Slashdot Mirror
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."
Haven't we been here before?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There's absolutely no way anyone would ever abuse such technology. Nope. Unpossible.
And there would almost immediately be iPhone cases for sale which cover the IR receivers. Or masking tape. Either way.
use an infrared filter to block messages from these "sensors"
Even if they're lighter, thinner, slicker, etc.
My phone shouldn't try to restrict me.
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.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
with electrical tape. or IR filtering plastic, or sitting out of sight of the IR transmitters....
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
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!
Apple favoring corps over users. Gee, didn't see that one coming.
Why detect the iPhone? Wouldn't it make more sense to constantly emit the infra-red signal so that it affects all iPhones?
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
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.
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.
Palm trees and 8
Apple Camera Patent Lets External Transmitters Disable Features
Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 03, @10:31AM
Maaan ...
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
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.
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.
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 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)
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"?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Just hold your thumb over the sensor, that should work.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
What if the sensor is inside the lens?
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.
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.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
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
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
http://10CentMail.com - the Amazon SES app.
Bin Laden did as I recall. Of course he was a whack job and was the most wanted man on the planet.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
they are so damn sycophantic its pathetic, i dont want some over-priced crappy phone obeying big brother
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The iPhone 5 will have tape sensors around the IR sensors.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
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...
Mainly in Florida, Boston and Compton, California
"The hipsters outside looked from Windows to Mac and from Mac to Windows, but already it was impossible to say which was which."
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Apple has none.
Apple, as a very wealthy corporation, has plenty of freedom. I think you meant to say Apple users have none.
Apple says you'd be holding it wrong.
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
this + this = paparazzi-proof . Sell 'em to celebs for $2500 a pop.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It's also being reported on The Sun and linked via Drudge.
Apparently someone just discovered this two-week-old non-news.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
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.
if the sensor also can detect visible light?, very few situations involve filming in absolute pitch darkness.
This is dumb. Patenting it will prevent others from being dumb in a similar way.
and in "townhall" venues where politicians often make fools of themselves
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
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?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Thanks! I had to fence it to keep the neighbour's dog from eating my tomatoes.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I think we already have one of those. It rises in the east every morning.
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.
How long till cops put these on their cars, or make some belt-attached version to stop citizen recordings?
Zing!
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.
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.
This isn't going to end well.
Hey. Cool place (MPJA, not Amazon). More junk! Thanks.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
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?
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
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.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...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.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
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?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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 ;)
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
"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 is belong to us!
~c
"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."
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.
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.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
I8-D
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!
The people of New Hampshire?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
...couldn't a potential bootlegger just cover the infrared sensor to get around it, since it would need line-of-sight?
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
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.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I won't buy!
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
In some jurisdictions, it is illegal to record anyone without their consent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
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.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
Fox gets far more right than you'd ever like to admit
Well played, sir.
until the cops get ahold of this technology. no more rodney king incidents for sure!
ruined by a $0.25 IR filter over the lens. Sorry Apple!
But clearly you have something better to say...
Subtle!
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.
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
Jesus was a liberal
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Please spend my tax dollars to install one of these in Congress.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
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.
Do you copy, Mr Employee-At-Apple-PR-department By-chance-reading-Slashdot?
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.
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!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Awesome. Now we just have to figure out how to modulate its emissions....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
IR filters anyone????
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.
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Fox gets more far-right than you'd ever like to admit
FTFY
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.
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yeah, just what the world needs--more poorly recorded bootlegs of shitty movies.
David
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.
That's *a* reason.
Given Apple's history and current position on locking down devices, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
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!
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.
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.
The CB App. What's your 20?