Microsoft Applies For "Digital Manners" Patent 289
SirLurksAlot writes "Ars Technica reports that Microsoft has recently applied for a patent for a technology which would attempt to enforce manners in the use of cell phones, digital cameras, DVRs and other digital devices. According to the article, the technology could be used to bring common social conventions such as 'No flash photography' and 'No talking out loud' to these devices by disabling features or disabling the device entirely. The article also points out that the technology could be implemented in situations involving sensitive equipment, such as in airplanes or hospitals. The patent application itself is also an interesting read, as it describes a number of possible uses for the technology, including 'in particular zones to limit the speed and/or acceleration of vehicles, to require the use of lights, to verify an indication of insurance coverage and/or current registration, or the like.' While this technology could certainly be of interest to any number of organizations one has to wonder how the individuals who own devices which obey so-called 'Digital Manners Policies' would feel about it."
Innovation (Score:4, Funny)
It's a feature not a bug (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a feature not a bug (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no, it's a great idea, now they can say: "It's not working? ... Yeah, that's a feature not a bug, we've got a patent for that one." Sounds like a proper business strategy for me.
Most Asinine patent EVER. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Digital Manners" or "Digital Domination"? Who wants Steve Ballmer or other rich and powerful people to be able to turn off their cell phone, camera, automobile, headlights and anything else with a Genuine Advantage embedded in it? On call doctors and industry people don't want to miss calls because it might have been rude to save someone's life or property. Imagine ambulances getting stuck in traffic because all the polite cars respect the mayor's motorcade. Government officials and cowards want the kill switches for airplanes [slashdot.org], so there is market for it that may soon have the force of law. Please, God, give me better government than that. Only the US government would force everyone to pay a patent tribute to a private company when they require oppressive devices to be installed in all forms of digital equipment, transportation and communications.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Prior Art ? (Score:5, Informative)
Details of similar systems have been recently described, including a summer of code project [openmoko.org] for OpenMoko (that wasn't accepted) which wanted to put a dbus architecture to let the user add conditions which cause profile to switch, for example: going to "silent mode" whenever the phone's gps detects it has entered into a meeting room.
The summer of code project wasn't accepted, thus this system isn't currently implemented. Never the less, it's described on the OpenMoko wiki, and similar strategies have regularly been described on the web, including here on
To what extent can these description without implementation represent Prior Art ?
I also fail to understand why microsoft is trying to patent this. For this to work, it must reach widespread usage, which means it must be an open standard (a real one, not an OOXML-like one), so that both all constructor can implement it easily, and some places or legislation can require it, without those requirement forcing people to give cash to a particular private company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:5, Informative)
legally? a written description is certainly adequate prior art.
the classic example is that of the waterbed [wikipedia.org]. which was unable to be patented in 1968 because Robert Heinlein had described it in three of his novels: _Beyond This Horizon_ (1942), _Double Star_ (1956), and _Stranger in a Strange Land_ (1961)
practically? you can patent whatever you want in the US these days. all your idea are belong to US.
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:5, Informative)
Digital Manners? hahahahahahahahaha So much has been written that could be prior art for this in science fiction that it's not even funny. Since the first brick with an antenna on it, people have wanted to control when cell phones could be used. Enforcing driving habits? SciFi has it covered. In fact, I'm not certain, but I don't think there is anything you can call novel or non-obvious about it. It's just always been impractical or unpopular. Getting a patent on it won't make either of it.
Imagine a person at the movies. The theater forces phones to be shut off. The email from someone's alarm system saying there is a fire is never received. When they get home the fire and police departments take them to the hospital so they can watch their two small children die of burns. Yeah, that will work out nicely in the papers.
Say you try to control these things anywhere, there is a scenario not unlike that which could happen. Controlling speed of vehicles? Good fucking luck with that one pal. The remote kill switch functions some people have tried for stolen vehicles have NEVER passed muster for insurance companies. Why would MS get to do it?
All it would take is one fatality and the class action law suit begins.
In fact, where ever there is a human involved in controlling a machine or gadget there has never been any successful method to wrest control from the human in favor of a machine as far as I know. The cruise control is the best attempt that I know and that is a simple assistive technology.
Sure, alarm system replaces security guard, but does not take control from a human over a machine. There are gray area examples, but you see what I mean. Getting a patent for doing so is like trying to get a patent on breathing air.
If MS tries for the breathing air patent, I give up.
