What do you advise the next person to discover security failures in [insert your favorite bête noire here] to do? Document them? Or scrub their mind of all such evil thoughts? They could write it down, and publicise it, cos we all know that security through obscurity is a bad thing. Perhaps they could publish a book on how systems admins can avoid such pitfalls. But wouldn't that be evidence that they had conspired to do it and must be given grief? After all these a specific actionable plans we're talking about, not fantasy.

You do realise that resorting to insults is the surest way of demonstrating your argument is crap?

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.

They patent things because they may want to implement them. That they may never do so doesn't mean it was OK to file the patent in the first place.

If I drew up specific and actionable plans to bomb your house, you would object without me acting on it.

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

I've heard of "conspiracy to...". It's when it is believed that a plan someone has was formed with the intention to perform an illegal act. Care to explain how this fits with patenting some technology performing a legal function?

I was demonstrating the principle that drawing up plans without acting on them can be objectionable.

No, like too many other companies, they patent the hell out of every idea they can think of that may possibly be used either by themselves, or any competitor, at any time in the future, just in case there's money to be made from it, even in ways that may not be dreamt of currently.

Given Apple's history of locking down their devices, they don't get the benefit of the doubt. It's yet another example of the kinds of things they are interested in. They deserve any grief they get over it.

What do you advise the next person to discover security failures in [insert your favorite bÃte noire here] to do? Document them? Or scrub their mind of all such evil thoughts?

This isn't publishing an exploit so it can be fixed. This is patenting a lock-down implementation on one of their devices, so that at some point it may be implemented should they want to. Again, given their history, they don't deserve benefit of the doubt.

Re:Thought Crime

[node 3]

Nevermind the fact that companies like Apple patent things they never implement.

They patent things because they may want to implement them.

That's *a* reason. Another reason is that someone else might want to implement them. Another reason is that a camera maker, like Kodak, might want to sue Apple, and such a patent would give them leverage.

Oh, btw. A camera maker (Kodak) is suing Apple right now, and camera related patents would have helped Apple greatly.

Another reason is that it's an invention, and it's always nice to have a patent on an invention, even if you see no point in it right now. Another reason is employees get incentivized to take out patents.

That they may never do so doesn't mean it was OK to file the patent in the first place.

You've yet to show how it's not OK to patent an invention like this. Apple customers are voluntary. This patent will not force anyone to buy a product which uses this patent.

Right now that's true, because no product uses this patent. And in an unlikely, but possible future, it's true because no one has to buy an iPhone.

If I drew up specific and actionable plans to bomb your house, you would object without me acting on it.

Yes, if you intended to kill me, I'd do much more than object to it. But just talking about it (like you just did) is not the same as having any intention whatsoever of actually doing it.

I know the difference between what exists and what does not exist.

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

That's *a* reason.

Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Thought Crime

[node 3]

That's *a* reason.

Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Benefit of *what* doubt? That they didn't invent this? That's all a patent is, a legal claim to an invention.

There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this. All they have done is invented it. Ooh, how awful of them!

Re:Thought Crime

[Raenex]

Benefit of *what* doubt?

That they patented it for another reason other than that they may want to implement it at some point.

There's no reason, other than paranoid fantasy, to believe Apple is going to implement this.

Except for their history of locking down devices and patenting things before they implement them, of course. Just like if I had a history of attacking your house, you'd be suspicious and object to plans that I drew up to bomb your house.

Privacy laws

[brokeninside]

In some jurisdictions, it is illegal to record anyone without their consent.

Re:Privacy laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Not when you're in a public place, and certainly not when you're a civil servant conducting official business in a public place.

Re:Privacy laws

[brokeninside]

Privacy laws sometimes are in effect even in public places.

There are two sets of laws that I'm aware of. One covers voice recordings (regardless of where they happen). This set is generally considered to even apply in public places. The widest distinction is generally along the lines of who needs to provide consent. In some jurisdictions, so long as one party gives consent, the audio recording is fine. In other jurisdictions, the consent of all parties involved is requited.

The other set covers photography (and video, note that this set generally only consists of the video aspect of video recordings as the audio in a video recording is part of the other set). This second set is generally less limited. But sometimes there are restrictions, such as any public display of the work in question without consent of the subject.

You can make, I think, a good argument that officers of the court (judges, lawyers, police officers) /should/ generally be fair game to record anywhere, anytime that they are acting in their official capacity except for situations where special privileges apply (e.g. when an attorney is advising his or her client). But whether or not the courts generally conform to what I think /should/ be the case is an open question.

This Could Be Brilliant!

[Spiffy]

Step 1: Apple patents the tech.
Step 2: Others implement it, and have to pay Apple.
Step 3: Apple DOES NOT implement it in their phones, giving them an advantage over other, now-crippled brands.

