Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Really? I've got a Lumia 920, I can put someone on hold and send whatever to them (or anyone else for that matter) by MMS. Thinking about it, I'm fairly sure my old N95 could do it too... There's absolutely no innovative step here so far as I can see...

This is something you setup before hand. Then when you put someone on hold the phone does this automatically. It's not something you do actively, as your saying.
 
So it's a shortcut, not an "innovation"? Does the US patent system not require an innovative step for granting patents?

It's an automation, really. You don't do anything other than put the call on hold... After that, your phone shares things that you have designated as "shareable".

I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't be patented... Just clarifying what it does.

----------

nothing new...samsung could do that and plus share pictures or music by having two phones touch each other.

This patent is for something entirely different.
 
It's an automation, really. You don't do anything other than put the call on hold... After that, your phone shares things that you have designated as "shareable".

I'm not saying whether it should or shouldn't be patented... Just clarifying what it does.

I get what you're saying and not disagreeing with you, just saying essentially what you said- it just does what you can already do manually...
 
Why is this "patent" awarded?

The USPTO is basically a joke nowadays, filled with little nerds who couldn't get a high paying job out of school, so they try to curry favors by approving such nonsense in the hope that after a few of these approvals they can make the jump to a corporation like Apple.

And yes, "patents" like this (many would actually fail in court) are stifling innovation and Apple has become one of the worst patent trolls.

Wow. You're incredibly rude and your comment is demeaning. Why are you so passionate about the USPTO that you have to insult them? Did they do something to you?

If you don't like the patent don't use it. Comments like that tell us you have no idea what you are talking about. Innovation happened Because Apple can and should patent this. If they don't then someone can copy. The point of patents is to prevent infringement.

If it was obvious who is doing it already? If Samsung thought of it I'm sure they would have patented it.

----------

Oh my god, patents are the most stupid thing on earth. I don't know how you can breath easily in US - there is no patent for TAKING A BREATH? You're not paying, so you can't use that feature...

You come up with an original idea that can make money or differentiate your product. I'll sell it and keep all the profits.

Or another example: do your homework and I'll copy it and turn it as mine instead of yours. Happy?
 
I get what you're saying and not disagreeing with you, just saying essentially what you said- it just does what you can already do manually...

Precisely.

The key is that you typically put someone on hold because you have something else pressing. Not because you want to share photos...
 
This is all well and good, but will it pause a video I'm watching if I happen to fall asleep in the middle of it while holding my phone??? :)
 
You know what else works. Having patience until the party can resume the call. Or call back.

Also I've heard that iMessage, WhatsApp, Email and other such apps can send pictures, video, audio, etc while you're not only on hold - but during the call as well. AMAZING!

You know what else works? Not having a cell phone or smart phone. Having patience to go home and use a landline. Or a map instead of GPS. A library instead of Wikipedia. What's wrong with progress and new features? Are you anti-technology?

----------

Precisely.

The key is that you typically put someone on hold because you have something else pressing. Not because you want to share photos...

You go into an elevator to go up and down. Not because you want to listen to the music. But it's there because it's since feature. What's wrong with having features? Don't use it if you don't like. I actually have things that can entertain others and would love to share.
 
You know what else works? Not having a cell phone or smart phone. Having patience to go home and use a landline. Or a map instead of GPS. A library instead of Wikipedia. What's wrong with progress and new features? Are you anti-technology?

----------



You go into an elevator to go up and down. Not because you want to listen to the music. But it's there because it's since feature. What's wrong with having features? Don't use it if you don't like. I actually have things that can entertain others and would love to share.

I think it's a terrific feature. I was simply clarifying how it's used.
 
Let me add: patent law was supposed to balance the benefits of rewarding innovation vs. the risks of creating a monopoly. Capitalism basically works on the principle that it's impossible to regulate everything, so let market forces - competition - do the police work. If a company builds a fortress around itself with patents, there is no competition to drive innovation. For example, what if MS were still using a command line and the best we had was Word Perfect under MS DOS? As it is, there only seem to be three "competitors" in the traditional desktop/laptop world - MS, Apple, Linux. That's not a lot! And MS really dominates business software. In the tablet world what do we have? Apple and Android. Once again not much. I'm sure MS had to dance very artfully between the patent lines to come out with its Surface series.

I think the market place should reward innovation, not the patent office. So what if the basic ideas are the same? Let the elegance of the implementation and reliability (lack of bugs) and service carry the day, not the fact that you can't have a menu bounce back when you slide down on a screen....
 
