Apple has filed a patent application for a system that would use a binding protocol to make it easier to transfer media simultanously with a phone call. The filing, published on Thursday and entitled "Media/Voice Binding and Related User Interfaces", describes a method for relating a media item to a recipient's contact …
So how does this differ (in a substantive manner) from all those protocols around web conferencing/VOIP and suchlike which allow you to send files etc during the call, share screens and whiteboards etc etc etc. They all evolved to merge telephony into an IT structure to enhance capability.
This sounds much more like reducing the functionality to work over a cellphone than original design/invention.
Furthermore, if someone tries to send you stuff while you are on the phone you had better hope you are hands-free otherwise you have the choice of speaking to them or watching stuff download so you can keep pushing buttons to keep it flowing.
Re: prior art?
...or any other 'phone ?
Nokia's have been doing this for ages.
I send stuff through my E65 when no a call, sometimes to the person I am talking to, sometimes to other people.....
Surely this will get knocked back.. ?
Re: Re: prior art?
With my n900 I have not only sent things to people whilst on the phone to them, I've SSH'd in to their server to fix things, e-mailed them details and told them to check and respond, all from the same little device.
Hey apple. Keep up will ya?
In comparison to that particular scenario my current android phone feels quite limited.
APPLE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE RE...
will suck the dried blood out of a rotting corpse if they think there has been a patent infringement, they'd even do it hands free while receiving a message.
I've said it before and will say it again.
Re: prior art?
Android App of the week:
Looks very similar!
When are the comentards around here
going to figure out that a "Patent for a method" doesn't mean that something needs never have been done before. The requirement is only that it never have been done THAT WAY before.
People have been catching mice since time immemorial. It's still possible to patent a better mousetrap.
Re: When are the comentards around here
"going to figure out that a "Patent for a method" doesn't mean that something needs never have been done before. The requirement is only that it never have been done THAT WAY before."
A first glance around the document suggests that the initial filing is, as we all do, as broad as possible and at first reading is arguably claiming mouse catching to a fair degree. Claim 1, Description 0079 and the usual inclusive of words and phrases such as 'can', 'may' and 'some implementations' hardly restrict this to a very particular type of improved mousetrap. 'may' is a particularly usual word in claims and legal documentation as it makes anything following it effectively meaningless.
This patent may not be applied as broadly as it appears to be phrased, but I think there is considerable leverage there. This is not a pop at Apple in particular, this is the ways things work, but it also doesn't mean it won't be either.
Details from the filing mentioned above are reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method performed by one or more hardware processors of a mobile device, comprising: detecting an ongoing voice call; automatically binding media to the voice call; receiving a request to transfer media; and transferring the media to a call participant based on the binding.
 A number of implementations have been described. Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may be made. For example, elements of one or more implementations may be combined, deleted, modified, or supplemented to form further implementations. Yet another example, the logic flows depicted in the figures do not require the particular order shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. In addition, other steps may be provided, or steps may be eliminated, from the described flows, and other components may be added to, or removed from, the described systems. Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the following claims.
Time for a Jeffersonian slapdown!
> The requirement is only that it never have been done THAT WAY before.
This is precisely the sort of crap that Thomas Jefferson rejected as far too obvious and trivial when he was serving as America's first patent clerk.
You don't get a patent for a mousetrap made out of oak rather than pine.
it's time to get Jeffersonian on these people.
Re: Time for a Jeffersonian slapdown!
Yes, but what about a mousetrap where you spot the mouse and turn a ratchet which makes a boot kick a ball bearing down some higgeldy piggeldy stairs causing a diver to jump into a barrel which releases a cage which falls down and catches the mouse?
Could you patent that?
This is already part of the GSM spec's
This is already part of the GSM specifications for multi channel usage. Now if there doing a custom protocol to talk over the mobile network, then they may have to check with RIM about prior art and patents.
For a company who not long ago was complaining about common sence being patentable, this has to realy have major egg on it.
That all said maybe somebody from Apple just read this old BBC paper from last centuary:
On a positive note, at least people can see whats filed and point out the prior art. Though I believe there was a change in the patent law in america that effectivly made everything - first to file :(.
Good luck with that
You can send files, pictures, links etc during a Skype call on all sorts of platform, including mobile phones.
Good luck getting that past Microsoft.
This may be a BULLSHIT patent if my memory is correct.
I used to own a Sharp V402-SH phone, which was available via Vodafone from ~ May of 2004, and which by December was obsolete -in Japan. I was, AFAIR, able to send a live photo to a friend when we were trying to locate each other in Ueno station in Tokyo. I had to do this because I was not lost but just unable to see him in a sea of people. So, I shot a photo or turned on the video and streamed a few seconds to him, and he replied that he knew exactly where I was and told me to stay put.
I've misplaced my paper manual, but I think they're available on-line somewhere in some repo.
If my memory is not faulty, then the US PTO *better f*cking NOT* award apple a patent for this.
I'm pretty sure I did this. Even if I didn't, it is not novel. It's just that it would be done in a phone instead of a mobile laptop or a tablet.
"US PTO *better f*cking NOT* award apple a patent for this."
You are kidding, right? Of course they will award the patent. In the US, prior art is only checked in patent infringement lawsuits.
Doing it my waaaay!
It could be that apple want to patent their own specific way of doing things to prevent interoperability.
They may not care if its better or worse or the function is done elsewhere, they just want the family member with the android phone to be isolated from everyone else who has an iphone.
<thumps head on desk>
"Two types of binding are described: "lazy" and "active". The lazy-binding scenario involves selecting one or more media items and associating them with someone in the device's contact list. When the call is made, the recipient is then offered the choice of accepting the media items."
Yes. Best vector for worms and viruses since "autorun".
Thick as pigs s ite patene office will grant it.
Cause it's Apple and only Apple innovate!!
I suspect that some one is receiving it in the rear from Apple, which is why they are the Americans golden boy and seem to win every fight! It's just too suspicious.
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad