-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Apple patents way to secretly call 911 using your fingerprint
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
disappeared
Banned
Cool. Could potentially save lives.
Good idea, but not worth a 20 year monopoly on the thought.
HeartlessNobody213
Member
Good idea.
That essentially means you'd rather not have it at all. I can't imagine any company in a position to implement this wouldn't also patent it.
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
I mean you license it out and get paid for it. Like what most people do with patents.
I am more critiquing the general ridiculousness of 20 year patents (and 150 year copyrights).
Prophet Steve
Member
That is a cool idea. I kind of hope they still will allow others to use it even if they get it granted and that other companies are interested in using it.
And if they wouldn't apply for the patent you could just have someone else trying to go for one screwing Apple over.
Why wouldn't it be? An invention is an invention.
And if they wouldn't apply for the patent you could just have someone else trying to go for one screwing Apple over.
Why wouldn't it be? An invention is an invention.
This, I understand why they would patent it and want to. I don't understand how the government could allow something like this to be patented and not just free use.
There should be a different set of rules for something as serious as emergency services.
Chezzymann
Member
Blame Mickey Mouse
If someone invents a faster ambulance you're saying they don't deserve the patent?
There was nothing stopping other companies for coming up with this first.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
That is a fucking shit think to patent. Fuck apple.
What's that got to do with what I said?
"The user may program the electronic device to recognize input entered with a particular sequence of fingers, such as pinky-ring-pinky, as a command to make an emergency call," the patent states. This means it might appear that a device owner is unlocking a phone for an attacker but they're discreetly contacting 911. But "no indication of the execution is apparent.
I mean if this actually gets implemented and advertised, it is going to be quite obvious. You would still be able to do it discretely in certain cases, but if the attacker is literally asking you to unlock the phone and you start doing assorted finger combinations, then they'll be aware. Again provided the feature is big enough or whatever.
I mean if this actually gets implemented and advertised, it is going to be quite obvious. You would still be able to do it discretely in certain cases, but if the attacker is literally asking you to unlock the phone and you start doing assorted finger combinations, then they'll be aware. Again provided the feature is big enough or whatever.
Yeah making sure an idea doesn't make you money is a great way to incentivize innovation in ways to save lives.
just had an idea. what if when you put your pin in backwards it crashes the phone after a few seconds but secretly does all this stuff in the background
to the patent office!
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Fuck the lives of people. There is money to be made!
Fuck the lives of people. I don't like a thing!
IdreamofHIME
Member
The ability to save lives should really be reserved for the one who thought of the idea 1st.
Laevateinn
Member
If you want to stay safe, buy an iPhone.
dantevsninjas
Member
Exactly. We all know the only reason to save lives is the money in it.
I think people are making a big deal about the patent thing. Apple could patent the feature being native to the OS or something, but there are already fingerprint gesture applications for Android I think where you can program certain fingerprint sensor reads to perform certain tasks.
Would programming a double or triple tap gesture to call a specific number set by the user - 911 in this case - infringe on the patent?
Would programming a double or triple tap gesture to call a specific number set by the user - 911 in this case - infringe on the patent?
That's not the same thing.
I think the reasons that patenting this feels a bit ethically uncomfortable are
A. It is not an idea that seems expensive to develop
B. It probably won't really affect their sales anyway
C. This is the richest publicly-traded corporation in the world, so it's not like they couldn't afford to give it away
That is in contrast to a pharmaceutical company, where there is a significant amount of money spent in R&D and clinical studies in order to bring a life-saving drug to market.
The financial impact of making it free does not seem all that high, and corporations make charitable donations all the time to engender good will, so why not?
I think you are greatly over stating the R&D costs thrown into this. Also remember, patents are not a free market instrument.
Prophet Steve
Member
The risk then is that there is a larger risk of somebody else patenting it, and then it is possible you are screwed.
They just have more control this way, I do have my doubts about them restricting others from using this, but it is much safer.
You mean like Volvo did with the three point seatbelt?
I agree the specifics here are a different argument. My post was a response to the general sense no one should ever profit from saving lives.
For this specifically again I'd say whatever issues a person might have must certainly be with patent law and not any specific company. Google or Motorola or HTC or whoever would patent this too if they came up with it. It's the normal "find ideas you can patent" thing all companies do with regard to engineers and designers thinking things up. It's not ground breaking and might never see the light of day, so those treating it like this patent is preventing us living in some different world is a bit much too.
Earthbound64
Banned
I had the shortcut button on the side of my Samsung S5 set to dial 911.
I miss having that option.
I miss having that option.
Mohonky
Member
Things that are relative to emergency services shouldnt be monopolised or a 'fearure'.
Whats is hard to understand about that? Or are you also happy with big pharmaceuticals that patent drugs and charging people who need them out the ass for it?
I think companies wouldn't spend millions or billions to make any drugs if they couldn't secure their rights to them. What a fair price to charge is ends up being a separate question. Gouging is always shitty.
If they had invested $500 million in R+D to create a new life-saving drug then yes, they should be able to make profit off of that investment for a few years before there are generic alternatives.
In this case, however, what's the R+D? It's an idea, and a good one, that someone working for Apple had. Why non-Apple users should be blocked from their manufacturers implementing something similar eludes me in this case.
If it sees the light of day and others want it they'll just license it I'm sure.
Puppet Shadow
Member
I have no problem with Apple having a patent for this, but it should be licensed for free.
They decided that the invention was so significant, it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from. - Some Volvo guy
Guess apple feels this had more value making them money.
RE: people outraged about the patent
Aren't they patenting this with specific regards to the Touch ID function of their phones? This isn't a patent on calling 911, so we can all put the pitchforks down for a second and maybe apply rational thought and read the quote in OP again. The quote literally describes using the fingerprint in a specific pattern to discreetly and surreptitiously call 911 in a moment of distress. There are some key things to pull out of that statement that relate to current Apple products, like fingerprints (Touch ID) and patterned fingerprint entry (novel use of existing technology for new purpose).
Good enough to chill out?
Aren't they patenting this with specific regards to the Touch ID function of their phones? This isn't a patent on calling 911, so we can all put the pitchforks down for a second and maybe apply rational thought and read the quote in OP again. The quote literally describes using the fingerprint in a specific pattern to discreetly and surreptitiously call 911 in a moment of distress. There are some key things to pull out of that statement that relate to current Apple products, like fingerprints (Touch ID) and patterned fingerprint entry (novel use of existing technology for new purpose).
Good enough to chill out?