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, systems that do that are already very common in industry and railways. It may not be welcomed by the driving public, but there's plenty of other applications.
In fact, I'd be very surprised if automation and controller companies like Sick [sick.com] didn't already have off-the-shelf solutions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once its turned on and acquires AI capability, it'll realize that it is quite impolite to turn off other folks' electronics without permission and thus shut down itself
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:5, Interesting)
See:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1148558 [acm.org]
http://www.limsi.fr/Individu/rousseau/most/index [limsi.fr]
He wrote a phone-like prototype and used his software in an industrial project.
Where is Microsoft innovation ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(Yeah, I know the SoC project didn't involve trying to patent it - just sayin' it ain't all that new and fancy).
Re:Prior Art ? (Score:4, Interesting)
this is something i don't think any of us want implemented. i hate cellphones, and would very much like it if they could be disabled in some public places, but it concerns me that if we let this "Digital Manners" propagate it will get out of control.
Re:Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
dgtlmnrs.exe: WARNING: No Microsoft bashing.
Stupid idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
And I, the consumer, would buy a new device that is explicitly less functional than existing devices... why?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as there is a switch to use/not use this 'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.
Re:Stupid idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
>'manner enforcement', I doubt there is a problem.
You must have missed the new laws comming that will outlaw the circumvention of any such systems set up to add manners to digital devices. If you circumvent a system that was set up to protect the health and safety of the public, extra penalties will be added. In fact, just possessing such a tool with the intent to circumvent a "digital manner" system will carry harsh criminal penalties. This is needed since criminal organisations and drug dealers tends to use such devices and we need to combat them. There will also be a separate "digital manners enforcement police" set up as this is top priority for the goverment!
Re:Stupid idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like a proactive confiscation of your electronics, without having to ask for it.
C.
Re: (Score:2)
Or here's an idea (Score:4, Insightful)
So, really, which would you rather buy? The one which forces you to not disturb the others, or the one which will make you walk bow-legged to the nearest hospital?
Well, more seriously, currently the only choice is to disable them completely, for example with EM shielding or with a pico-cell that doesn't let anything through. If we can enforce some manners, maybe we won't need to go that far. Maybe we'll even let the heart surgeon in a movie theatre get his emergency phone call, if we're sure that (A) the phone is capped to vibrating inside the room, instead of playing a retarded tune at 80 dB, and (B) he'll have to walk out to actually talk.
So basically, we're not going to give you the right to be an antisocial retard and annoy everyone else, one way or another. So you can choose between (1) losing any use of that phone in some situations and places, completely, or (2) having some lesser restrictions enforced by it. I hardly think that #2 is the less functional.
And that's not even getting into situations where retards on cell phones actually endanger everyone else. Like retards who pay more attention to their phone when driving, than to the road.
Yes, you may think that you're way above average as a driver, and you'd _never_ possibly cause an accident. Guess what? So does everyone else. Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible.
At any rate, it's already proven that talking on the phone impairs driving more than being a little inebriated. So I'd like to see that enforced just like DUI. Forget points and fines, I want to see a few people go to PMITA state jail if they get seen doing that too often.
No, I don't care how simultaneously that call is the most important call in your life, and you also absolutely need to be in some meeting in 5 minutes. Neither is _that_ vital as to be a blank pass to endanger other people's lives. Whoever called you, is still going to be there in 5 minutes or an hour or whatever. Whatever important customer you're running to, well, if it's that important, postpone the phone call. If you can't prioritize, well, it's not anyone else's fault, so they shouldn't be the ones taking extra risks.
I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that horrible to have the phone remind you to park or use a headset then. Or not worse than the alternative.
Re:Or here's an idea (Score:4, Funny)
Not if the other ten percent are really, really bad.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"At any rate, it's already proven that talking on the phone impairs driving more than being a little inebriated. So I'd like to see that enforced just like DUI. Forget points and fines, I want to see a few people go to PMITA state jail if they get seen doing that too often."
I'm a bit lazy when it comes to doing the research, so I've not seen these studies. I'm curious if they found a discriminator that proved the cell phone was any worse than having a conversation wi
Re: (Score:2)
The person in the veichle with you is aware of current road conditions etc ...
Re: (Score:2)
Jerks trying to monopolize you on the phone aren't going to be any more considerate if they are sitting right there with you.
