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.
goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
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.
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
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.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
> goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
... 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.
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
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.
Much better title - Microsoft patents whacking off..
I dunno, but I think it deserves the name Whack Off...
Never happened. True story.
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.
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.
... 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.
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.