Apple Patent Disables Wearables When You're Driving

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Apple’s got a new patent that would limit notifications on the Apple Watch for anyone going over a certain speed. The real news here is that it is supposedly able to determine who is actually driving, which means that we may be closer to a solution for preventing all of those awful accidents related to texting while driving. Aside from this, couldn’t car manufacturers integrate a proximity sensor in the driver’s seat or steering wheel that works in tandem with a phone’s motion sensors?

Safety advocates have long campaigned for devices that prevent people from using them while driving. It's harder than it looks. You can't, say, block a device's features just because it's moving above a certain speed, because it's perfectly fine for passengers to use devices, and it could also affect folks who work while commuting via train or bus. With Apple's newly granted patent, it appears the tech company has finally figured out a way to increase driver safety while still allowing others the ability to use their phones in a moving vehicle. Whether or not this system actually makes it into real devices, though, is yet to be seen.
 
Small correction (source article has this same error): they filed for the patent. It has not been examined or granted yet.
 
It looks like their method of determining who is driving is assuming the hand wearing the Watch is on the steering wheel. If you are driving one-handed it would have a difficult time picking that up, and I'm sure more people would start to drive one-handed just so they could circumvent the restriction.
 
So driving a car would disable my watch, what's the purpose in this? I use my Google Maps on my phone when traveling. I listen to the radio so I don't use the bluetooth audio for navigation. I get a buzz on my watch letting me know that a turn is coming up. No need to check the watch, I look at the phone and see where the next turn is. Why do people think bricking your wearables while driving is going to improve safety?
 
I suggest a Faraday blanket drops on the driver before takeoff.

HEHEHEHE
 
xX326Xx said:
So driving a car would disable my watch, what's the purpose in this? I use my Google Maps on my phone when traveling. I listen to the radio so I don't use the bluetooth audio for navigation. I get a buzz on my watch letting me know that a turn is coming up. No need to check the watch, I look at the phone and see where the next turn is. Why do people think bricking your wearables while driving is going to improve safety?
Click to expand...

Because you aren't the majority bucko, I wouldn't trust 85% of the US behind the wheel with a device anywhere near them. I also don't trust around 50% behind the wheel at ALL.
 
Megalith said:
Apple’s got a new patent that would limit notifications on the Apple Watch for anyone going over a certain speed. The real news here is that it is supposedly able to determine who is actually driving, which means that we may be closer to a solution for preventing all of those awful accidents related to texting while driving. Aside from this, couldn’t car manufacturers integrate a proximity sensor in the driver’s seat or steering wheel that works in tandem with a phone’s motion sensors?

Safety advocates have long campaigned for devices that prevent people from using them while driving. It's harder than it looks. You can't, say, block a device's features just because it's moving above a certain speed, because it's perfectly fine for passengers to use devices, and it could also affect folks who work while commuting via train or bus. With Apple's newly granted patent, it appears the tech company has finally figured out a way to increase driver safety while still allowing others the ability to use their phones in a moving vehicle. Whether or not this system actually makes it into real devices, though, is yet to be seen.
Click to expand...


Yes, it'd likely take regulation. You could have a Bluetooth beacon on the driver side (built in) that the phone automatically connects to (without user intervention). The phone could mute / disable certain functions depending the proximity to that beacon (essentially signal strength).

Problem is, the car manufacturers don't want to install something like that if it's not required on all new cars. Car shoppers are likely to be turned off by the tech and would go elsewhere if they knew it'd limit their phone ability.

On the flip side, phone makers don't want to force that tech as well.

Hence why it'd need to be regulated.
 
Huh, funny, Waze has been using the motion sensor of your cellphone to determine if you are driving or not and warning you against using it while driving since quite a few years... not like that(prior art) matters when the patent office chooses to grant or not a patent after all.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Small correction (source article has this same error): they filed for the patent. It has not been examined or granted yet.
Click to expand...

Ain't nobody got time for details. Gotta get the pitchforks out before even reading anything!
 
Revdarian said:
Huh, funny, Waze has been using the motion sensor of your cellphone to determine if you are driving or not and warning you against using it while driving since quite a few years... not like that(prior art) matters when the patent office chooses to grant or not a patent after all.
Click to expand...

Grant is one thing, enforcing it is completely another.

If one party does believe that the examiner missed an important prior art that could affect or invalidate the entire patent, they have a few method of doing so, such as Ex-Parte review (which is still done by the examiner) or via Inter-Parte review (IPR), the latter of which uses a board of judges that all have scientific background turned lawyers, and IPR has a VERY high claim mortality rate. The issue with it is that the prior art must be convincing.

Your example sound like it could be used, but one function according to the claims is different: Waze warns you of it, Apple's version disables the device completely.

Basically, published application =/= Patent, Patent =/= it's automatically valid and enforceable, bad patents gets through the cracks all the time, and there are some good patent worthy inventions that gets rejected too, happens with EVERY office.

Oh, and thankfully there isn't any "Utility" patents in the US system, that version gets far more flak from your average joe.
 
First time someone's apple product fails to work in a car, is probably the first time it flies out the window doing 70mph. Just means Google is bout to sell a lot more phones
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top