Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Patents Whacking Your Phone To Silence It

another random user writes with news of a patent application from Microsoft that details a method for silencing your phone by giving it a whack. "There are a variety of circumstances under which it may be desirable to quickly control a device without having to interact with a traditional user interface. For example, often mobile device users forget to set their mobile devices in a silent or vibrate mode and the device rings or makes sounds at an inopportune moment." And yes, 'whack' is the technical term used in the patent (20120231838): "receiving information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications device; determining correlation between the information indicative of acceleration of the mobile communications device and exemplar whack event data; and based at least on the correlation, controlling an audio signal of the mobile communications device." This method is not recommended for controlling the audio output of animals or children.

142 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. That this is patenteable AT ALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.

    1. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can tell how obvious this was by the way it turned up only 12 years after Microsoft started working on smartphones.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Yea Apple has proven that with massively board patents and stuff that is clear prior art.

    3. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      I dunno... I'm normally skeptical of patents, but if they've come up with a good method of distinguishing a genuine, intentional "whack" from a bit of jostling or other causes of sudden acceleration, which doesn't seem at all obvious how to do, then that strikes me as something that might genuinely be patentable.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    4. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other news a Tech company patents wiping your arse. Seriously these people need to find work as the devil has them realy busy right now. Vermin.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    5. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      intentional "whack" from a bit of jostling or other causes of sudden acceleration, which doesn't seem at all obvious how to do,

      It's only a magnitude. Random jostling is not the same as a good solid whack, which easily can exceed 5Gs. People do not typically experience 5G engvironments unless they are in a jet fighter or an automobile accident. Measure with a phone's built-in accelerometer any 5G thwack = intentional whack.

      Bam. Done.

      It's an obvious application. It's so obvious that you can buy tags to attach to shipped items that measure whacks, and if it exceeds the whack standard of the tag, then the shipper is at fault for damage.

      http://www.drypak.com/shippingHandlingIndicators.html

      This is just using already-built-in accelerometers and doing the exact same thing. Don't forget the standard is supposed to be "nonobvious to someone skilled in the art" and not "nonobvious to a moron."

      --
      BMO

    6. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by isorox · · Score: 2

      goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.

      I find giving things a whack often fixes them

    7. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Plunky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it seems to me (with no time at all spent thinking about it, and I am scarcely skilled in the art) that it is when a device is being alarming that a whack is most significant.. just like a naughty child who knows they are doing wrong, when the 'whack' is applied then they will shut up. If you 'whacked' a child who was just playing peacefully they would justifiably object.. and please, substitute your choice of censure, if 'whacking' a child is distasteful to you.

      So, the whack detection becomes more accurate when the current state of the device is accounted for.

    8. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      I'm normally pretty anti-MS and anti-patent, but this isn't actually a bad idea if they've developed a method to do this safely. While there is obviously the analogy to silencing alarm clocks by hitting them or throwing them, it's generally not advisable and will usually void your warranty. There is a clock which was designed specifically to be silenced by throwing it against a wall, and it would not surprise me to see that patented.

      Now, if it's the entire concept of "hitting the phone to silence it," I would see that as being overly broad. If it's about a particular method of doing so safely, then I'm all for it being patentable.

    9. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Altanar · · Score: 1

      No, Patent D618677 shows how broken the patent system is.

    10. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      This is almost the least stupid software patent I've ever seen. I mean, all great ideas look obvious in retrospect, but I can't tell you how many times I've been embarrassed that I forgot to silence my phone and had to fumble with it to try to silence it without removing it from my pocket. If could just give my thigh a light slap and silence it mid-ring, that'd be awesome.

      Still, I'm not sure I like the idea of a patent protecting something like this, even if it hasn't' been done before and would be useful. I think there's enough benefit in simply being first to do something like this to justify the minimal R&D required to come up with something like this (which is to say, none, just a neat idea that popped into some engineers head). We don't need to nurture this level of innovation along with the promise of a monopoly on the idea. It simply doesn't rise to that level nor does it require such incentive to happen.

    11. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just because an idea wasn't implemented before doesn't mean it should be patentable.

      Tabs in browsers weren't implemented for a long time. Imagine the slowdown in the industry if it was.

      I fail to see the benefit to society for patenting input methods. They'll come regardless of patents. Just with patents, the competition won't be able to incorporate the successes that society agrees upon is a good idea.

    12. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Its just another gesture really. Gesture interfaces are nothing new, even for silencing phones.

      It's not just phones either. My CASIO watch has an arm gesture to turn the backlight on, etc.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      It has been done to death for snoozing alarm clocks. I fail to see what is new in this idea. Has this really never been implemented in mobile phones ?

    14. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      The idea is not bad, but the patent most certainly is. Flip to silence, shake to silence, press any key to silence, hit the volume rocker to silence, etc., there are a myriad of real world implementations that have been around for probably about a decade already. The accelerometer based methods popped up within days after sale of the first handsets to have those sensors.

    15. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Nursie · · Score: 1

      You could get alarm clocks that you switched off by throwing or whacking back in the 80s. Not new.

    16. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      It's laughable. Not to mention that there is prior art. Humanity has been whack silencing things since we had opposable thumbs!

      --
      -- no sig today
    17. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      What? You mean Software Patents actually slow down technological progress and induce price inflation due to licensing overhead?

      No news here folks, keep moving....

      --
      -- no sig today
    18. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Also you can go the data crunch way and just train a device to recognize your whacks with a support vector network.

      --
      -- no sig today
    19. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Very acute.

      Some might even argue that every sharp acceleration while in an alarm state could be classified as a whack. Since the operator is in the state of directly moving the device he is aware of the alarm.

      --
      -- no sig today
    20. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Not new but unfortunately it deals with tech that is sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic by an uneducated observer. Or in this case the tech involved could be perceived as non obvious by a patent judge.

      --
      -- no sig today
    21. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Alarm clocks that you silenced by hitting them were around in the '80s, probably before. Using an existing UI on a new device is not novel.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.

      Not really. I think it shows that some things are obvious _after_ someone shows them. Is any phone implementing it already? If it's as obvious as you think, why not?

    23. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      And how many people have "whacked" their clock radio to silence it? I've done the same thing with smoke alarms. Sometimes it even works. This actually has been implemented and done before.

    24. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by pmathew · · Score: 2

      And Old ipod and some others had "shake to shuffle" .. Aint it prior art ??

    25. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, you can tell how obvious this was by the way it turned up only 12 years after Microsoft started working on smartphones."

      In fact, I want to support your position. From what I understand, even the great engineers at M$ didn't come across this innovation in the usual and obvious way. It turns out someone was wishing aloud that they could whack Balmer to shut him up at almost the exact moment that a phone call came in from the big ape. A lightbulb went off, and they reached immediately for the patent application.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    26. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Perhaps for warranty reasons? Manufacturers may not have been comfortable telling people to "whack your phone to silence it". Some percentage of people would hit it too hard and break it (or, at least claim that's how the screen broke - "I was just following directions from the manual on how to silence the phone and the glass cracked - so it's normal usage and the product is obviously defective, send me a new one.").

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    27. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Ira+Sponsible · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're describing devices that were not specifically designed to perform (or stop performing, rather) in this manner, therefore these cannot be counted as actual implementations. However, the soft-bodied alarm clock I had about ten years ago was specifically designed to be turned off by throwing it across the room. (Whacking it also worked, of course). The unfortunate design flaw of this particular alarm clock was that not everything else in the room was designed to be struck by an alarm clock hurled at it.

      --
      1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
    28. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      In other news a Tech company patents wiping your arse. Seriously these people need to find work as the devil has them really busy right now. Vermin.

      Well... If they write it up as "wiping your arse with a computer/phone," then they might just get that patent.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    29. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First parsed as "sybian"......

    30. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by ryanov · · Score: 1

      No, not really. It could be in a car or in your pocket or what have you.

    31. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's whacking off displays patent system mental masturbation. Film at 11.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    32. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      In those positions the only way for the device to record accelerations that represent a "whack" is for the car to crash or the wearer to crash. In which case you bet you want the device to auto pick up and give you a chance to an early response rescue. ;-)

      --
      -- no sig today
    33. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      As I said, acceptable for a specific implementation, not the concept in general of sensing events using an accelerometer..

      This in particular has merit because it deals with a method which ordinarily would be considered abuse under the terms of most warranties. Seems like a lot of people want to overlook that incredibly salient point.

    34. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      Pressure and Accelleration are two entirely different types of force, unless you're saying that you can pull a 5G turn underwater. Please try again!

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
    35. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Cowards have a reputation for not understanding such things

      --
      -- no sig today
    36. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Didn't we have that conversation a few years ago with the fuss over the iPood?

      It was an Australian camping company's shit-hole shovel, with a compact folding design and a receptacle for arse-wipe paper. All in all, a good piece of design. So, Apple are obviously going to produce their own copycat design, aren't they?

      (Incidentally, the Scum (one of Murdoch's arse-wipe UK newspapers) for once failed to live down to their normal standard of reporting in the story that ElReg link to from the main story above ; they didn't pay the poor girl to pose topless and covered in shit. Or, perhaps they did, but had a rare attack of taste.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    37. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, shit be WHACK

      --
      /* No Comment */
    38. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      But it's been done before.Lal
      You see, it was the n-th phonecall from my girlfriend, asking why I wasn't already there to meet her. I had explained the physics of classical motion, speed vs time, and the relatively improbable compenetration of solids, so that being stuck in traffic leads to being late. As the phone was ringing with the dreaded number, I whacked it repeatedly on the wheel, the battery eventually fell out. What did I obtain? guess what, silence.

      There, no need to thank me for my little contribution to the advancement of arts and technology.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    39. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by ryanov · · Score: 1

      The pavement must be better where you live.

    40. Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Yes, we got the landmines out this summer ;-)

      --
      -- no sig today
  2. Geeze.. by ibsteve2u · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Talk about an obvious use for a g-force sensor...what's next? Somebody patenting using a screwdriver for a chisel or to open paint cans?

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:Geeze.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Quite obvious NOW isn't it. After the event it's obvious with the use of 20/20 hindsight

    2. Re:Geeze.. by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      I actually like this idea. If my phone is in my pants and i'm in a movie theater and I forgot to silence it.. just whack my pocket and it stops ringing, rather than fumbling in my pocket to get it out, and find the buttons.

    3. Re:Geeze.. by guardiangod · · Score: 1

      That gives me a patent idea:

      A patent on using a smart phone device as a chisel to open pain cans. After the phone is inserted into the crack, the vibrator would turn on rhythmically and attempt to loosen the lid.

      I am sure this idea is novel, and is about as obvious as the patent mentioned in the summary.

    4. Re:Geeze.. by cps42 · · Score: 2

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      My Samsung G2 supports muting the ring by turning the phone over. Using the accelerometer isn't unique. Whacking it is pretty clever, though.

    5. Re:Geeze.. by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      They sort of have. Not by looking for a whack, butby other accelleromete based gestures. For example, I can silence an incoming call by turning my phone face-down.

    6. Re:Geeze.. by Mr0bvious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Much better title - Microsoft patents whacking off..

      I dunno, but I think it deserves the name Whack Off...

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    7. Re:Geeze.. by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      Actually, my Nexus S (which is already a two year old model I think) has been doing this ever since I can remember.

      In fact, that's probably why Microsoft used the word "whack", and not "shake" or "move". If they had used any of those other words, a simple bing search (yes, even a bing search I tell you) would have uncovered multiple instances of prior art on both Android and on the iPhone.

      No doubt, they'll try to use this little play on words in their commercials to say how unique the feature is, and how they're the only one who have it because they patented the idea.

    8. Re:Geeze.. by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quite obvious NOW isn't it. After the event it's obvious with the use of 20/20 hindsight

      it's pretty fucking obvious.

      it's so obvious it's been used already - in a more sophisticated form too, Nokia has had "turn over on table" silence for ages - turning it into a whack isn't really that much of a thing.

      what's more, the feature appeared on phones just about when the hw started featuring accel sensors. it's the second most obvious use after automatic screen rotation.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Geeze.. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That brings me to this new idea: Silence a phone by breaking it.
      Maybe I should patent that? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:Geeze.. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2

      I consider accelerometer events (drop, whack, hit, turn, rotate, flip, shake, bounce, etc) analogous to keyboard shortcuts. Now excuse me while I patent using Alt+B to launch my browser, I mean I haven't seen any computers yet that do it, so it CAN'T be obvious, thus it must be a valid patent!

    11. Re:Geeze.. by kenorland · · Score: 2

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      Smartphones have been around for more than 15 years.

      And, yes, there have been plenty of phones that have done this for years, including Nokias and Android phones.

    12. Re:Geeze.. by lxs · · Score: 1

      It's not implemented because it is a bad idea.

      Wacking the phone on purpose is not a good habit to teach users. Even without this, every other iPhone on the planet seems to have a cracked screen. Imagine what would happen if people get into the habit of slamming their phone against a table or wall at the slightest annoyance.

    13. Re:Geeze.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sony Ericsson already had a phone you could "shake" to skip music on your phone. You could also "Whack" it for the same effect.

    14. Re:Geeze.. by BadDreamer · · Score: 2

      My HTC Android works this way. it has a "shake off" function when it rings or the alarm goes off, and just whacking it activates that.

    15. Re:Geeze.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh no, I think I whacked it off too hard. I've activated the squirt feature.

    16. Re:Geeze.. by epp_b · · Score: 1

      it's so obvious it's been used already - in a more sophisticated form too, Nokia has had "turn over on table" silence for ages - turning it into a whack isn't really that much of a thing.

      My mom's old Samsung phone and this as well. All Microsoft is done is taken this exact same concept and based on the action of the accelerometer instead of the gyroscope.

      Big friggin' deal. Certainly not worth a patent.

    17. Re:Geeze.. by wile_e8 · · Score: 1

      In addition to all of the other instances mentioned above, I've been using Alarm Clock Xtreme with shake to turn off on my Android phone (actually two phones, using on both a Droid Incredible and Galaxy Nexux) for a couple years now. This patent is only original if you consider whacking the phone significantly innovative over shaking, flipping, or any other motion based ways to silence phones that have been around for years.

    18. Re:Geeze.. by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      it's so obvious it's been used already - in a more sophisticated form too, Nokia has had "turn over on table" silence for ages - turning it into a whack isn't really that much of a thing.

      Consider the possibility that Nokia has this patented. And elsewhere mentioned was silencing by shaking, which may also be patented. Which both are obviously not the same as whacking, and in that case it would be quite reasonble to patent a method that works around other patented methods.

