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.