June 16, 2011

"If an iPhone were held up and used to film during a concert infra-red sensors would detect it."

"These sensors would then contact the iPhone and automatically disable its camera function."

This will only be used to keep concertgoers from infringing on copyrights, right? It would never, ever be used by the government to prevent us from filming demonstrations, police behavior, and so forth.

73 comments:

gerry said...

Michael Buble encourages fans to record his shows. He is a great performer, a great talent, and knows the quality of such recordings - especially the audio - will suck anyway.

Another great - K.D. Lang - doesn't get all crazy about it, either.

damikesc said...

Nice to see companies founded by hippies deciding to go all-in with "the man" these days.

But dare not call this hypocrisy...

Maybe it's time for conservatives to trim down the absurdity of the generosity of intellectual property rights.

Paul Brinkley said...

Makes me gladder I have an Android.

AJ Lynch said...

Will some misbehaving but clever cops install these sensors so citizens can't film them when they go over the line?

Moose said...

I'm still amazed at how people who want to be "different" buy Apple products and are all forced to act the same.

To paraphrase a movie line, "the greatest trick Jobs ever pulled was convincing the world they were cool".

tfmaguire42 said...

At some point, we as a society need to revisit the question of ownership rights. Whether it's Amazon reaching into your kindle to delete books, Apple reaching into your phone to disable it or just dvd makers disabling the fast forward and skip features when they want to, who owns your electronic equipment?

These things are trespasses and the law needs to be updated to recognize this.

tim maguire

Fen said...

I'm still amazed at how people who want to be "different" buy Apple products and are all forced to act the same.

Lets all be non-conformists! :)

The Drill SGT said...

An excellent reason not to use an Iphone

Shouting Thomas said...

Another solution to a non-existent problem.

Sound and video quality is very low on iPhone. So, what's the point of trying to prevent recording?

Shouting Thomas said...

And, in response to your question about governmental abuse...

Cool it! Obama is president! Everything is going to be all right!

Robert Cook said...

"I'm still amazed at how people who want to be 'different' buy Apple products and are all forced to act the same."

I think you're confusing an old Apple ad campaign with the motives of those who buy Apple's products. No one buys Apple to be "different," but because they prefer Apple's products. Apple's ad campaign was merely a means to encourage persons planning to purchase a computer to consider buying a Mac. Windows pcs constituted well over 90% of the pcs in the market at the time of that ad campaign, and most non-techy consumers had little or no idea what a Mac was or that it might be different from most computers in the stores. Of course Apple chose to make this distinction in a way that would be flattering to those who made the choice, but this is standard advertising technique.

As for being "cool," anyone who ever thinks for even a second of trying to be cool...isn't.

MadisonMan said...

I see a good reason not to buy an iPhone.

But seriously -- what one geek can program, a hundred geeks can un-do. There is a pathway that is used to disable the camera. Disrupt that pathway. Shouldn't be too hard.

Scott M said...

No one buys Apple to be "different," but because they prefer Apple's products.

(large buzzer sound) I know quite a few people that bought Apple for exactly that reason. Both here at work and among my son's friends at college. When asked about pro's/con's and other reasons for the purchase, not wanting a PC-based product because that's what everyone else was fairly common.

As for being "cool," anyone who ever thinks for even a second of trying to be cool...isn't.

Despite their relative readings on a funkometer (mine is around 18 megafonzies), not being technically "cool" doesn't stop legions of people from trying to be so.

MadisonMan said...

Well, I have both a PC laptop and a MacBook for work, and I much prefer the Mac -- especially when software is updated. That shutdown-for-update to take effect nonsense is far more prevalent on a PC.

Apples, having less market share, have been less prone to viral attacks, but that is changing.

Brian Wohlgemuth said...

I fully predict the day this is enabled, iPhone sales worldwide will plummet.

I also predict a quick response from Apple's PR team stating the patent was obtained "Strictly for patent defense, nothing more".

Fred4Pres said...

Hence the reason I would get a Droid and have an app to couter this.

Sorry Steve Jobs, you are part of the establishment and cannot be trusted.

Scott M said...

For the life of me, I can't understand why the story about the cops going ballistic when they realized they're being filmed isn't a bigger story nationwide. Legalese aside, I don't believe armed representatives of the state's power should be have any expectation of "privacy" when they're operating in public. These cases of phones being seized/smashed/erased are the sort of things that will cause real problems if it's not stopped cold.

My daycare provider's husband is an EMT and a professional firefighter and through him I know a lot of local cops. While none of them like the idea, I've yet to come across one that thinks it should be illegal to film/photograph cops in the course of their duty.

t-man said...

Given Washington's eagerness to trample over the public in the name of "copyright protection," I fully expect that there will be a law mandating this function in all electronic equipment, not just phones. Apple is just getting ahead the pack with the patent, so they can profit when all other manufacturers are forced to license this technology.

LakeLevel said...

Makes me gladder I have an Android.

Yeah, because they would never do anything evil, you know like tracking your every movement, or censoring at the behest of a communist government.

pst314 said...

Another disadvantage: If I witnessed criminal behavior in a theater, I would not be able to use an iPhone to record it.

damikesc said...

Makes me gladder I have an Android.

As do I --- but Google is, absolutely, no better.

rhhardin said...

Another reason to point out Michele Boldrin against intellectual property.

It leads only to rent-seeking, not increased creativity.

Add to that the modern element of thuggishness in rent-seeking.

Long ago my drill on good ideas at work was tell everybody about them; even if they steal one, if you're any good you'll come up with more, so it doesn't matter.

In return you get lots of good ideas and suggestions right away.

EDH said...

I'm not sure I believe this "star wars" individual phone zapping method.

I think they'd just have to blanket the audience area with a camera disabling signal.

And, yes, the authorities would misuse it.

caplight said...

Record companies don't get it. last October I "discovered" Billy Vera and the Beaters on Youtube. Billy is probably known to most people as the composer and performer of the iconic "At this Moment" that served as the break-up song for Alex P Keaton and Ellen on Family Ties in the late eighties (arguably the best break-up song ever). I now own seven Billy Vera CDs. If the suits had their way I never would have come across Billy Vera and the Beaters and I never would have purchased the seven albums.

MadisonMan said...

Record companies don't get it.

Entrenched companies are famously non-nimble when it comes to new technologies/paradigms.

Scott M said...

If the suits had their way I never would have come across Billy Vera and the Beaters and I never would have purchased the seven albums.

This applies to a lot more than just music. I own a copy of Downfall because of all the parodies.

Sofa King said...

I'm not sure I believe this "star wars" individual phone zapping method.

I think they'd just have to blanket the audience area with a camera disabling signal.

And, yes, the authorities would misuse it.

That's exactly how it works. It's a broadcast signal that the phone complies with.

The reason this is less of a danger on Android is that you can load software even if it has not been blessed by Google.

Phil 3:14 said...

I've seen several videos that are compilations of multiple fan videos. Fan concert videos are free advertising.

Are there really folks who string together 40 to 60 2 minutes clips into a whole concert video?

Somehow this story seems bogus.

E.M. Davis said...

Hey ... I agree with Robert Cook!

edutcher said...

EM, acknowledging the problem is the first step.

AJ Lynch said...

Will some misbehaving but clever cops install these sensors so citizens can't film them when they go over the line?

I'm sure some's working on it.

traditionalguy said...

If Amazon can erase your books, what stops Apple and its Cloud from altering whatever they want to alter on your I-Phone?

Pastafarian said...

I wonder what other handy features they could add.

How about voice recognition software that listens to your phone conversations, and if certain words or phrases are used that indicate that you might be involved in illegal activity, the police are notified of your name and gps coordinates? That would be sweet.

I wonder if I can download such an app, just to keep an eye on myself.

Geoff Matthews said...

Never buying an Apple product. While not as creepy as Ellison, Jobs is much creepier than Gates.

Moose said...

I'll have to disagree with Mr. Cook. Apple continues to push the idea that Apple products are "cool" and people buy them for that reason. Apple recently and still shows that much reviled "If you don't have an iPhone..." commercials.

People that protest buying Apple products because they're cool for even a second aren't...cool.

Christy said...

Wouldn't those same conditions prevent you from recording a child's band performance? Your little darling's debut as the third shepperd from the left at the church's living nativity? etc

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

I own zero Apple products. I wasn't anti-Apple, I've just never been interested in their products. So even though I'm strictly a PC user and developer, I've often found myself defending their business strategies.

Not any more. Congratulations, Apple! I'm now anti-Apple!

MarkW said...

As do I --- but Google is, absolutely, no better.