Counter-patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Filing today: a method to disable Apple's IR control mechanism. Parts: 1 (one) square piece of black electrical tape...

IR block Filter over the camera lens?

[Peter Simpson]

Seems like this would be trivially simple to defeat, no? If the iPhone sensor/emitter is separate from the camera lens, cover it with foil tape.

(-1, Misleading Headline)

[deblau]

Apple filed an application; they have no legal right to this technology yet. Repeat after me: an application is not a patent. This headline is like saying "New Cancer Drug Hits the Market" when it's still in clinical trials.

Turn in your geek card, CmdrTaco. After having this explained to you so many times, by so many different people, you really should be ashamed.

Re:(-1, Misleading Headline)

[R3d M3rcury]

Agreed! As long as the USPTO doesn't actually grant the patent, we're good. And the USPTO is known for being a fair arbiter of such things.

Aldous Huxley meets George Orwell

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless, of course, this whole thing is a public-spirited ploy by Steve Jobs to stop anybody else from implementing this idea.

Now to patent a device to block this

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent - phone case designed to inhibit malicious infraded signals being delivered to the phones built in IR sensor.

Duct Tape

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't you just tape over the sensors? Seems like an easily defeated "feature"

IR Blanketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then I just see them blanketing areas with IR light to screw up the the cameras in phones in general.

Iphones disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus allowing those with small hand held video cameras to get better pictures to upload to the net via a connection to their Blackberry Playbooks.

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[Dragonslicer]

Fox gets far more right than you'd ever like to admit

Well played, sir.

just wait

[treywilliams]

until the cops get ahold of this technology. no more rodney king incidents for sure!

No more Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all about limiting Free Speech. After all, censorship is everywhere. The gov’t (and their big business cronies) censor free speech, shut down dissent and ban the book “America Deceived II”. Free speech for all.
Last link (before Google Books bans it also]:
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526

Your cunning plan

[microcentillion]

ruined by a $0.25 IR filter over the lens. Sorry Apple!

Text your privacy away

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm chuckling at the outrage here. Privacy and security? Rights to your own property? How about the fact that if you text regularly you create a much more reliably stored and monitored stream of information about yourself? People are doing this to themselves. Never before have people made such tremendous amounts of Personally Identifiable Information available at the click of a button.

New is not progress. Excuse me for being a Luddite but your phone is for phone calls. You put your privacy on the line the moment you subscribe to the notion that a smart phone is in any way "smart." On top of it, you sacrifice all your right to bitch and moan the moment you buy a product from a company that pretty much insists you never actually own the entirety of your device. I'm officially convinced that Apple products are everything that M$ was ever accused of being.

Maybe, just maybe...

[bennomatic]

...Apple is patenting this not to implement it, but to make it prohibitively expensive for anyone else to.

It would definitely suck if this went into a product, and it's definitely ripe for abuse. But if they had the idea, so could someone else; them patenting it just means that they own the right to make or license it. It may be a very good idea that they filed the patent instead of, say, Blackwater Security.

Re:Maybe, just maybe...

[sdhankin]

Of course that goes against the default view that Apple is evil, but I was thinking the same thing. Maybe Steve is actually a defender of people's rights - he patents a technology that Apple never implements on their own products, and makes it prohibitively expensive for others to license, guaranteeing that the technology is never used. If it is, Apple can sue.

I'm not saying that's what went down, just that it's possible. It's easily as likely as some of the shoot-themselves-in-the-head scenarios others have suggested, particularly when you're talking about Apple. Love them, hate them, but you have to admit they know how to market stuff.

Re:Maybe, just maybe...

[bennomatic]

I think calling Steve a defender of people's rights might be going too far, but I'm sure there are a lot of defensive patents in their portfolio; some of those defensive patents may not only defend Apple's core business, but also the general public against things that Steve would find offensive for himself or his family and friends.

It's a patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a patent. No matter who gets it, it's only enforceable for a limited amount of time. Even if Apple were to put on their most charming white hat and suit and NOT put it in their tech, eventually, ANYONE can. And, this is being done with IR signaling; what about UV, or RF, or ultrasound or ... or ... there are doubtless other clever bastards that could come up with other methods.

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[Tipa]

Subtle!

really?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh come on, really? cell phone video does not pose a copyright threat, no one has ever said I don't need to buy that music video, I've got a perfectly high quality one I recorded with my phone...the only reason for cell phone video is to say that you were there, nothing more.

additionally cell phone footage is often instrumental in investigation of a crime, if i crime were to be committed in a venue this would remove that avenue of evidence

No more cameras!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think all cameras should be prohibited in the hands of the public and news organizations including phones, regular cameras, IPADs, etc. Only police, TSA, should be able to carry cameras period. If you like this statement let us know where to send you a nice brown shirt.

