4 ms·

Until Apple releases hardware/software that turns this patent into a reality, I'll leave the aluminum foil in my pantry.

giberson 15y ago
Realize, silence is interpreted as consent. If you wait until the hardware has been produced and implemented into the product before voicing concern--then it's already too late.
cageface 15y ago
What sense does this make as a defensive patent?
- rmc 15y ago
  The optimist could say that this prevents any mobile phone device having this feature, and hence Apple can defend the common man against opression.
  - cageface 15y ago
    That much trust in the altruism of any major corporation goes beyond anything that could reasonably be called optimism. Is there any precedent in Apple's patent history for this courageous leap of faith?
    - rmc 15y ago
      When it suits their interests it has been a boon to the general public. Their refusal to 'licence' their DRM system used on iPods/iTunes, and their refusal to allow another DRM system (as well as their own) on iPods meant that if you weren't Apple and wanted to sell music, and didn't want to cut of 75% of your customers (those with iPods), you had to sell it in un-DRMed MP3s. Admitidly, the only reason Apple did this was to support the sale of iPods, but still.
      - cageface 15y ago
        So, not altruism.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Actually, since Apple's products represent a minority of smartphone users (let alone all phones, or even more to the point, all video and still digicams), I think that this is a good point. If Apple's got it patented, then I as an Android and Pentax user don't have to worry about it being stuffed into my devices.
  - chollida1 15y ago
    > If Apple's got it patented, then I as an Android and Pentax user don't have to worry about it being stuffed into my devices. Why, tech companies cross license patents all the time inorder to use "technology" that another company patented. Occasionally you hear about it because it's the outcome of a lawsuit but most times it happens without becoming very public.

giberson 15y ago

Realize, silence is interpreted as consent. If you wait until the hardware has been produced and implemented into the product before voicing concern--then it's already too late.

cageface 15y ago

What sense does this make as a defensive patent?

rmc 15y ago
The optimist could say that this prevents any mobile phone device having this feature, and hence Apple can defend the common man against opression.
- cageface 15y ago
  That much trust in the altruism of any major corporation goes beyond anything that could reasonably be called optimism. Is there any precedent in Apple's patent history for this courageous leap of faith?
  - rmc 15y ago
    When it suits their interests it has been a boon to the general public. Their refusal to 'licence' their DRM system used on iPods/iTunes, and their refusal to allow another DRM system (as well as their own) on iPods meant that if you weren't Apple and wanted to sell music, and didn't want to cut of 75% of your customers (those with iPods), you had to sell it in un-DRMed MP3s. Admitidly, the only reason Apple did this was to support the sale of iPods, but still.
    - cageface 15y ago
      So, not altruism.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
Actually, since Apple's products represent a minority of smartphone users (let alone all phones, or even more to the point, all video and still digicams), I think that this is a good point. If Apple's got it patented, then I as an Android and Pentax user don't have to worry about it being stuffed into my devices.
- chollida1 15y ago
  > If Apple's got it patented, then I as an Android and Pentax user don't have to worry about it being stuffed into my devices. Why, tech companies cross license patents all the time inorder to use "technology" that another company patented. Occasionally you hear about it because it's the outcome of a lawsuit but most times it happens without becoming very public.