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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That this is patenteable AT ALL (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 [drypak.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Also you can go the data crunch way and just train a device to recognize your whacks with a support vector network.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. It could be in a car or in your pocket or what have you.
Re: (Score:2)
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. ;-)
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: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:3)
goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
I find giving things a whack often fixes them
Re: (Score:3)
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 wou
Re: (Score:2)
Its just another gesture really. Gesture interfaces are nothing new, even for silencing phones [androidzoom.com].
It's not just phones either. My CASIO watch has an arm gesture to turn the backlight on, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could get alarm clocks that you switched off by throwing or whacking back in the 80s. Not new.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's whacking off displays patent system mental masturbation. Film at 11.
Possible titles for the patent application (Score:5, Funny)
2. The whack dat nois - e boid patent
3. The void-your-manufacturer-warranty inoportune phonecall patent
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
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: (Score:2)
What? You mean Software Patents actually slow down technological progress and induce price inflation due to licensing overhead?
No news here folks, keep moving....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's laughable. Not to mention that there is prior art. Humanity has been whack silencing things since we had opposable thumbs!
Here's prior art for you (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 [google.com]..
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Geeze.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Geeze.. (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 [bing.com] (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That brings me to this new idea: Silence a phone by breaking it. :-)
Maybe I should patent that?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Geeze.. (Score:5, Funny)
Much better title - Microsoft patents whacking off..
I dunno, but I think it deserves the name Whack Off...
Re:Geeze.. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Pressing any of the physical buttons on an iPhone will silence it.
Re: (Score:2)
Groan! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Groan! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Groan! (Score:4, 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").
Re: (Score:3)
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/ [coolest-gadgets.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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 [amazon.com] clocks [amazon.com] for a while now.
Apparently, this is one of those "... in a phone" patents.
Re: (Score:2)
My alarm clock actually has no Snooze button but has Slap! To snooze [philips.com].
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Groan! (Score:4, Funny)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Smartphone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Already done with Nokia phone (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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Prior art: Mafia (Score:4, Funny)
The mafia has been whacking people for decades to silence them.
Phew (Score:2)
Re:Phew (Score:4, 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.
Internal competitions ? (Score:2)
I wonder if engineers at companies like Microsoft have informal competitions to see who can get the most wacky patent accepted.
Yea, that's all we was talkin' about (Score:2)
funny (Score:2)
my windows 5 phone just has a easy to find physical button that requires nothing more than a press of the thumb
Re: (Score:2)
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.
something is wrong with the patent system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
For the naysayers out there... (Score:2)
FF (Score:2)
I've used both ME and Windows Vista (Score:3)
Microsoft patents new feature that's whack? (Score:2)
Prior art (Score:2)
HTC lets you do this already by flipping your phone. Both are just a motion sensor output value linked to operating state.
Kicking it. (Score:2)
I'm going to patent kicking the phone to make the vibrator thingy cause the phone to smack the other persons head hard.
Ignorance of the Patent System on Slashdot (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Prior Art (Score:2)
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.
Moses (Score:2)
I thought my dad had the patent on this (Score:2)
! Prior Art ! (Score:2)
My mother claims prior art!
No no no! I'll Allow It! (Score:2)
Whacking your wallet (Score:2)
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"
Submitter missed a trick (Score:2)
This headline could have been so much better with just a tiny rearranging of words:
Microsoft Patents Silencing Your Phone By Whacking It
Re:nice (Score:4, 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?
In other news -- (Score:3)
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.
PS Vita; RIM jobs (Score:3)
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 [rim.com].
Re: (Score:2)