Re: (Score:2)
If they are sitting right there with you then, if you have an accident, so do they.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if you read the US Constitution you'll see that people already have the inalienable right to be antisocial retards. What you're proposing is taking that away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible.
No it's not. I hear this type of statement in many places, but it is simply not true. Consider the set {15, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 ,96, 97, 98}. The mean of the set is 86.1. 90% of the set is above the mean.
No matter what size the data set, it is not mathematically impossible for 9/10 of the data to be above the mean. It is statistically unlikely for normally distributed data, but even then, not impossible.
Try to understand what you're talking about.
Re:Stupid idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have no choice, you have to buy what you are offered. This isn't free market anymore. Do you want region locked DVD players? No. Of course, you would prefer region free players. But if there isn't anything offered like that, what do you buy?
Re: (Score:2)
We have five phone providers here. Five. For a market of maybe 10 million people. One should assume that there is some fierce competition.
Still, you only get phones bundled from one single phone manufacturer. The reason is simple, all five phone providers have contracts with this phone manufacturer. And of course there is the clause that you may only bundle these phones if you want to get them cheaply enough that you can bundle them "for free" (and a 2 years contract...).
So where's any comp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By Happy I mean cluelessly accepting, but when it comes down to it, sales are what matter to the suits.
Good job (Score:5, Funny)
[Bad manners deleted]
Re:Good job (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's pretty much how it's always worked everywhere.
manners (Score:5, Funny)
Bank robbers cheers (Score:5, Funny)
Cell phone users are also wondering why their phones tend to stop working every other minute. Investigation shows one out of five person in the public carrying their own "no phone calls here" devices arround.
Finally paparazzis express no worries. They will just keep a slightly longer distance to their targets and thus avoid any "no photos here" devices carried arround by most celebrities.
paparazzis (Score:2)
So, Microsoft patented the broadcast flag?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a government embraces this technology it is also likely to be banned
if this is ever released as described (Score:5, Insightful)
They just don't get it do they (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, Microsoft really don't get it.
I bet they peed their pants just a little when they finally found something in the world of tech that has little/no prior art.
Never did it occur to them that the reason there's very little prior art is that the other people to try using technology to be restrictive, and annoying, go out of business quickly. Because -- like DRM -- it's a shit idea and consumers will hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They just don't get it do they (Score:4, Funny)
To be fair, they stopped everyone else doing it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, MS will apparently never learn that there are sometimes good reasons to channel the behaviour of users (Mac OSX does it quite well, or maybe Gnome or Python come to that) but there is nearly never a good reason to hinder a reasonable usage of something.
Okay (Score:5, Interesting)
I prefer the good old fashioned calling people out method of enforcement. I've had a professor who answered peoples cell phones, I've seen a recital stopped completely because of a camera and the person kicked out. Anyhow, anything I own should never be under your control. Sorry, but it's just that way.
The only reason ideas of this caliber get used in mass is so that those who have power can remove what little power the rest have. Organize protest, sorry you cameras can't work, it's for the safety of those around you.
I'm also seriously beginning to think that there is a group of people in this world who consider better communication and record keeping on the part of the masses is a bad thing and should be stopped.
Re:Okay (Score:5, Interesting)
The English language, expressive beastie that it is, already has a term for such groups of people: governments.
Governments classify monitoring and recording technology using the following simple rule:
Technology which allows governments, their agents, and wealthy and powerful people who own both to monitor and record the activities of those who aren't part of the government or its owners is good, and therefore compulsory.
Technology that allows others to monitor and record the activities of the government, its agents, or the wealthy who own them is bad, and must be outlawed or carry the capability to be disabled whenever there is a potential for inconvenience to government, its agents, or their owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social pressure and fear of punishment stops most crimes
So now (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if it's voluntary opt-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's opt-in. You opt-in by buying the device. You opt-out by not buying it. Don't forget, we're talking about a patent from a single company, not legislation.
Imagine... (Score:2, Insightful)
- Hooray, now everyone will be less obnoxious!
- Yeah, it will be easier now to obey those "no calling" in theaters. It was such a pain to remember to turn of phone.
- Good, no more accidental flashes when I'm in a museum.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had the idea to patent something like this at all.
That's the difference. The potential of abuse for such a "feature" is high enough to make sure no $good_company would want to implement it.
Then again, I recently checked $good_company returns an empty set when queried against $corporations.