No, Google is better -- far from perfect, but significantly better. Android phones are much less locked down than iPhones. Google does not apply ridiculous, arbitrary restrictions on its app store the way apple does and does not try to prevent competing app stores (Amazon has an Android app store, for example).

Bryan C said...

What an amazingly stupid idea. It'll take about two minutes for someone to defeat this.

It's really time that concert venues stopped pretending that they can enforce bans on photography. I was at the Kennedy Center Treme' show on Monday, and it was almost comical watching the hapless ushers rushing into the aisles every time they saw someone take a phone or a camera. Which happened about every 5 minutes. It was pretty ridiculous.

E.M. Davis said...

I buy Apple products because they have been routinely easier to use and more effective in my line of work.

Cool has nothing to do with it.


WV: sightsy <-- What overbearing tourists become.

Sigivald said...

First, note that this is just a patent. It's not a product. It's a patent. Many things are patented and then never go anywhere - except to be used in lawsuits.

Second, the government, if it's being that nasty, doesn't need to use magic IR signals to stop you reporting its abuses.

It can just shut off the cellular network and take your phone.

(Damikesc: What "hypocrisy"? Did Apple ever make a claim that this conflicts with?

Handwaving about the "hippie"ness of Woz and Jobs doesn't get you the ability to ascribe random moral positions to them and then complain that they're hypocrites - especially over a mere patent rather than an actual product.

(And no, the famous 1984 ad won't get you hypocrisy either, since it was about non-conformity [and how IBM sucked].

Sorry, that just doesn't extend to Apple having to have whatever anti-authority stance you want, especially 26 years later.)

KLDAVIS said...

To everyone hating on the Android, it doesn't matter if Google becomes 10x worse than Apple, because Android is an OPEN platform. My camera will never be disabled remotely by big brother, because I have the code that makes it work. Google can try to take Android in a particular direction, but if the people don't want a "feature" then they don't have to accept it.

Biff said...

I'm old enough to remember when a venue's security stuff would kick you out of a concert when they saw you snap a picture. Tickets used to have prominently printed statements warning that photography, audio recording, and video recording without written permission were against the law and were strictly prohibited. You know, back in the old days, like the 80s and 90s.

I have been struck by how ubiquitous video recording at concerts has become, and many modern phones/cameras record with surprisingly high fidelity.

Biff said...

ScottM said "For the life of me, I can't understand why the story about the cops going ballistic when they realized they're being filmed isn't a bigger story nationwide."

A very interesting point. Does anyone doubt that actively enforcing bans on personal video recording at rock concerts will draw far more public fury than anything having to do with the confiscation or destruction of cameras used by citizens recording police activities?

Some of it is just an issue of numbers, i.e. most people doubt that they will ever be in a situation where they will need to record the police in earnest, while a lot of people like to use their cameras/phones at concerts. I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

Scott M said...

Technology will ultimately decide this issue. The wearable cameras will keep getting smaller and smaller while the the quality gets better as they get more affordable.

I'm not sure if wearable cameras will ever be as ubiquitous as camera phones are today, but if they get cheap enough, the same people that carry concealed will use them. It's only thing to be holding up an obvious device pointed at cops. It's another to just be standing there looking while a concealed camera records the whole thing.

Short of creating serious roadblocks on the info highway or outlawing wearable cameras, there's nothing "the man" can do about it.

Scott M said...

It's only thing

It's ONE thing...

Bruce Hayden said...

Why would Apple do this (and its competitors not)?

The difference is that Apple is also a major music distributor, and its major competitors in phones are not. Its iTunes unit sells probably more music than anyone else around (guessing without checking). And, so, it is important for Apple to play nice with the RIAA, et al. So, it throws this code into its iPhones, and in the end makes money on the deals it makes with music providers.

If I have a chance today, I will identify the patent application, download it, and review it to see what is in there. Should be interesting. For example, how do they contact the iPhone? How do they keep from disabling the non-offending iPhones in the vicinity?

Keep in mind that this is all window dressing. If they disabled a couple dozen phones a year this way, I would be surprised. Rather, as I suggested above, this is to make nice with the recording companies, who are making nice with their talent.

Bruce Hayden said...

p.s. If anyone can get the patent application number, I would greatly appreciate it. It is an eleven digit number starting with 2011, possibly with a "/" between that and the next seven digits.

You should be able to get the text from that from the USPTO site, and possibly construct the app from the images on the site, but it likely won't be on Google yet.

jamboree said...

Don't update.

