Apple Patents "Switching Between Radio and Local Media"

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A patent for "seamlessly switching between radio and local media? Really? I guess the U.S. Patent and Trade Office really will let you patent anything. Thanks to The Weazmeister for the heads up.

Systems and methods are provided for seamlessly switching media playback between a media broadcast, such as a radio broadcast, and media from a local media library. When an electronic device determines that an upcoming media item in a media broadcast is not of interest to a user, the electronic device can switch playback from the media stream to a media item from the electronic device local library.
Click to expand...
 
This sounds like a good idea to me if I'm reading it right. I don't listen to the radio because you can always count on hearing one song and then 15m of commercials. If say, a device can transition to local media while a commercial is playing and then go back to radio when the block is over then great.
 
That's a pretty specific concept, actually. I don't see a problem here.

Naturally, the words "Apple" and "patent" in the same sentence send some people into a frenzy of confusion and anger regardless of what the patent actually encompasses.
 
Makes something like Airplay a heck of a lot more useful if it can be integrated properly into home audio receivers, actually.
 
wonderfield said:
That's a pretty specific concept, actually. I don't see a problem here.
Click to expand...

There is a bonaPHIDE problem with this....let's see how far the thread goes before someone gets it.


*Edit* Nevermind, Ryokurin already touched on it and others are bringing up other examples now too.

Skipping commercials will now get you sued for patent infringment.
 
Last edited:
Yea sure, except all my cars have had this feature since I got a license 10 years ago?
There is a button called "News" you push it and it switches to news broadcasts when they air.
There is another for Traffic Alerts
When done it switches back to whatever you where listening to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System
 
Wait, wait...so you're telling me Apple will actually integrate an OTA (presumably HD) radio in something? I seem to remember a time when they were trying to shut down a company for making a dock adapter FM tuner accessory...
 
Pretty novel idea. My question is how vague is the patent? Is this vague enough to where nobody will be able to do this or did Apple actually give specifics? That's my major issue with software patents. Something can be coded multiple ways and do the same thing. Patenting that "thing" should not be allowed. Patenting the method to get to that "thing" should be allowed. That way innovation is encouraged.
 
Steve said:
There is a bonaPHIDE problem with this....let's see how far the thread goes before someone gets it.
Click to expand...

GLMR Steve :)

Who knows what next apple will patent, maybe a bra for men or something... They'll call it the iBro
 
The idea is cool. I feels like there is 30min of commercials every hour of radio. Sometimes I'll drive for 10min listening to news + ads before the show comes back.
 
Steve said:
There is a bonaPHIDE problem with this....let's see how far the thread goes before someone gets it.


*Edit* Nevermind, Ryokurin already touched on it and others are bringing up other examples now too.

Skipping commercials will now get you sued for patent infringment.
Click to expand...

But is he trolling you, or are you trolling him? ;)

I only read part of the patent, but so far it seems OK.
 
That's cool, I just patented farting seamlessly while pissing.
Gonna be rich$$$$.
 
Sounds way too broad, and like they are patenting the motion of pressing back twice on a remote. But this is what I got from the abstract... of course, they're probably doing it electronically as well.
 
Sounds like what most radios used to automatically switch from what you were listening to, to the traffic broadcast.

Now I just stream radio channels of interest (only three of those) through radio apps.
 
also sort of sounds like what my smart phone can do - i can enable wi-fi calling - where if I am in range of a known wi-fi network, it will use the wi-fi network over the cell network. when i move away from the wi-fi network it goes back to the cell network. how about even going between 2G-3G-4G?
 
It sounds more like what Pandora, GrooveShark, Netflix, Amazon, etc. all do with their algorithms which are either patented or kept confidential.

