Microsoft Patents Whacking Your Phone To Silence It 214
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.
That this is patenteable AT ALL (Score:5, Insightful)
goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
Groan! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groan! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Geeze.. (Score:5, 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.
USPTO is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL (Score:5, 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.
Re:Geeze.. (Score:3, Insightful)
That brings me to this new idea: Silence a phone by breaking it. :-)
Maybe I should patent that?
Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL (Score:5, 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.
Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL (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.
Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL (Score:3, Insightful)