I hate it when it gets to the point with any Apple software that I don't update because they've added overlord "features" like this. Other software too, but definitely Apple.

Methadras said...

There will be a hack for that.

LakeLevel said...

KLDAVIS said...
To everyone hating on the Android, it doesn't matter if Google becomes 10x worse than Apple, because Android is an OPEN platform.


Except 97% of people do not have the will and the werewithal to modify thier phone from the standard release. Also, when you upgrade the operating system, you go right back to the standard release. So no, Google can be easily just as bad.

Scott M said...

So no, Google can be easily just as bad.

It really just depends on the amount of sheep blood you have in you.

Robin said...

Bruce,
Link buried in this comment over at Eric Raymond's blog.

Paul Brinkley said...

iPhone's market share is already less than Android's.

iPhone's share over time is flat, and has remained so, and there is some speculation that that may be deliberate, for reasons akin to those like why Lexus isn't marketed as a car for everyone. Apple may wish to keep iPhone "fashionably exclusive", in other words.

Meanwhile, data from comScore, a digital market research company, indicates that Android's share will likely pass 50% by this October or November.

If I had stock in Apple, I'd sell it.

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

I haven't seen such a tempest in a teapot in ages. People, this is just a patent.

Apple makes patent applications by the barrelful- few of them find their way into an actual product. Even as a tech person, and an Apple follower, I often just skip articles about Apple patents, because they have so little to do with real products.

Much of the purpose is to prevent other companies from getting ownership of an idea- it's a kind of intellectual property squatting. And the fact that Apple owns this patent also means that it could conceivably prevent the idea from being licensed/used by other parties.

But now, Apple has a PR problem, because people like Drudge & Althouse are representing this as actual product development.

Yawn.

Paul Brinkley said...

LakeLevel: "So no, Google can be easily just as bad."

Scott M: "It really just depends on the amount of sheep blood you have in you."

And it doesn't even have to depend on your own blood sheep level. Anyone could fix Android, since Android itself is open-source. All it takes is someone else with enough gumption to set up a site with a "clean" Android, keep it maintained, and make it so easy to switch your update site to them that enough people other than you do that, that it's not worth Google's effort to keep up their "dirty" Android.

And all that's even assuming Google would put out a "dirty" Android in the first place.

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

>>> All it takes is someone else with enough gumption to set up a site with a "clean" Android, keep it maintained, and make it so easy to switch your update site to them...<<<

And this would be compatible with the different hardware manufacturers? Even Google itself can't manage that trick.

Sorry- it's a fantasy. One of many relating to Android's "openness."

Paul Brinkley said...

Soooo... this software stack that even Google can't manage to have run on multiple hardware brands, is currently running on multiple hardware brands due to... what, invisible pink unicorn poop?

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce,
Link buried in this comment over at Eric Raymond's blog
.

Thanks. Actually just found the same one on my own. Apple had fewer than 20 applications publish this month, and I guess that this was the most likely one.

The title is: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RECEIVING INFRARED DATA WITH A CAMERA DESIGNED TO DETECT IMAGES BASED ON VISIBLE LIGHT

And the abstract reads:
Systems and methods for receiving infrared data with a camera designed to detect images based on visible light are provided. A system can include a camera and image processing circuitry electrically coupled to the camera. The image processing circuitry can determine whether each image detected by the camera includes an infrared signal with encoded data. If the image processing circuitry determines that an image includes an infrared signal with encoded data, the circuitry may route at least a portion of the image (e.g., the infrared signal) to circuitry operative to decode the encoded data. If the image processing circuitry determines that an image does not include an infrared signal with encoded data, the circuitry may route the image to a display or storage. Images routed to the display or storage can then be used as individual pictures or frames in a video because those images do not include any effects of infrared light communications.

Here are the relevant claims:

1. A method for using a camera, comprising: using the camera to detect an image based on at least visible light; determining whether the image includes an infrared signal with encoded data; in response to determining that the image includes an infrared signal with encoded data, routing at least a portion of the image to circuitry operative to decode the encoded data in the infrared signal; and in response to determining that the image does not include an infrared signal with encoded data, routing the image to a display operative to display the image.

6. The method of claim 4, wherein modifying a device operation comprises disabling a device function.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the device function is a record function.

Without reading the application, what looks like is happening is that when the iPhone is recording and detects an infrared signal with its camera, the circuitry in the iPhone may disable the recording function.