What a wonderful "feature"

[scot4875]

I'm glad Apple has a patent on this; additionally, I hope they make the licensing fees exorbitant to discourage any other hardware manufacturers from adding this "feature."

--Jeremy

Missing the point...

[chaboud]

Everyone complaining about this is missing the point.

1. Tell Apple that they should do this.
2. Hack the miserably simple security of the system.
3. Build camera killers from Arduinos (or Androids).
4. ??????
5. Laugh, very, very hard.

Um...

[Celestialwolf]

So, I already posted this story: http://slashdot.org/submission/1655056/Apple-to-Prevent-iPhone-From-Filming-at-Events

Was mine not good enough or something?

Re:Back on topic... Alternate patent use

[strength_of_10_men]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no Apple fan, but maybe... just maybe they're patenting this so that no one else can do it, thus effectively keeping this "innovation" from ever seeing the (infrared) light of day. Kind of like a defensive patent.

No rule says that they have to put this into any product. Or am I just too optimistic?

Petroleum Jelly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing a little Petroleum jelly won't stop. (it Absorbs Infrared). One of the tricks to playing Laser Tag

Defective by design

[Anonymous Coward]

Our products don't fail because of bugs or poor workmanship. Our products fail because we purposely designed them to.

Another case

[Anonymous Coward]

Another case of reality trolling slashdotters.

It is as if the real world is specifically designed to piss you off.

I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I want to buy one of these? I wouldn't want one for free.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually companies do things to sell a product and/or make a profit. I don't see how Apple stands to benefit from this.

Lots of companies license patents from Apple

[tepples]

As long as you don't buy from a company that pays Apple a license fee to make sure their hardware quits working

Is there a smartphone company that doesn't pay Apple in some way? Every smartphone I've seen lately includes ability to play back MPEG-4 video, and Apple owns patents on the MPEG-4 Part 14 container format (based on the QuickTime File Format) used by MPEG-4 video and licenses them through the MPEG-LA pool.

filters, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone will make an iphone cover with an IR filter over the camera. how has no one thought about this

Ruining the Internet

[Bemopolis]

Please spend my tax dollars to install one of these in Congress.

Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

So OS X cannot install on anything but Apple branded computers, users cannot install anything that is not Apple approved on their iphones and ipads and now Apple controls what you can and cannot film with your phone. There is no defense for this nonsense, it is simply a company trying to create a nanny state with their products.

Re:Just Another Reason That Proves Apple Knows Bes

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to hear how the Apple Fanbois spin this one into making Apple products BETTER than anyone else's.

It is better! If you happen upon a scene of our dedicated public servants restraining a deadly uncooperative miscreant, they'll see that you're using a fine Apple iProduct and therefore their privacy and personal anonymity is not threatened! They will understand that you're not a troublemaking muckraking populist borderline-criminal-agitator who's just gonna shoot a scandalous video and proclaim "Police abuse!" That glossy gorgeous apple-with-a-tasteful-bite-taken-out is your shield of safety and your badge of good citizenship!

Trust me, it'll save you a lot of trouble and possible criminal arrests. Thank you, Steve, for looking out for us! I personally appreciate you protecting me from my more dangerous impulses!

p.s.:WTF?

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 31 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're apparently not doing it right:

http://www.slysoft.com/en/

What is Apples comment on this issue?

[Parasome]

It would be a really good idea for Apple's PR department to go forward and make some form of public statement about what the company intends to do with this patent. Otherwise, if this story becomes more widely known, it could easily cast a bad light on Apple in the public opinion.

Do you copy, Mr Employee-At-Apple-PR-department By-chance-reading-Slashdot?

Apple Patents Tech to Stop iPhones Filming in Venu

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple: Dont by a iPhone

obvious misuse

[cas2000]

these infrared sensors and controllers will soon be installed in police cars and possibly in police uniforms if they're small enough. and anywhere else that governments, as well as the rich and powerful, want to make it harder for ordinary citizens to gather evidence of their abuses of power.

So... What You're Telling Me...

[Greyfox]

Is that I'll still be able to film with my Android phone? That's cool, the camera is better than the iPhone one anyway!

Re:So... What You're Telling Me...

[stewbacca]

A better piece of shit camera is better than the shitty one on the iPhone. I'll give you that.

Just lovely - all in the name of "security"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just great. So soon, when a violent crime event takes place at some live venue, and thousands of folks have portable video recording devices on them, no one will be able to video record the crime ... all to stop some poor quality bootleg cr*p videos from being recorded.