Really? I've got a Lumia 920, I can put someone on hold and send whatever to them (or anyone else for that matter) by MMS. Thinking about it, I'm fairly sure my old N95 could do it too... There's absolutely no innovative step here so far as I can see...

Ur totally missing the feature. As soon as a call is put on hold, the person on hold has a menu pop up that allows them to view certain content. For example, if I'm talking to my mom and I put her on hold, she can immediately choose to look at photos of her grandchildren while waiting for me to get back. And then when I take her off hold, she gets a message or alert tone letting her know I'm resuming the call.

A lot different then putting someone on hold and then texting a picture.
 
Really? I've got a Lumia 920, I can put someone on hold and send whatever to them (or anyone else for that matter) by MMS. Thinking about it, I'm fairly sure my old N95 could do it too... There's absolutely no innovative step here so far as I can see...

You didn't read the patent.
 
Complain?

For those of you who complain, asking "Why do patents exist?," the answer can be summarized in one word: motivation. We're barely motivated to get out of a warm, comfortable bed to face the cold morning commute to work. How motivated would you be to spend many years of risk and heart-ache to create a product some other company with 1000x more resources can copy in a day?

Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of dreams and money. You'd lose both in a second without protection, and even then nothing is 100% safe. It sucks that things become systemic, get abused, and in the end partially a game. But let us not forget our human nature.

We need to improve the patent system, not get rid of it.
 
I think everyone is missing the point. While yes, grandma can put you on hold and you can watch her slide show, I'm thinking businesses or customer service lines could have useful information related to their service streamed to customers while they wait on hold.
 
they need to add the feature where you can choose the music from your library when you put someone on hold! :cool:
 
Let me add: patent law was supposed to balance the benefits of rewarding innovation vs. the risks of creating a monopoly. Capitalism basically works on the principle that it's impossible to regulate everything, so let market forces - competition - do the police work. If a company builds a fortress around itself with patents, there is no competition to drive innovation. For example, what if MS were still using a command line and the best we had was Word Perfect under MS DOS? As it is, there only seem to be three "competitors" in the traditional desktop/laptop world - MS, Apple, Linux. That's not a lot! And MS really dominates business software. In the tablet world what do we have? Apple and Android. Once again not much. I'm sure MS had to dance very artfully between the patent lines to come out with its Surface series.

I think the market place should reward innovation, not the patent office. So what if the basic ideas are the same? Let the elegance of the implementation and reliability (lack of bugs) and service carry the day, not the fact that you can't have a menu bounce back when you slide down on a screen....

I've heard similar comments before. I don't understand this argument. I live in a world where my phone is as thin as a pencil, screen sharp as paper, brighter than the sun, I can talk to anyone in the world, see their face and hear their voice, make music on it, run my business on it, use it's GPS and voice recognition to get directions to drive across country while listening to my favorite soundtrack. My phone can control the lights in my house, watch the baby in the crib, start my car. I use it to learn new languages. Theres a billion apps, doing a billion things, and I can use them from a park bench.

The patent office didn't prevent me from living in the future. This IS the future. We all but have hover boards. Our cars are soon to drive themselves thanks to Google and some of their competitors.

The market DOES reward innovation—which is why the patent office MUST exist. Otherwise we'll by default always reward the bigger, established guys because they'll always have the innovation—since they always have the bigger, established resources to steal and build.

With the patent office, yeah theres some gaming going on, but there's a strong chance the little guy or the original guy can possibly hold claim to ideas and then build them.
 
Why is this "patent" awarded?

The USPTO is basically a joke nowadays, filled with little nerds who couldn't get a high paying job out of school, so they try to curry favors by approving such nonsense in the hope that after a few of these approvals they can make the jump to a corporation like Apple.

And yes, "patents" like this (many would actually fail in court) are stifling innovation and Apple has become one of the worst patent trolls.
1. Patent Examiners are well paid.
2. It's quite difficult to become a patent examiner.
3. You don't know what you're even talking about. Do you even know the relevant law on patents?
Oh my god, patents are the most stupid thing on earth. I don't know how you can breath easily in US - there is no patent for TAKING A BREATH? You're not paying, so you can't use that feature...
Stupidest* Breathe* And you clearly don't understand what a patent is, nor have read the patent in the article.
I get what you're saying and not disagreeing with you, just saying essentially what you said- it just does what you can already do manually...
The escalator should have never been patented because it just automatically did what you do manually. Seriously. Does anyone actually understand what utility means?
 
I'd have so much fun with this. "Hello, I am in another call; please hold." Never gonna give you uuuppp, never gonna let you dooooowwnwn!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.