    19. Re:Geeze.. by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      Clever? Really?
      When I was a kid, I had an alarm clock in the shape of a baseball. To turn the alarm off, you'd chuck the ball against a wall. The impact silenced the alarm.
        Keep in mind, this was about 30 years ago.

      How is this clever again?

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    20. Re:Geeze.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No need to turn your Nokia over. Just tap on it twice with your fingernail.

    21. Re:Geeze.. by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Pressing any of the physical buttons on an iPhone will silence it.

    22. Re:Geeze.. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Tried to use a Windows 8 (phone or not)? Whacking it comes natural. So they got a great idea and patented a natural reflex.

    23. Re:Geeze.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If it's so obvious, why has nobody yet done it with more than 5 years of smartphones on the market.

      They have. I fondly remember my friend with an older Windows Phone 6.5 model I think. He tried to answer and the phone hung up but the ringer didn't stop. After he threw it hard against the wall and stomped on it. Instance silence, not just from the phone but from the entire party.

      A day later he showed me his new blackberry which I'm sure had a similar feature, though he never tried it.

  3. Groan! by Ian.Waring · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prior art city: hitting an alarm clock. If Americans are so intelligent, why have such an outrageously dumb patent system? It's meandering stories for profit rather than any reward for innovation these days...

    1. Re:Groan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One doesn't "hit an alrm clock". One presses a button that is wide and shallow enough that a blow from one's hand will activate it. This patent suggests that the phone's internal accelerometer will detect short, sharp motions and communicate them to the ringer. While I don't think patenting such small details is healthy, this invention isn't so comparable to an alarm clock.

    2. Re:Groan! by sodul · · Score: 1

      My alarm clock actually has no Snooze button but has Slap! To snooze.

      The Microsoft patent is 'interesting' but I do not really find it practical unless you have to start switching modes all day long: when running where the simple fact that you are running would make it misbehave, probably similar on my bike (SF streets are badly maintained), or worse on the train (I had to disable 'shake to skip' on my iPhone, CalTrain got to be the worse train tracks in the western world).

      Something more useful would be to cross reference the ring mode with your calendar. If in a meeting, at the dentist, etc ... switch to silent mode. The calendar could even have an option to make the phone super silent and not even vibrate (meeting with CEO).

      Should I patent this idea?

    3. Re:Groan! by snikulin · · Score: 3, Funny

      People for the Ethical Treatment of Smartphone

    4. Re:Groan! by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Once you're bent over, grabbing your ankles, you know what happens next.

    5. Re:Groan! by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Too late, I already did.

    6. Re:Groan! by CodeheadUK · · Score: 1

      I had a sports ball alarm clock that you could throw against a wall to snooze the alarm. I'd like the see that implemented on a Windows phone.

    7. Re:Groan! by guttentag · · Score: 1

      The brilliance of our patent system is that it can occasionally be used to entrap mega-corporations when they do stupid things (whether we are smart enough to utilize it in that way is another matter). In this case, call MSFT's bluff: Declare Stephen Elop's tenure at Nokia to be prior art. Either MSFT acknowledges the prior art by Nokia and abandons this claim, or it claims ownership of said prior art by acknowledging that it sent Elop there to whack the phone company and silence it.

    8. Re:Groan! by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Once you're bent over, grabbing your ankles, you know what happens next.

      We only know what happens next because Microsoft patented a system and method for bending people over and making them grab their ankles back in '95. Without their documentation in the patent we wouldn't know what happens next. See how patents benefit society?

    9. Re:Groan! by guttentag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One doesn't "hit an alrm clock". One presses a button that is wide and shallow enough that a blow from one's hand will activate it.

      In theory one presses a wide button. In practice millions of people hit their alarm clocks. This creates the pretense that the device may be silenced in a non-destructive manner, while ensuring continued regular demand for new alarm clocks. It's really quite brilliant on Microsoft's part. By encouraging this model of behavior they can inflate their sales figures and retention percentages ("9 out of 10 Windows Phone owners buy another Windows Phone each year").

    10. Re:Groan! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I have never had a hit to disarm alarm clock

      3 slide switch models and a specific button to press model in my 33 years I have never whacked an alarm clock, as in my entire life they have not operated that way

      and if your country is so innovative why dont we hear about your invaluable inventions every day?

    11. Re:Groan! by vux984 · · Score: 2

      You are describing -your- alarm clock.

      There are any number of alarm clocks that do in fact just let you "whack" them anywhere.

      Hell, there's even ones designed to be thrown...

      http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080429/throw-alarm-clock/

    12. Re:Groan! by c · · Score: 1

      > One doesn't "hit an alrm clock". One presses a button that is wide and shallow
      > enough that a blow from one's hand will activate it.

      That's one approach. On the other hand, companies have been putting accelerometers into alarm clocks for a while now.

