Apple dreaming of object identification, new messaging UI in iPhone OS patent

Seriously Apple, what's up with the patent application bender? Over the past week, we've seen a whole gaggle of new apps, though the latest few just might be the most intriguing. In essence, Apple engineers have outlined plans to integrate object recognition, face detection / recognition, a text message filter (for the parents, you know) and a new, smarter messaging interface that could remind you of unread messages before allowing you to make a call and spout off unnecessarily. Moreover, we're told of a new voice output selection that could enable Oprah or Cookie Monster to read your turn-by-turn directions, bedtime stories or recipes. Suddenly, iPhone OS 3.0 feels so... antediluvian.

[Via Unwired View]

Read - Unread messages application
Read - New messaging interface application
Read - Face detection application

[BeyondtheTech @ Jul 9th 2009 12:34PM]

I would probably have to use an ellipsis before using a word like antediluvian, too.

[Puggs @ Jul 9th 2009 12:38PM]

patents patents... we want patents!

[j_g_puff @ Jul 9th 2009 12:57PM]

willies willies...i love willies!

[loocas @ Jul 9th 2009 1:36PM]

Donno, j_g_puff, I only love my own Willy...

[Mahesh @ Jul 9th 2009 12:34PM]

face detection??
obvious front camera required..

[sweet greggo @ Jul 9th 2009 1:09PM]

Not necessarily, but it would be more convenient.

[yomama84 @ Jul 9th 2009 12:35PM]

oh Apple, what will you do next....

[gib @ Jul 9th 2009 12:40PM]

... try to take over the world.

[y3k.nik @ Jul 9th 2009 12:47PM]

No just try to take royalty from Microsoft and Sony for their motion control games that also do object detection, then use that all that cash to enter the game console space with a console priced at 1200$ that lets you play only apple approved games like solitaire, because anything with more "profanity" than that isnt suited for apple users.

[tyler @ Jul 9th 2009 1:07PM]

@ y3k.nik :: lol.. i wouldn't be surprised to see apple try a game console out. hell, enough morons bought the air..

[loocas @ Jul 9th 2009 1:38PM]

Yeah, then the console would run even more advanced OS X version of... um... OS X, which'd ultimately mean NO GAMES supported...

[VanillaSpice @ Jul 9th 2009 10:09PM]

@ tyler and y3k.nik ... it was called the Pippin. Seriously, guys, if you are going to try and put humour into your lame, immature and repetitively tiresome Apple-bashing, then at least do a little bit of homework so your "punchline" doesn't turn out to have actually happened over 13 years ago, completely undermining the attempted joke.

"Ha ha! Isn't it funny to imagine Apple failing in the games console market? Oh, what? They actually already failed at that for real? A decade ago? Damn. Another brilliant 'Apple Sucks' joke in the rubbish bin. Guess I'll have to go back to 'fart app' jokes, then."

[dsteve303 @ Jul 9th 2009 12:36PM]

BOB JONES, dew!

[iDavey @ Jul 9th 2009 12:42PM]

And this is intriguing why?

No diss to Apple...because if ANY phone company tried to patent this ish I'd question it too.
But really...are we gonna keep patenting stuff that's been out for a good length of time now?

Is that the way to do it?

-shrugs-

I guess...

[skyblaze @ Jul 9th 2009 12:48PM]

*looks up antediluvian*

.....oh.

[Michael Luevane @ Jul 9th 2009 12:53PM]

Dunno if this should be patentable - it sounds like stuff that MIT was doing back in the 90's. See Bradley Rhodes' rememberance agent... http://www.remem.org/ and http://www.bradleyrhodes.com/Papers/remembrance.html are good places to start.

Not saying I wouldn't like this feature, just... not really a patent...

[Aaron @ Jul 9th 2009 12:55PM]

All you apple haters need to be quiet. Other companies have been copying the iphone for ages and apple needs to protect it's intellectual property. Take this multitouch ui, anti-fingerprint finish, no button design of this phone:

http://www.devcow.com/blogs/adnrg/images/Lookingforanewphoneprovider_81EF/Antique_Phone1.jpg

How many ex apple employees did it take to design that phone? Apple is forced to be aggressive with it's patent because everyone is stealing from them.

[j_g_puff @ Jul 9th 2009 12:58PM]

I assumed that you were a cock until i followed the link.

[Information Central @ Jul 10th 2009 2:14AM]

Aaron, you should probably take a basic writing and copyediting class before posting again.

[tim @ Jul 9th 2009 1:25PM]

Uh...you DO realize that the patent applications you are now seeing were filed 18 months ago. They are sekrit for 18 months.

[pavlindrom @ Jul 9th 2009 1:35PM]

I for one didn't.

[T-Will @ Jul 9th 2009 1:48PM]

I for one did.

