James Cook, writing for Business Insider:
Apple has filed a patent for a method to secretly enter “panic mode” on an iPhone when it’s unlocked with a specific finger. That could mean that the phone locks out personal information or completely resets the device.
The Apple patent, dated May 5 2014, includes lots of different potential functions for panic mode. Basically it’s a system to lock down the phone if a user is forced to unlock it with their fingerprint.
I love this idea. Could be a life saver.
Here’s the link to the patent.
This is interesting considering that a Virginia court rules that police cannot force you to divulge your password, but they can force you too unlock your phone with your fingerprint. If this is implemented, I’m sure the law enforcement community will object. It will also be interesting to see whether anyone who uses this feature could be brought up on charges of obstruction of justice.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/10/31/judge-rules-suspect-can-be-required-to-unlock-phone-with-fingerprint/
The feature sounds cool, but it’s hard to respect that they expect a patent for this. I think we’ve had a silent alarm/panic code for our alarm system at the office for over 15 years.
Just came to post the same thing, though I think it’s like that in more states than just Virginia.
I mean, I have nothing to hide from the police, but I object to being compelled to show them something on a technicality (I think your fingerprint is only just triggering the password to be autofilled). I’d be all for a Panic Mode.
I agree. I’m typically a supporter of intellectual property, but a patent for this specific thing just doesn’t seem like a good move.
Awesome but frankly I’d like this not to be a patented idea. Every phone should do something like this.
Yup. Although i suppose worse than trying to get a patent is letting someone else patent it.
Apple can’t change the US patent model. either they apply for it, or somebody else does.
Disagree. As in many cases, Apple is rarely the first or last entity to come up with a given idea. But they almost always come up with a unique and usually better implementation. Read the patent. It’s rather involved, and such a system would provide a myriad of functions triggered by a secret finger press. I think this sum total of aspects would justify and necessitate a patent.
You don’t patent ideas. You patent implementations. Read the patent. It’s rather complex. All the thought and design that went into this system should indeed be patented.
That sounds fishy to me. What about the Miranda concept, “You have the right to remain silent. . .” I’d say the right to withhold a fingerprint unlock would fall within the category of remaining silent.
The right to remain silent is a right to not provide testimony that might incriminate yourself (Fifth Amendment).
A finger touch is not typically testimony, even if it reveals evidence.
That’s exactly why it’s something that can be compelled, when “tell us the password” is not.
(For related lawyer analysis see here.
Note especially: “Being forced to enter in the passcode to unlock the phone amounts to
being forced to say, “I know the passcode for this phone.” On the other
hand, as the court recognized, being forced to produce the unencrypted
video amounts to being forced to say much more, such as “I admit that
the video exists; I admit that this is the video; I know where that
video is; and I admit that I know what video you’re talking about.” “
There’s arguably very little if any Fifth Amendment issue in being compelled to admit you know the passcode to a phone they already know is your phone; that’s not self-incrimination.
Having to tell the State what the code is is legally different from using it without telling them.)
Well, if Apple does it first with no patent, then nobody can successfully patent it – because there’s thus prior art.
(As DanielSw says, also, patents are not for ideas – they’re for specific implementations.
One could doubtless think of a dozen other ways to have the same effect, either patentable or unpatentable.)
I don’t know enough patent law to know if you’re right or if Sigivald’s comment to your comment is right. But if you’re right, then Apple could (and should) say they won’t enforce it. (The counterargument to Sigivald is that Apple hasn’t done it. So maybe that’s the point. It takes longer to implement a thing than it does to apply for the patent.)
IIRC, Apple had to pay Creative 300 million dollars because they owned a patent for lists on a small screen. Sometimes the courts have an odd interpretation of the difference between an implementation and an idea. And I have no problem with the notion of intellectual property rights. Perhaps what I should say is that I hope Apple will license the implementation to interested parties.