[lotusleaf1987]

This is a purely defensive act to keep some company from producing a device that blocks Apple devices, but they can still make one for WebOS/Blackberry/Android/WP7.They're doing it to prevent someone else from producing/selling a similar device.

[rbanffy]

If that's the case, they should donate the patent to either the EFF or the ACLU.

[edw]

No, I think they should license it to HTC and all the other Android handset manufacturers, giving them one more bullet point in their long list of features that the iPhone lacks.

There's a patent. That much is (apparently) fact. Everything else is speculation. Is it really worth getting worked up over things that haven't happened and may never happen?

Finally, if this were to come to pass, there's a very easy solution: a filter. You will see cases that cover the lens with an IR filter. Problem solved. Yawn.

[lotusleaf1987]

| edw: No, I think they should license it to HTC and all the other Android handset manufacturers, given them one more feature bullet point in their long list of features that the iPhone lacks.

What are you talking about? To follow your absurd scenario, you think if Apple gave this bizarre patent away, but none of their others, that the EFF should then turn around and backstab the inventors and license it to their rivals? Yeah that's real classy and makes a whole lot of sense..

Why do so many people see the world in these binaries? Good/evil, black/white, red/blue.

[edw]

For what it'a worth, my comment ends on a very "Meh, who cares?" note. I don't know where that puts me in the context of your agonizing over our society's depressing descent into Manichaean dichotomies.

P.S. My suggestion was intentionally absurd. I think it's more likely that, like someone else suggested, this patent would be used to prevent people from exploiting such systems.

[rbanffy]

> Is it really worth getting worked up over things that haven't happened and may never happen?

A guy enters your office with a machine gun. He doesn't fire, but keeps holding it and looking around like he's looking for someone. What do you do? Ask him "how may I help you, sir?"

> there's a very easy solution: a filter. You will see cases that cover the lens with an IR filter.

This works until someone passes legislation prohibiting it.

[rbanffy]

Oh.. I get it... I was criticizing Apple...

It's even worse than when I criticize Microsoft between 9 and 18 PST...

[edw]

You really think sheets of visible light transparent but IR opaque plastic are going to be outlawed? Do you think your favorite band is really going to allow such a device to be enabled during one of their shows, thus pissing off their fans? Do you really think some company is going to bring a DMCA circumvention device suit against iPhone case manufacturers?

Are you willing to wager? I'm feeling lucky: I'll bet you $100 that ten years from now you'll be able to real-time stream 3D holographic recordings of the Rolling Stones directly to your Facebook friends.

[rbanffy]

> You really think sheets of visible light transparent but IR opaque plastic are going to be outlawed?

When you woke up on September 10th 2001, did you imagine you would ever have to take your shoes off to board a plane? Weird things happen and weirder rules get enacted. The tech we build is, sometimes, misused. I even like nuclear bombs - they can be used for good. This recording prevention device cannot.

> Do you think your favorite band is really going to allow such a device to be enabled during one of their shows

I'd have no problem if the Rolling Stones decided to start using recording prevention devices to "protect" their shows. I'll worry when the police starts wearing them on their helmets.

IIRC, HP patented a similar device a couple years back.

[lotusleaf1987]

Why that's a total non-sequitur? If the patent is only specifically related to Apply products, then they should keep it to themselves.

There's no incentive for Apple to produce/sell this device.

[rbanffy]

Then why have the patent in the first place?