      Apparently, this is one of those "... in a phone" patents.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    13. Re:Groan! by danomac · · Score: 1

      Damn. The thing that sucks about throwing that alarm... when it goes off again you have to get up to silence it. Maybe I should patent a throwable boomerang clock.

  4. Interesting by kiriath · · Score: 1

    That might be Microsoft's "must have" feature!

    I can see the commercials now... "This phone is whack! Boyeee!"

    1. Re:Interesting by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Whack Off. Whack On.

  5. Already done with Nokia phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    My Nokia 6600 fold already had this feature for years. You just tap it twice and it silences alarms and calls. And shows the current time on the front panel. Where's the actually new stuff in this patent because everything else seems like an obvious extension to that?

    1. Re:Already done with Nokia phone by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is using the word 'whack' in their patent application. That part is unique.
      What is a whack really? Could be The Killer feature in Windows Phone 8.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  6. Prior art: Mafia by Calydor · · Score: 3, Funny

    The mafia has been whacking people for decades to silence them.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Prior art: Mafia by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Hah, now THAT's funny!

  7. Possible titles for the patent application by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. The three stooges "Shut up you numbskull" patent
    2. The whack dat nois - e boid patent
    3. The void-your-manufacturer-warranty inoportune phonecall patent

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    1. Re:Possible titles for the patent application by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Heh. I would have called it the 'Al Calavicci' patent.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  8. Phew by JohnboyHolmes · · Score: 2

    As long as they don't Patent dropping annoying phones in a glass of water, I think there might be some prior art on that one.

    --
    I stopped thinking I was unique when I found out everyone else was to. So does that make me the average user???
    1. Re:Phew by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not me, I actually like the Microsoft patent.

      It just gives me one more excuse to whack some people on the side of their head while they're on their phone.

  9. Patents are the devil. by pwnstar23 · · Score: 1

    these patents are stupid they are more about patenting a VERB than any actual schematic or plan for something. Next up: Microsoft patents whacking off. That's right every time you stroke the one-eyed monster you owe microsoft a royalty check because they thought of it first.

    1. Re:Patents are the devil. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry for the person that has to count those checks.

  10. USPTO is a joke by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.


    Patents are supposed to be novel, useful and not obvious. This patent seems obvious. According to a law lecturer, the mere fact the USPTO has granted a patent doesn't mean you have a valid patent: It also has to be tested in the courts. Only if it is upheld does this mean you have a valid patent.

    The problem is this system is easily exploited. A USPTO examiner is supposed to eliminate patents which fail the above tests, but you can overwhelm a USPTO examiner just by giving them a lot of documentation. I have seen this done. It's easier for the examiner just to grant it and let the courts figure it out. The problem is as we saw in the Apple v Samsung case the jury assumes just because the USPTO has granted the patents they *are* valid. It's also expensive: It costs about $2M to attack or defend a patent and takes a lot of employee time when they could be working instead. In the US even if you successfully defend a patent attack you usually don't get your legal fees reimbursed, so that $2M is gone forever. This will send a smaller businesses broke. Is that really good for innovation?

    Microsoft's patent here seems obvious and should have never been granted. The same goes for the intuitive tablet / smart phone operations which Apple patented: Give one of these devices to anyone who hasn't used one before and they quickly figure out which gestures work. The "intutive" nature of this means it is by definition obvious.

    The US patent system... now forced down the world's throat thanks to aggressive lobbying of foreign governments by US diplomats bringing shiny beads and mirrors ... means it has been inflicted upon the world, and is hampering innovation everywhere. Even Google has spoken against it, but big companies are forced into a position where they must spent millions on stupid patents (which shouldn't hold up in court) just to get into a better bargaining positions against the patent trolls and Apples of the world.

    But make no mistake: The USPTO is the patent troll's friend. Not just due to their lazy examinations, but because they have also increased fee to discourage people from asking for bogus patents to be re-examined. That was the reason they gave when they did this: they are trying to make less work for themselves caused by their own sloppiness in the first place!

    The only solution: Tell your congressman and senator to stop this madness now and that there will be consequences at the ballot box if they don't. A tall ask, but they are the only people with the power to change it.

    1. Re:USPTO is a joke by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      > It's also expensive: It costs about $2M to attack or defend a patent and takes a lot of employee time when they could be working instead. In the US even if you successfully defend a patent attack you usually don't get your legal fees reimbursed, so that $2M is gone forever. This will send a smaller businesses broke.

      As you're alluding to here but not directly spelling out, in business terms anyway, is how the patent affects risk. If you are in the planning stages of a new product and find even a highly dubious patent that only might maybe argued to be infringed, it can have a dramatic effect on the project viability. Say you calculated the internal rate of return before knowing about the patent and came up with 5%. That's positive, so it's a goer. But patent disputes can have massive implications for the project so even a small chance of them happening can easily destroy that 5%.

      Taking an attitude where you're just leaving companies to fight it out in court is highly detrimental to consumers and the economy, because the mere existence of a patent can easily make marginal projects not viable.

