« X2Y Sues Apple, HP and Intel over Processor Related Technology | Main | MacDirectory's Interview with Patently Apple: Capturing Apple's Spirit of Invention »

June 02, 2011


Let me clarify one last point:

The fact is that this technology works on the basis of reading “encoded data.” Meaning that Apple could work with the music industry to encode specific tour codes that restrict filming. The encoding may be applied to only a few of the top tours and no more. Extrapolating that to not being able to film riots or police/army abuses is a stretch beyond reason. Apple’s iPhone would require a code that they approved and could be worked into an iOS update (theoretically). That’s not going to happen for anything outside of what Apple and specific venues agree to. It’s not a random ability to shut off the camera by any other parties.

The Washington Post wrote a piece on Apple's patent and the petition in play at the moment:


The spin about the "cost" at the end of this report is playing into the hysteria that is being drummed up about the technology described in Apple's patent.

While I fully understand and appreciate legitimate feedback about cutting back on filming concerts, which Apple and the industry could tweak, the hysteria about repressive regimes and police activity in North America and around the world abusing this is just that, hysteria. Hypotheticals like this are never ending loops. You could put a negative spin to anything. It doesn't mean it'll come to pass.

I made my view point known earlier, before the post report was ever posted.


Yes there is a positive side to Apple's patent and only the concert angle is a little negative. What came up much later about police state activities from someone's imagination is what I see as a total over reaction to a simple "patent application."

If Apple would integrate an infrared camera into an iPhone, it would be possible to use the camera to detect heat gain / heat loss in homes and businesses. Owners would be able to see where insulation was missing or inadequate in their homes. One could see if a distribution panel or a light switch was overloaded. This would be of great benefit.

If the Apple IR camera patent does come to fruition, perhaps venues would at the very least have a tiered pay system to photograph. However, the negatives to this technology clearly outweighs the positives. What I worry about are IR receivers overstepping the bounds to where we are legally allowed to photograph and record.

My point is that the patent covers many angles and that the camera shut-off is just one. I doubt that Apple dreamed up that latter feature. I believe it was an industry-request. Other music-phone players may also be forced into following suite if they want to have phones with music. It's the music industry taht will hold the key on this feature, not Apple. If you notice in the patent, the emiter is on stage with the lighting system. That's not an Apple initiative, plain and simple.

@Fred. Every time there's a new technology, we find that it has a good side that could be exploited for evil doing, such as your Rodney King example. I'm sure that Apple and responsible industry leaders (HP, Msft, Dell, Google) are working on ideas to protect content and artists right to make money and protect their image etc. That's business. I don't expect younger people to get that, but reasonable adults will.

Apple is also emphasizing other aspects of this technology for guided tours and for use in retail environments. These are positives that are being overlooked because "teens" are getting all upset at not being able to record concerts. The reaction just proves that the industry is right about illegal recording being a problem. Somewhere along the lines however, there could be compromise. Perhaps the emitter will allow for a single song or 10 minutes of filming instead of it all. It's a patent application that hasn't been approved yet, so there's time for tweeking the technology.

Apple watches the reaction the community has to these patent applications so that the final technology could be accepted by all parties concerned.

So basically reality now comes with a watermark, or even an "invisibility cloak" as far as digital recording goes.
No more Rodney King incidents then. Or at least, such incidents won't get recorded in future, as the police wil carry "no record" beacons as a matter of routine.

This wouldn't get backed by any company unless it were a standard across all smartphone platforms, since they just patented it, it would obviously be an iphone only thing, therefor no company would back it. Why would any company take the time to block only one specific device instead of them all?

How about for 3D? Glasses-free face tracking would be a lot more accurate and responsive. Just a thought.

iMouse application? It'll be like the magic mouse for your phone.

The comments to this entry are closed.