So, presumably, this means that the people putting on concerts will transmit infrared signals encoded with such signals, likely from where the performance is happening. They will likely just transmit them either randomly or continuously, since the signals would have no effect if you weren't trying to record the performance.

Bruce Hayden said...

Here is the link to Apple's 20110128384 patent application.

Bruce Hayden said...

Robin mentioned the article at Armed and Dangerous. They make some good points to consider:

On their past record, can there be any doubt of Apple’s willingness to quietly slipstream this technology into a future release of iOS, leaving its victims unaware that their ability to record a police action or a political demonstration is now conditional on whether the authorities have deployed the right sort of IR flasher to invisibly censor the event?

As we become increasingly dependent on computers and the Internet to mediate our communications with others, the integrity of our social and political networks requires that we have complete control of those computers. Without that control, not only are we liable to have our communications with others blocked and filtered, the evidence of reality itself can be suppressed. Concerts, police actions, and political demonstrations can be censored from the Internet-enabled conversation. These events can, in an increasingly important sense, be made unwitnessable – deleted from social memory.

It is difficult to overstate how dangerous a prospect this is. We come near the territory of Orwell’s “1984″ here; Apple’s video-suppressing devices would create memory holes. The “walled garden” would imprison not just its users but reality and history. We must not allow this to happen.


Think about it for a minute. Camera phones have changed the political dynamic around the world. Sometimes, the subjects of video recordings are government actors, such as police, military, etc., presumably acting badly. Imagine if they could shut off recording of their actions merely by shining an coded infrared beam at the camera phones recording them. The technology may be here already, but if not, it appears destined to find its way into Apple's iPhones, iPads, etc.

Anga2010 said...

heh,

"The new technology is seen as an attempt to protect the interests of event organisers and broadcasters who have exclusive rights to concerts."

And you, the organizer can buy our product for a very small fee!

YAY!

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

>>> Soooo... this software stack that even Google can't manage to have run on multiple hardware brands, is currently running on multiple hardware brands due to... what, invisible pink unicorn poop?<<<

Do you even read tech news?

Two days ago, HTC announced that their HTC "Desire" Android phone would be unable to run the new Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" OS:

http://www.androidcentral.com/ask-ac-why-was-htc-desire-gingerbread-update-cancelled-and-what-can-users-do-now

They were shamed into reversing course, but it highlights the well-known problem of rolling out new "open" Android OS's to multiple hardware vendors.

Paul, it's your imaginary, group-maintained "clean Android" project that relies on invisible pink unicorn poop...

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

>>>On their past record, can there be any doubt of Apple’s willingness to quietly slipstream this technology into a future release of iOS, leaving its victims unaware that their ability to record a police action or a political demonstration is now conditional on whether the authorities have deployed the right sort of IR flasher to invisibly censor the event?<<<

This is the purest ignorant FUD I've seen in ages.

Denis Drew said...

Last I heard infrared can be blocked by clear glass or plastic -- why your infrared range finder wont work pointed straight through a window.

I don't understand whether your IPhone is sending infrared or is passively sensed. Whatever -- it sounds like the blocking signal must be specific to your specific phone -- otherwise anyone's phone would trigger a blocking signal for all. If it is a general signal to any phone why not just send the signal constantly to block all phones at once?

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't understand whether your IPhone is sending infrared or is passively sensed. Whatever -- it sounds like the blocking signal must be specific to your specific phone -- otherwise anyone's phone would trigger a blocking signal for all. If it is a general signal to any phone why not just send the signal constantly to block all phones at once?

The way that it would apparently work is that someone would shine an infrared light with a coded beam towards one or more iPhones. The iPhones don't emit the infrared signal - they just receive it, along with visible light, when they are recording images.

I had first thought that they would have to identify the iPhone to disable it. After starting to read the patent application, I think that if this gets introduced into iPhones (and iPads), that it will instead be a general disable signal - any iPhones that are recording at the time that pick up the coded infrared signal will be affected.

But that is a good point - that the easiest way around this would be some sort of IR filter that fits over the camera lens. If the camera doesn't receive the coded IR signal, the disabling mechanism cannot operate.

Bruce Hayden said...

This is the purest ignorant FUD I've seen in ages.

Why do you say this? Cold you back up your comment?

Keep in mind that there are a number of police in this country who have over the last year or so started to zealously try to suppress recording of their actions by the public. Cameras and phones seized. Some broken. SIMM or memory cards seized, etc. And, that is in a country with a strong civil liberties tradition. What about throughout much of the rest of the world that does not have such a tradition?