    2. Re:USPTO is a joke by Speare · · Score: 1

      In general, I agree with your points about the process and the problems with it. However, your description of what constitutes obviousness is not in line with the USPTO definition. You refer to things being obvious in a couple ways.

      Many things are obvious to use, but not to implement. The patent is on the process used to implement something. Whether a person can "figure out how to whack" or "figure out how to pinch" to use the feature is irrelevant. How the software or hardware exploits a certain pattern recognition quirk to decide that this is a meaningful whack vs a stray bobble, or a meaningful pinch vs a stray swipe of a second knuckle, is quite likely not as obvious to the implementers the first time around.

      Also, many things are obviously possible in hindsight, where they never occurred to anyone earlier. It's not obvious just because someone who sees the finished invention invariably smacks themselves on the forehead and says "wow, that's so simple and elegant, why didn't I think of it?!" The invention is not hindsight, it's foresight: "I'm amazed nobody else has already done it this way, it seems to solve all the problems!"

      In your favor, the actual USPTO definition is that something must not be obvious to a person versed in the art. Many people on slashdot might apply here, but many others are just armchair experts. These are people who would hear nothing more than the phrase "whack to silence" and could implement it themselves without the patent documentation. The point of documenting patents is actually to enrich the public domain (in the long run) with documented methods. If an expert could easily implement it from the elevator speech without a lot of laboratory R&D work, the value of the patent documentation is so poor that it's not worth patenting.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  11. Why not? by aurashift · · Score: 1

    It works for my libido.

    ...but can they really patent that?

    1. Re:Why not? by aurashift · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Almost a full four minutes later and I regret posting this. Or at least not wording it better.

    2. Re:Why not? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      It works for my libido. ...but can they really patent that?

      Almost a full four minutes later and I regret posting this. Or at least not wording it better.

      Eeww ... I'm not borrowing your keyboard...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Four whole minutes? You need a better porn collection.

  12. Internal competitions ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    I wonder if engineers at companies like Microsoft have informal competitions to see who can get the most wacky patent accepted.

  13. Prior art by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    There are many examples I have seen on TV shows clear back in the 70's. But this is the first one I could find on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYr4-vtBBRo

    Oh, you want to use that phone again later? :-)

  14. Throwing it against a wall by Tim12s · · Score: 1

    Can I patent throwing a mobile device against a wall to silence it?

  15. Yea, that's all we was talkin' about by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    So them rats in the F.B.I. thought they had us when they taped us about wackin; someone to silence him. Be wes got our sources and wes pay good dough for our snitches inside the F.B.I. So now wes got this cool patent on wackin to silence, and whats our lawyers call "Plausible Deniability". Suck it Feds, we're Microsoft, yous can't touch us!

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  16. funny by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    my windows 5 phone just has a easy to find physical button that requires nothing more than a press of the thumb

    1. Re:funny by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      my windows 5 phone just has a easy to find physical button that requires nothing more than a press of the thumb

      But that doesn't allow you to easily silence other people's phones. They'll not let you press the button. However if you are quick enough, you may be able to whack it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:funny by isorox · · Score: 1

      my windows 5 phone just has a easy to find physical button that requires nothing more than a press of the thumb

      Same with my iphone and ring finger.

  17. something is wrong with the patent system by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    they patent a sensor that responds to a whack? Fine. They patent the idea of whacking the phone? Not fine. Patents are supposed to cover IMPLEMENTATIONS, not ideas.

    1. Re:something is wrong with the patent system by isorox · · Score: 1

      they patent a sensor that responds to a whack? Fine.
      They patent the idea of whacking the phone? Not fine. Patents are supposed to cover IMPLEMENTATIONS, not ideas.

      I've silenced a phone before by whacking it.

      The novel part is having it carry on working after the whack.

    2. Re:something is wrong with the patent system by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      What is the running patent life of an idea these days? Used to be until you got off your ass and built it and others imitated.

      --
      The game.
  18. Re:nice by cffrost · · Score: 3, Funny

    So your zune squirts and your WP8 device whacks off.

    Microsoft. What will they think of next?

    Rubbing a phone's little pink silicone nub to turn it on?

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  19. For the naysayers out there... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    This is an elegant use for an accelerometer. Obvious? Now it is after they said it. But imagine being able to punch your pocket to shut your phone up. Really the guy that came up with this needs more than the $1 he will get from Microshaft for the patent.

    --
    The game.
  20. FF by Altanar · · Score: 1

    Fun fact: Windows Phones already have a feature where if the phone is ringing and you pick it up (say, to see who's calling) and put it back down, the phone recognizes this and turns down the volume of the ringing for that call. Found that out by accident. Heh.

  21. I've used both ME and Windows Vista by Grayhand · · Score: 2

    Beating an electronic device to death makes perfect sense to users of ME and Vista. This falls under a common sense patent. This must be a defensive patent before the new OS comes out given their history of every other release sucking. I'm still waiting for them to announce the "AX Back Up System". The hard drive backs up before you take an ax to it!