[SHotta @ Jul 9th 2009 12:59PM]

@Aaron... STFU!!!

[thatrotierkid @ Jul 9th 2009 1:39PM]

haha actually if you follow his link you will realize he was being sarcastic... i lol'd

[ZeRo @ Jul 9th 2009 1:04PM]

Now only if they would create half the stuff they patent....

[sweet greggo @ Jul 9th 2009 1:14PM]

The stuff they patent is already on the market.

[recharged95 @ Jul 9th 2009 1:55PM]

from the looks of these ideas, Apple is basically setting up a defense against would be mom-n-pop app developers that could either exploit the iPhone where it benefits them more than Apple. Also to to hold off LG/Samsung/HTC/Moto/Nokia truly copying the iPhone and adding better features...

Unless Apple throws a lot of cash and R&D into stuff like this (which there's no signs yet), it's just patent hording. And considering Apple threw a lot of R&D money for the 1st gen iPhone and now everyone is getting into the ring at a lower cost penalty, it's unlikely Apple will roll out innovative features for awhile.

[Major4Play @ Jul 9th 2009 2:09PM]

Apple spent lots of R&D money on the original iPhone then everyone else copied them ? Is that a joke you obviously have never used a PDA or other touch screen phones (The Prada was out before the iPhone) The iPhone added nice design and multi-touch but the iPhone is just a flashy PDA it's really nothing new.

[Zak @ Jul 9th 2009 2:15PM]

The Prada came out one month before the iPhone, but the iPhone was in development for three years prior to that. Do the math. And seriously, calling the iPhone "a flashy PDA" is just stupid. If the iPhone is a flashy PDA, then so is the G1, the Pre, the Hero, etc. etc. and add any other smartphone you can think of to that list.

You really do have the worst "arguments" out of almost all of the Apple hating trolls here.

[Mikey @ Jul 9th 2009 3:45PM]

And I suppose the Prada phone just sprang into being with absolutely no R&D lag time whatsoever?

[Zak @ Jul 9th 2009 3:55PM]

Hey Mikey, why don't you tell me how long the Prada was in development for, and how Apple knew all about it so they could copy it? Since that is what Major4Play is suggesting, I'd like to see you back it up with facts please, if you're going to support what he's saying.

[Mikey @ Jul 9th 2009 4:02PM]

Zak, I have no idea how long Prada's development was... I was merely pointing out that your statement implies that Apple was developing the iPhone before the Prada phone was being developed, which you can't possibly know for sure. If you can, "I'd like to see you back it up with facts please."

I wasn't trying to support Major4Play at all... I was merely responding to your post.

Calm down... have some dip.

[Major4Play @ Jul 9th 2009 2:07PM]

Non-news, the world and it's dog is creating this kind of tech, Microsoft surface could do this since launch.
How about explaining how Apple wasn't awarded a patent for their mag safe, since it was already on the market for deep fat fryers and other kitchen equipment.
Originality eh ? why think different ?

[Major4Play @ Jul 9th 2009 2:11PM]

P.S Engadget applying for a patent and being awarded a patent are two different things.

[Zak @ Jul 9th 2009 2:19PM]

As somebody else already pointed out, these patents were applied for 18 months ago. And if the Surface could do it, then why didn't Microsoft patent it? Are they just that stupid? Or is there another reason you think?

Also if you read the first line of this article, Darren says "Seriously Apple, what's up with the patent application bender?" That clearly indicates that he knows it's for a patent application. You know, because he actually says the words "patent application." Care to try again?

[Mikey @ Jul 9th 2009 3:46PM]

Zak, how do you know Microsoft didn't apply for a patent for the same feature on the Surface? I'm betting that they did (or at least on a very similar feature).

You're making assumptions... and we all know what assuming does.

[Zak @ Jul 9th 2009 4:00PM]

We all know what assuming does? Apparently you don't, because you said "I'm betting that they did".

Betting? That sounds like an assumption to me. Once again, how about you prove it with facts instead of talking out your ass? Thanks ever so much.

[Mikey @ Jul 9th 2009 4:14PM]

Well, my assumption is based on logical reasoning, whereas yours was based on an illogical premise.

Here's how mine went:
(1) Microsoft, being a company that depends on its tech and IP to maintain its business position, patents (or at least tries to patent) EVERYTHING that it actually sells, and tons of the stuff that it never sells (this I know for a fact because I worked for one of the patent firms they use)
(2) Surface is a product sold by Microsoft;
(3) It is a reasonable and logical assumption that Microsoft must have patented everything to do with Surface; ergo
(4) Microsoft tried to patent this
QED

Here's how yours went
(a) I don't know if Microsoft tried to patent this
(b) I am going to assume Microsoft didn't try to patent this (presumably because Apple has tried to patent it?);
(c) "why didn't Microsoft patent it?"

Would you not agree that your assumption in (b) is not a very sound one, while my assumption in my assumption in (3) is, at the very least more logical and reasonable than yours?

Since I'm guess you won't agree... how about this. Microsoft has actually *received* a patent on object recognition (see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7479950.PN.&OS=PN/7479950&RS=PN/7479950). They also have a multitouch patent that predates Apple's http://industry.bnet.com/technology/10001203/ui-war-brewing-microsoft-multi-touch-patent-app-predates-apples/. So, please STFU about things you don't understand, and save the "I'm such a genius and you are a moron" act for something that you actually know something about.

[Mikey @ Jul 9th 2009 4:14PM]

Hey... look at that... I won my bet.

(Asshole)

[Lewin @ Jul 9th 2009 2:45PM]

The author really doesn't understand how the patent process works. Besides the fact that others have noted, which is that all applications sit in the USPTO quiet queue for 18 months before appearing for public consumption on AppFT (and in the printed gazette), the way patents work at large companies is simply this: employees who have an idea approved for patenting get a bonus. (Some companies don't pay a bonus until the patent is granted but that's typically a 2.5 year delay from act to reward, so most companies pay on filing). Hence, as soon as Apple employees became aware of the iPhone capabilities and design, they started generating patent ideas to earn bonus cash. There's always a spike of product-related patents coming out of a big company dated near the time of a big project like this. Some of it is ideas that didn't make it into the product, some of it is just blue sky, some of it is preemptive protection against someone else selling the idea.

[LongshotX @ Jul 9th 2009 3:36PM]

OS 3.0 was old before it was even released.

How about a quick reply feature? Is that too frickin hard to implement?

[Information Central @ Jul 12th 2009 11:57PM]

How about E-mail filters? How about goddamned reminders for missed calls? How about to-do lists and memos with categories?

Why do iPhone owners have to manage their data with a MUSIC-PLAYER APP?

Lots of questions outstanding while Apple dicks around with horseshit patent applications.

[Hurix @ Jul 9th 2009 5:17PM]

So I beg you please, Engadget.
You are these guys who are definitely able to manage a list of pros and cons for the newest iPhone, compared to the Palm Pre, the HTC Touch Pro 2 and other similar "high-end"-mobile devices.
This should just clearify things up. For now, it is just too hard to know, which phone you want to buy, because;
everyone is just overstrained with comparing these gadgets. You pick the think you think you will like but you actually don't know it!
So you get to know it and you discover several "bugs" and missing features but you can't do anything coz you have this 2year contract and your provider doesn't serve a change of the device to another one (worst case). You have to manage it for yourself and are stuck to the fucked up device. This is the part where I'm getting mad.
Well, anyway, first of all, publish all of the missing features of the iPhone - who are standardized in most other devices - in a nice impartial list. Then, build a list of all the tech and software features which make an iPhone unique and are _good_ and no bad choice. Yes, I blame the iPhone in this post but essentially as bad example for a marketing wonder. Most of the users are just blinded by the shiny marketing. This list should be done for each and every "high-end"-mobile device which is comparable to the iPhone 3G(S), Palm Pre and HTCs.

[goweb @ Jul 9th 2009 5:15PM]

Since I don't know much about the US patent system...

Project Natal demonstrated facial recognition for signing into the 360 at E3. This patent application predates that demonstration by over a year, but presumably has only recently been made public. Would the existence of this feature in Project Natal be a reason for refusing this patent, even though that feature was only demonstrated after the initial filing date (but before it was made public)?

[Lewin @ Jul 10th 2009 3:53PM]

In the US it is still possible to file a patent after public disclosure of the technology. But in practice companies do not. Therefore you can be sure Microsoft filed all possible patents before demonstrating the technology.

However without reading both filings it's not possible to be certain that this filing steps on Microsoft's or vice versa.

[uberfu @ Jul 9th 2009 5:23PM]

Sorry!

But something that forces you to read Text messages before it will crank up a phone call - seems a bit restrictive and a step backwards towards allowing the user to have a choice.

To hell with that!

[Rod Rye @ Jul 12th 2009 1:45AM]

You've got to hand it to Apple, it doesn't take them long after a competitor actually demonstrates a technology for them to put in an application to patent it.

[KEROLiUKAS @ Jul 10th 2009 12:59AM]

It's BS that Apple patents such basic things like this or Multi Touch. Patents are preventing innovation. Screw you Apple :)

[steel36 @ Jul 10th 2009 7:25AM]

Maybe they should've been working on all of this last year. Instead:
Sir, what features will we add to the new iPhone?
Boss: Hmmm... Steve's not here. Let's just improve the processing speed.
Underling: Well, sure, but I mean what new features?
Boss: that's it. it's a beauty.