Oh, and of course terrorists will use these recording prevention devices to help ensure they're not caught on video by witnesses when they do terrorism events with lots of people around.

Yes, this technology will make us all lots safer from wrongdoers. Gee, ... thanks.

This would seem like a no-brainer...

[KennyG944]

IR filters anyone????

this is an actually a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this obsession nowadays in music concerts for people to bring their iphones and ipads instead of just enjoying the god damn show.

People like this have ruined going to concerts.

Think I'm kidding? Watch this video of a Jane's addiction concert at a google developer after party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHZGdfZ-mZo

I wouldn't find if that option to stop filming at certain venues existed.

Re:Just Another Reason That Proves Apple Knows Bes

[mjwx]

Before you know it you won't be Buying your next iPhone at all. You'll be Licensing it to use only under an ever increasingly long list of Terms & Conditions.

What makes you think that is sarcasm?

Have you read Apple's EULA, they do this with the OS and software already. Not to mention giving application developers express permission to data mine devices.

Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

lol... this is such a dumb and useless idea, considering i-phones will be disappearing sooner than later.
Also considering that infrared lights blind any camera if they're bright enough, what do they need apple's approval for?
you just need like $100 worth of infrared led arrays in a few places and you're good. But lets be honest here, who cares if anyone films anything at venues? really. I'm sure some people might find it a bit annoying, but no one is going to spend money to stop it.

I really wish the PSTO had the right to now allow stupid patents to fill up precious space in their offices and computers.

Re:Deja Vue-Meaning You're Wrong Again

[GrahamCox]

Fox gets more far-right than you'd ever like to admit

FTFY

Is there nothing that Duct Tape wont solve

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a bit over the IR sensor on the phone and...

Apple isn't that stupid ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy an iphone if this bothers you.

I like a lot of apple products, but in this case I think i'll pass on the new iphone.

Im sure they just want to hold the patent, in case technology like this is mandated in the future.

chill

[swell]

Wow! That got the Apple haters riled, didn't it?

TFA says "The California company has plans to build a system" but then it goes on to say "It is not clear if Apple intends to develop the concept". Excellent journalism. As others have noted, few patents are implemented.

Now why would Apple do this? Why does any company apply for a patent? What is the purpose of a patent?

The purpose of a patent, simply put, is to prevent others from using the idea. Slashdotters who have been here more than a week understand the concept. Patent trolls abound. They have no intention of producing anything, their function is to extract money from infringers. Likewise Apple and other companies secure trademarks and URLs to prevent competitors or scammers from using them.

If the haters can relax for a moment they will understand that Apple is unlikely to ever use this idea. If others attempt to use it, Apple can prevent it. If mandated by law, Apple will profit- but is that likely?

BTW Why would anyone use a primitive phone camera in a venue when real cameras do the job so much better?

So let's just chill and keep the hate in a bottle somewhere.

Hmm

[zandeez]

I can't see this being as popular with Venus as Apple will hope. Market exclusivity = high cost of installation, and then you're only targeting Apple devices that have this system. That means small venus are not going to bother, and everyone will just get another device to record or take photos. The system is just not workable.

Yay! More Shitty Bootlegs!

[stewbacca]

Yeah, just what the world needs--more poorly recorded bootlegs of shitty movies.

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're holding it wrong.

A way for Apple to disrupt copying from theatres

[Anonymous Coward]

One way to disrupt (or more) copying from movie projections onto the iPhone would be for the phone to insert blips into the movie recording stuff. I don't know about the newest kind of projections, but the old ones had black screens or blanks more often than the human eyesight could recognize, and the seeing person would view the sequence of still images as if they were smoothly moving. The iPhone/whatever could recognize when those dynamics were in play, and insert another gap after the recorded one, doubling the gap, disrupting the viewing of the movie.

Filter?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_cut-off_filter

If this becomes widespread, won't it be overcome simply by placing an IR filter over the lens/detector?

Good info

[tittledavid]

Thank you,

David

Re:Whew! Thank goodness this can't be circumvented

[Anonymous Coward]

The camera sensor itself can detect IR light, so what are you going to do, cover the camera lens to stop it receiving the signal telling it not to record?

First, let's kill all the users...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I just watch iRevolution on CNN and it discussed the importance of cell phone video and phone internet to freeing people from dictators all over the world. Now despots can set Apple's new toy on rooftops and kill children and babies with impunity. Thank you Apple for getting millions of people killed and imprisoned all over the world so you can protect your butt-kissing with a couple of studios. Nice patent.

friends with benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

This patent by Apple dovetails nicely with the anti-counterfeiting and piracy legislation recently passed by Congress. It goes to show you just how powerful the entertainment industry is as a lobbying organization.