  22. Microsoft patents new feature that's whack? by hack++slash · · Score: 1

    Nothing new there then.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  23. Re:Kick the damn thing patent by jhoegl · · Score: 1

    I think its better to stay in the whacking off business.

  24. Prior art by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

    HTC lets you do this already by flipping your phone. Both are just a motion sensor output value linked to operating state.

  25. Patent the Obvious by CrackP0t · · Score: 1

    It is a good thing we have a provision in our patent law to not allow for the patenting of the obvious. Who would ever have thought of hitting something to make it quiet!!! DOH!

  26. Kicking it. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    I'm going to patent kicking the phone to make the vibrator thingy cause the phone to smack the other persons head hard.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  27. Ignorance of the Patent System on Slashdot by drphil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is amazing.
    "Microsoft's patent here seems obvious..."
    Really? well, I don't know about the inner workings of all cell phones, but I've yet seen a model that I can silence with a single instant button touch or one that uses an accelerometer to transmit a single clear command to the phone. -- Others may come up with examples which is great. Third parties can now (or soon) file with the USPTO to put prior art not considered by the examiner into the official record. This is a very recent change and I don't recall the details. It may be active just for business patents right now, but eventually all patent apps will be included and this one likely won't be examined before that rule is opened to all patents. So prep your arguments now! In any case the mere existence of accelerometers probably would not constitute obviousness which seems to be the main point being made by most.

    "...and should have never been granted"
    Well, it hasn't. This is only an application published 18 months after filing. With the current backlog in the USPTO, it won't be examined for another 2 years.

    1. Re:Ignorance of the Patent System on Slashdot by epp_b · · Score: 1
      It doesn't matter if it's not obvious to you. It matters whether it's obvious to a "practitioner skilled in the art" ... which it is.

      well, I don't know about the inner workings of all cell phones,

      Well, then let me help you out...

      Phones are essentially small computers. A computer is an electronic device that can accept one or several forms of user input and manipulate it, according to instructions and configurations, into a desired output. On a phone, that user input consists of buttons, other physical triggers, microphones, sometimes a touch-screen, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a compass and so on.

      All Microsoft has done here is taken the logical step of reading one of the inputs (accelerometer) and manipulating the data to result in an output that already exists (silencing the phone). It is literally no more obvious than muting the phone by pressing the "volume down" button several times or by flicking the little switch on an iPhone: accepting user input, manipulating it, creating a desired output.

      This already exists in some Nokia and Samsung phones (and surely others), using the gyroscope (sensing when the phone is flipped over on a desk) instead of the accelerometer. Without even looking, I'm almost certain that this already exists in the Android Market / Google Play.

      Seems pretty obvious now, eh?

      Connecting existing technologies in slightly varying configurations does not meet the required rigor of patent-worthiness. Unfortunately, the patent system is too busy being funded by bribes and juries are just too stupid to conceptualize this basic logic

    2. Re:Ignorance of the Patent System on Slashdot by sir_eccles · · Score: 1

      Finally someone points out it is only an application. Unfortunately the "patent experts" here on slashdot will declare it doesn't matter because they'll grant it anyway.

    3. Re:Ignorance of the Patent System on Slashdot by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Really? well, I don't know about the inner workings of all cell phones, but I've yet seen a model that I can silence with a single instant button touch

      And from this I can conclude that you have never used .... a phone.

      Seriously I've never seen a phone which you can't mute by pressing a button. On my current Android model it's the lock key. On my Saegem dumb phone it was #, and on the Nokia I had in highschool way back before the millennium bug was supposed to end us all, it was the * key.

      Who the hell modded you insightful!

  28. Prior Art by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    There is massive prior art in the public domain on this one so the patent is not valid. People have been whacking their devices, including phones, for thousands of years. One of the complaints about modern phones is they are too fragile to whack. Sure, MS can make one more rugged to take a whack and stop talking but that's not a non-obvious patentable idea. That's just a minor incremental improvement.

    Patent rejected.

  29. Moses by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Even Moses whacked his tablets, much to his gods annoyance, since he just got his hands cleaned of the pot clay...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  30. I thought my dad had the patent on this by aenigmainc · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure my father can claim prior use. when i was a kid that was his default method of shutting us kids up.

  31. In other news -- by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Microsoft Patents Whacking Your Phone To Silence It

    In other news, CNET reports that Apple patents "Giving your Phone a Reach-around to Check Voicemail", while RIM is rumored to be close to announcing a "Tongue the Screen Discreetly to Read E-Mail" feature. No word yet on Microsoft's rumored "Candles and Hot Wax Interface", designed to appeal to the S&M contingent of the Windows Phone userbase (which is most of them), or HP/Palm's "Necrophilia" WebOS initiative.

  32. ! Prior Art ! by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    My mother claims prior art!

    --
    Place nail here >+
  33. Here's prior art for you by cronot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh, so you want prior art?