DRM for your actions (Score:3)
Similar to DVD players... (Score:3, Informative)
Because you have no choice, perhaps? Take DVD players as an example. DVD region-codes have no legal basis, that is, makers of DVD-players do not have to respect them. Yet all major manufacturers do, in fact, respect the codes.
For the electronic manners, it could easily go the same way...
misnamed (Score:5, Insightful)
it's almost as if they want people to think it's just benign reminders and opt-in enforcement of polite social niceties rather than a method for enforcing mandatory external control over all your devices.
Re: (Score:2)
All hail Ms. Manners... (Score:2)
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING....
And he looks just like Martha Stewart!!!
Manners? (Score:2)
New slogan (Score:2)
Demolition Man, anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
Potential for good (Score:3, Interesting)
In other areas like not being able to record things with your DVR it's just evil. In other words, it needs to act like a polite sign that a device can "read", rather than be enforced.
Why stop with digital gadgets? (Score:2, Funny)
That allows us to enforce the wishes of the religious right and disable the mothers that attempt abortion. But that would be counter productive, wouldn't it?
We could also zap those pesky homosexuals and zap the libido of everybody that makes love to anybody he is not married to. Amend the constitution!
And off course we can disable everybody's arm that does attempt to vote the w
NO MORE TOP-POSTING (Score:2)
http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/Net_Resources [linux-mips.org]
Digital Manners Patent Royalties. (Score:2)
Follow social conventions people, its the law! (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure the "You are being rude [Cancel], [Continue] dialog will work just as well when I try and take a picture of the chemical waste coming from a pipe outside the canon factory. Afterall with Canon, you can!
In fact why not let technology enforce all humanities morals? Smart card chastity belts for everyone!!! Yay!
Re: (Score:2)
"Surprise her with full open access today!"
Where do you want to go today? (Score:2)
You spent HOW MUCH on that Digital Camera? Well, we'll still tell when and where and how you can use it - for your own good, of course...
You think that you're free to use your purchases as you see fit? Well Big Brother Bill knows best. He'll even tell you what accessories you must buy to get it to work.
Talk talk (Score:5, Funny)
Any relation to... (Score:4, Insightful)
And tell me, Mr. Anderson... (Score:4, Interesting)
"According to the article the technology could be used to bring common social conventions such as 'No flash photography' and ****'No talking out loud'**** to these devices by disabling features or disabling the device entirely." [emphasis mine].
Bizarre twist on old theme (Score:5, Insightful)
When they enforced digital rights, I didn't raise my voice, because I didn't have any rights.
When they enforced digital manners, I didn't raise my voice, because I didn't have any manners.
When they enforce digital voting, it will be too late to raise any voice.
New Market Genius (Score:2)
Prior Art (Score:3, Interesting)
WHY OH WHY (Score:2)
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Again, I'm glad I live in Brazil (Score:2)
I do not know how a country allow such a thing, exepts... that they want to enforce those patents in the rest of the world to make money.
Sad, really.
I know the perfect application for this (Score:2)
Of course, just by saying it, this post will be mod'd as a troll.
A patent for good manners on Slashdot- could it really be done?
There better be a 911 over ride that fully unlocks (Score:3, Insightful)
And the option to such a patent is..... (Score:2)
So whats the problem?
Had this idea for years... (Score:2)
The exception being that you could register your phone as an emergency response phone if you're a fireman, law enforcement, doctor, and so on.
We so need to disband patents.
Gah... (Score:2)
I should have the manners to not use my camera's flash at a concert. My camera is my property, it should do whatever I damn well tell it to do.
Now, an automated feature that, when turned on, automatically puts phones on vibrate in the theater is fine -- since that's just the user choosing to use it. But enforcing things like that in the name of "manners enforcement" is ridiculous.
technology isn't the answer to social problems (Score:5, Funny)
This patent advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to enforcing manners. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea.)
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will improve manners for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of electronic devices will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
(x) Apple will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from asshats
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many electronics users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority
(x) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Unpopularity of weird new devices
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other to attack
(x) Willingness of users to install OS patches to their existing devices
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra in the movie theater without being censored
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of privately owned devices
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(x) I don't want the government controlling my iPhone
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
9.11/Flight 93 (Score:4, Insightful)
patenting unfeatures (Score:3, Interesting)
That Does It! (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who actually installs Windows as an act whether scripted or not will have to pay me a fee for doing so.
This also applies to anyone working for Microsoft and right down to Bill Gates.
This in no way applies to any other OS besides Windows.