disband the USPTO
So VoIP+FTP is patentable now? It's not completely bloody obvious to anyone "skilled in the art"? What the HELL is the USPTO using as filters for these applications, lobotomized baboons??
Apple has filed a patent application that would enable iPhone users to transfer files and typed messages to others while speaking with them during a voice call. Entitled Auto Messaging to Currently Connected Caller, the filing was published on Thursday by the US Patent and Trademark Office. The filing describes a method in …
Ah, but not without having to tediously look up your contacts list. Which is utterly over the head of anyone who buys Apple products.
There's an app for this sort of thing on Windows Mobile , someone above has said the N95 does it too, Skype can do it if I remember correctly.
So there's plenty (well, some) prior art out there at the moment, and... well, it's bloody obvious to anyone who's ever needed to, say, text someone a code or forward an email mid-conversation.
And the iPhone can't run two third party apps concurrently? POS.
USPTO fails once again.
Why aren't Apple being called out on this? Or more importantly why are the media playing their game?
Whenever they introduce (or patent!) something that's been available for years, it's treated like a technical revolution! All they're doing is playing catch-up, or stopping ridiculous restrictions - multi-taking, woo!
I'm not a fanboi of any camp, and I think Apple have done a great job at a) marketing and b) usability/interface, but I am much, much happier with my HTC Touch HD.
On my N95 I was able to just press the menu button in-call and hey presto access to music and photos, etc which I could share to peeps via email, mms, bluetooth, etc exactly same as if I wasnt on the call....
Software patents are very stupid... even more so when it can already be done!
I wish critics of the USPTO would calm down a bit, and (for once) do a little bit of research into the application procedure (pre-grant), to avoid continually making the same idiotic remarks.
The USPTO can of course refuse the patent application during prosecution in view of existing prior art .
This part of the procedure most often takes place *AFTER* publication (publication being entirely automatic at 18 months from the earliest priority date of the application).
You want to rant at someone, rant at Apple for filing it in the first place, not at the USPTO who (I'm 99.99% certain) hasn't *YET* started looking at the 'merit' (novelty, obviousness) of the inventive concept.
Fail icon, in default of a :rolleyes: icon
Has noone involved used another phone before? my sony ericsson w810 from a very long time ago can do this. and i don't have to tediously do anything.
The only advance needed would be a dual cell antenna or multiple data streams which newer phones must already have. I will be patenting this idea, just to stop apple doing it.
If I'm not mistaken, they're talking about using a shared connection available to multiple applications. That's new... ish.
Is it non-obvious? I don't think so. At the moment we're happy with multiple concurrent connections for a reason: allowing external apps to use a connection initiated by a different app is a security risk and messes up the whole idea of trusted connections and certificates.
The only reason Apple think that they can get away with this is because of the closed app-store environment -- technically every app should be trusted. However, if they fail to stop jailbroken phones from using this technology, they've just opened one hell of an acute attack vector....
... in the evil monopolist and vendor lock in stakes, but never quite making it. Cue pointless rehashing of the Apple Good - MS Bad flame fest.
Will the linux jihad side with the fanbois on the issue of software patents, will anyone with a life care ? Will anyone capable of retaining some rational objectivity care ? Are a thousand mardy geeks about to shout their worthless opinions into the internets, again ?
Find out in the next 200 comments. If you can be arsed.
Of course Apple are going to waste time drawing up filing a patent for something that your N95, T28, <insert name of earliest gsm handset here because you can't be bothered to upgrade, and in addition to that your sandals are wearing a bit thin> has been doing for millennia. Or not.
Because, as you lot obviously know, to actually carry out the SMSing, or emailing mid-call, you still have to look up the recipients details in the phone's address book. Instead of doing the obvious thing and send the data to the person you're actually speaking to.
And of course, your current handset knows it's talking to another mobile, right? Not a landline that can't accept said SMS or email...
Pretty sure this is the whole point of "Unified Comms".
Ooh looky, text, speach, FT and app share, all at the same time. Wowsers. Quick, better get a patent on inhale/exhale as a method of life exstinction prevention.
A case of Apple lawyers suffering from Body Part Recognition Deficit Syndrome.
That'll be the name of my iPhone / iPod touch app! It'll scour the internet for things just like this with an optional option box (joke box?) to ignore prior art. The last optional option is to tag your iPatent patent with "Apple" so it's approved regardless. When you're done it offers up Jobs-esque banter for your new iPatent patent before filing it for you.
"And of course, your current handset knows it's talking to another mobile, right? Not a landline that can't accept said SMS or email..."
I don't know where you're posting from but here in the UK (at least on BT), landlines do accept SMS messages; you get an automated phone call and the SMS is read out to you using a text to speech system.
This patent is not about running apps concurrently... It;s about adding an INTERFACE into the PHONE app to allow access to files WITHOUT CLOSEING the phone app. We can already do this without ending the call, but now we could do it without SWITCHING APPS.
Further, the patent implies the call connection itself would assist with the data transfer, allowing the person receiving the data to see and interact with that trasfer without also leaving their own active call screen. Potentially, we're also talking about this data being transmitted over the voice chanel, instead of IP, but that's not clear in what I read.
Nothing in this patent app means the other apps on the device need to run concurrently, nor would it preclude exclusion of 3rd party apps. The PHONE app would simply be making the appropriate call to interfaces to access data. currently, to access another contact's infor or look up an address during a call, you loose visibility to the active call, and loose access to the buttons controlling the call (speakerphone, end call, etc). If Apple tied those interfaces together, and allowed not only data access, but data interaction and transmission, while on an active call, that would in fact be unique. If this included data xfer across the existing connection, that would be compeltely new (though i'd live to see AT&T's response to that, essentially we're talking blurring the lines between a cell call and a data operation, even considdering the iPhone when calling anohter iPhone would essentially be a VOIP call.
Last I checked, ANY IM client can do what they're talking about, all from one unified interface. Extending this to a phone conversation as the voice compoent is inconsequential...SkypeOut anyone?
Seriously, if this is approved and not rejected due to prior art, the person who made the approval should be shot. It's crap like this that stifles innovation because now people have to work around the rather obvious, broad patent.
Anyway, if I remember correctly you can do voice and data simultaneously on UMTS/HSPA (not on GSM/EDGE though). Not 100% sure on this though; I'm using a CDMA phone which can't do cellular voice and data simultaneously...yet...
If HSPA CAN'T do the data and voice at the same time, then this method will have to be over VoIP...which means it'll have to be over WiFi since voice is AT&T's crown jewel (except when it drops out, is garbled, fades, etc.)
Last but not least, note that this patent is for doing stuff within the same application. While *technically* you can be on the phone and do a limited amount of other stuff with the call in the background, this once again highlights Apple's refusal to do multitasking on the phone. Not that I blame them a ton; my Touch Pro runs slower than it should due to stuff running in the background. But still, at least have the option available. The iPhone 3Gs hardware is powerful enough...
@ Yes, but:
Jesus, mate, you expect the Regtards who post here to actually read (and understand!) the original source material for an article? Good luck with that!
quote: "Last but not least, note that this patent is for doing stuff within the same application. While *technically* you can be on the phone and do a limited amount of other stuff with the call in the background, this once again highlights Apple's refusal to do multitasking on the phone. Not that I blame them a ton; my Touch Pro runs slower than it should due to stuff running in the background. But still, at least have the option available. The iPhone 3Gs hardware is powerful enough..."
There's no "technically" about it, if you want to run and use any app while on a call you ALREADY CAN.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021