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

>>>>
>>>>This is the purest ignorant FUD I've seen in ages.<<<<

Why do you say this? Cold you back up your comment?<<<<

I'm not the one making unsupportable claims here. Apparently you're able to read Steve Jobs' mind so that you can readily pronounce about Apple's "willingness" to render customers unable to use their cameras? And, about what is "destined" to be implemented in Apple products?

"Destined"? To call this speculation is to put it very kindly.

As I said earlier, Apple files patents by the barrelful, and few find their way into actual products. In many cases, they're building their patent portfolio so they have a stronger position in negotiations like the ones they just concluded with Nokia.

Enough with the breathless FUD. It's fine to point out that no one wants to see this kind of tech implemented, but to invent these Apple strawmen is a distraction.

Bruce Hayden said...

Ok, skimmed the patent application specification.

I was correct - one of the primary embodiments is to disable recording during concerts. Multiple IR transmitters could be placed around the stage, and preferably synchronized.

Another embodiment that they discussed was disabling recording in certain parts of museums, etc.

The place where I was wrong though was that they did, indeed, discuss incorporating an IR transmitter in their devices, and with the IR receiver built in, users can communicate over short distances w/o resort to cellular transmissions. But, the flip side of that is that if the IR transmitter were to transmit intermittently when recording, it could be utilized to identify people recording an even on their iPhones or iPads. (And, maybe turn on the coded IR signals to turn off recording).

There were a couple of other uses of the IR receiver discussed. One was to receive information at a museum. You would aim your camera in your phone at the exhibit, and the exhibit might transmit an IR signal back that was turned into text about the exhibit (and the IR signal from the iPhone could trigger this). Likely, the data rate would be too slow to support actual audio. Maybe.

Another possibility discussed is watermarking recorded images when directed to by the incoming coded IR signal. Thus, instead of turning off recording, the owner of the phone that recorded something could be identified if the recording were put on the web.

Finally, one of the problems with the technology is that IR signals may wash out regular images. So, the application taught discarding those images (after being checked for an embedded signal). But, one of the slick things that they disclosed was sampling at a higher rate than is usually used to record images. Preferably 2x, but they mentioned higher rates. They may alternate checking for IR and visible light, and possibly filter the IR when recording the visible.

Probably more information than you wanted....

Bruce Hayden said...

I'm not the one making unsupportable claims here. Apparently you're able to read Steve Jobs' mind so that you can readily pronounce about Apple's "willingness" to render customers unable to use their cameras? And, about what is "destined" to be implemented in Apple products?

You are correct that we do not know if and when this may be included in a real Apple product, or, indeed, whether it already has been included.

As I noted above, if it is included, it will be at the behest of the recording interests. And, Apple makes buckets of money off of their iTunes site. Making nice with the RIAA could potentially save them a lot of money when negotiating for content.

We shall see.

I don't see Apple as going out of their way to screw their users, but do believe that they may consider this, if it stands to make them a lot of money.

I do not believe that Jobs, et al. have any interest in supplying the disabling transmitters to 3rd world dictators, etc. However, if the technology makes it in their phones, it can be, and will be, hacked. All that is needed is knowledge that the technology is in phones and that it works, then someone will record IR at a concert where the technology is utilized, the IR imagery will be analyzed and tested, and devices will become available that can disable recording. Not rocket science.

Bruce Hayden said...

As I said earlier, Apple files patents by the barrelful, and few find their way into actual products. In many cases, they're building their patent portfolio so they have a stronger position in negotiations like the ones they just concluded with Nokia.

Actually, by my standards, they really don't do bucket loads. Quite a few, but not at the IBM level, or the level that we were filing when I was at Motorola. They have had 292 patent applications published this year, which translates to maybe 600 or so a year, and that may mean 400 or so issued patents a year. They could be requesting non-publication for some, which would bring that total up a bit. But probably not much, if any.

Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting.

My second to last post was totally eaten by Blogger. Probably for the better.

Moving from Blogger cannot come too soon.

814659a2-986c-11e0-98c3-000bcdca4d7a said...

>>>> Actually, by my standards, they really don't do bucket loads. [...] maybe 600 or so a year...<<<<

600 patents a year is "bucket loads" by my standards. Plucking out one of them -- and then posturing about what Apple is "destined" to do- is just nonsense.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com