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=br.com.eversource.shake2silence&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImJyLmNvbS5ldmVyc291cmNlLnNoYWtlMnNpbGVuY2UiXQ..

    Last update was on December 2010 - so it's a fair to assume the first version was submitted even earlier. And that's just one example I could find quickly, of course. It wouldn't surprise me it there are many more other apps (for Android or iOS alike) that does the same thing and was made before.

    And yeah, as rolfwind said, just because the idea was implemented only after 10 years after Microsoft entered the smartphone market, doesn't mean it's patentable. The technology needed for this idea wasn't ubiquotous on smartphones until some 4 or 5 years ago anyway, so you should rather start making the math at that point in time.

    1. Re:Here's prior art for you by xmacdanx · · Score: 1

      Kudos to Microsoft for pushing the envelop and highlighting the absurdity of these types of patents. Of course it is all self-interest since they have to be concerned that they are infringing on the copyrights from Office Space (printers) and the Sopranos (people), "whacking" indeed. And might I remind everyone that patents last only 20 years, while copyrights on new material are well on the way to lasting forever.

    2. Re:Here's prior art for you by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you have a good point. However, that's the art of patent attorney to come up with new words in patent claims/descriptions, so the patent is different from prior art -- shake vs. whack. Also, they may argue later on that this is an "app" but not a built-in phone functionality. Sadly, this is one of well known broken patent system but nothing is done to fix it...

  34. PS Vita; RIM jobs by tepples · · Score: 2

    CNET reports that Apple patents "Giving your Phone a Reach-around to Check Voicemail"

    No, that'd be more of a Sony thing given the rear touch sensor on the PS Vita.

    while RIM is rumored to be close to announcing a "Tongue the Screen Discreetly to Read E-Mail" feature.

    That would fit in with RIM jobs.

  35. Re:My Patent by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I already have a patent application for that. It covers:

    1) Ad-hoc sensing of other portable devices' profile settings via peer-to-peer wireless network
    2) Detection of environmental variables to determine when to be silent (i.e. when it's dark)
    3) Detecting a low-power "silence" beacon that can be placed in locations where phones are requested to be silent

  36. No no no! I'll Allow It! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft invented whacking hardware! Pretty much every time I've wanted to whack some hardware, it's been running one of their products! I think they should get this one!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  37. Whacking your wallet by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    We've all heard of planned obsolesence...this business of activly enlisting users participation in the destruction of their expensive device represents a novel concept deserving of a business methods patent.

    Quite clever indeed..

    "warranty void if whacked"

    "whack to unlock"

  38. Submitter missed a trick by ampathee · · Score: 1

    This headline could have been so much better with just a tiny rearranging of words:

    Microsoft Patents Silencing Your Phone By Whacking It

  39. Completely logical by Brillegeit · · Score: 1

    It's completely logical that if a tap is a zero-length swipe, a whack is a high force shake. Also, sarcasm is negative valued sincerity.

  40. Blackberry by metalmonkey · · Score: 1

    I have not looked into the spec - but I'm sure my blackberry stops ringing when I take it out of my pocket (not holster), pick it up or start shuffelling around in my bag for it. I have previously thought 'is this accelerometers or the ir detector' (same one that turns off the screen when i've got it at my ear).

    Maybe I'm just imagining it, however my thoughts were that it would be fairly obvious to use accelerometer for this job. Not exactly a 'whack' but a marked change in accelerometer patterns of movement shortly after ringing starts, which would include a whack.

  41. ha ha, child abuse joke, great! by Coop · · Score: 1

    >This method is not recommended for controlling the audio output of animals or children.

    Why'd you leave women off the list?

    --
    "If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
  42. Makes Sense by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    Owners of Microsoft devices over the years have always felt more compelled to whack their machines. Their next patent application will be for a "kick" gesture and finally a "throw out of window" gesture.

    The kick gesture will be determined by acceleration followed by the battery being displaced or the screen cracking.

    The Throw out of Window gesture will be determined by a quick acceleration, loud audible sounds not found in the audible dictionary and the loss of gravity followed by a sudden deceleration.

  43. Pity no-one seems to check prior art... by fluffynuts · · Score: 1

    The patent file date is 11 March 2011. I've been silencing my AlarmDroid (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.splunchy.android.alarmclock&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5zcGx1bmNoeS5hbmRyb2lkLmFsYXJtY2xvY2siXQ..) alarm with an acceleration of configurable intensity (and yes, that means sometimes I whack it, sometimes I shake it) since well before then.

  44. OP trolling for patent system criticisms by stevejf · · Score: 1

    once again, OP has posted a misleading article. This is not a granted patent. This is a patent application, as the text of the article states, but the title, what every reader sees first, is blatantly false.

    1. Re:OP trolling for patent system criticisms by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      It clears says it's a patent application:

      another random user writes with news of a patent application from Microsoft

  45. Does it silence it... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Or does it just go to sleep after you whack it ?