"What is claimed is:

1. A method for seamlessly switching between two content sources, comprising: receiving a first media stream from a first media source, wherein the first media stream comprises a first plurality of media items; sequentially playing back the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream; determining that an upcoming media item of the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream is not of interest to a user; identifying second media that is of interest to the user; and switching playback from the first media stream to the identified second media when the upcoming media item is received. "

and

"16. An electronic device comprising: first communications circuitry configured to receive a first media stream from a first media source, wherein the first media stream comprises a first plurality of media items; and a processor coupled to the first communications circuitry, wherein the processor is configured to: sequentially play back the first plurality of media items of the first media stream received by the communications circuitry; determine that an upcoming media item of the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream is not of interest to a user; identify second media that is of interest to the user; and switch playback from the first media stream to the identified second media when the upcoming media item is received by the first communications circuitry. "

and the rest of the description seems to be how to coordinate the stuff over the air with the local media.

Sounds like something to integrate local iTunes media, Genius results, and Air Play with their Match stuff.
 
Steve said:
There is a bonaPHIDE problem with this....let's see how far the thread goes before someone gets it.


*Edit* Nevermind, Ryokurin already touched on it and others are bringing up other examples now too.

Skipping commercials will now get you sued for patent infringment.
Click to expand...

phide is dead.

I'm jealous that you can edit.
 
Did they patent an actual method to achieve such or just the behavior. I've often complained I wanted my media library seem less with other media options like terrestrial radio, internet radio, and my personal library. I hope its not the behavior.

Because I didn't run out and patent that what I thought was an obvious idea, I'm going to fucking be out of luck or pay Apple a royalty for the next 20 years.

note: I wanted this for my television too. Thought I'd get that out there before Apple patented it.
 
jpm100 said:
Did they patent an actual method to achieve such or just the behavior. I've often complained I wanted my media library seem less with other media options like terrestrial radio, internet radio, and my personal library. I hope its not the behavior.

Because I didn't run out and patent that what I thought was an obvious idea, I'm going to fucking be out of luck or pay Apple a royalty for the next 20 years.

note: I wanted this for my television too. Thought I'd get that out there before Apple patented it.
Click to expand...
in order to qualify for a patent you have to move an idea from the conception stage to invention stage so presumably in that convoluted mess there is some form of implementation.

that's the nut of patent law: exposing what you've invented in a trade for a limited monopoly over it so others can benefit from what you've done in the long run
 
mope54 said:
that's the nut of patent law: exposing what you've invented in a trade for a limited monopoly over it so others can benefit from what you've done in the long run
Click to expand...

That's probably the nuttiest thing I've read today. :D
 
mope54 said:
It sounds more like what Pandora, GrooveShark, Netflix, Amazon, etc. all do with their algorithms which are either patented or kept confidential.

"What is claimed is:

1. A method for seamlessly switching between two content sources, comprising: receiving a first media stream from a first media source, wherein the first media stream comprises a first plurality of media items; sequentially playing back the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream; determining that an upcoming media item of the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream is not of interest to a user; identifying second media that is of interest to the user; and switching playback from the first media stream to the identified second media when the upcoming media item is received. "

and

"16. An electronic device comprising: first communications circuitry configured to receive a first media stream from a first media source, wherein the first media stream comprises a first plurality of media items; and a processor coupled to the first communications circuitry, wherein the processor is configured to: sequentially play back the first plurality of media items of the first media stream received by the communications circuitry; determine that an upcoming media item of the first plurality of media items of the received first media stream is not of interest to a user; identify second media that is of interest to the user; and switch playback from the first media stream to the identified second media when the upcoming media item is received by the first communications circuitry. "

and the rest of the description seems to be how to coordinate the stuff over the air with the local media.

Sounds like something to integrate local iTunes media, Genius results, and Air Play with their Match stuff.
Click to expand...

That description is so ridiculously wordy it almost made my head spin.

The two are practically the same with the exception that the first describes a "method for switching" and the second describes a physical piece of hardware, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Emission said:
That description is so ridiculously wordy it almost made my head spin.

The two are practically the same with the exception that the first describes a "method for switching" and the second describes a physical piece of hardware, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
I believe you are not mistaken.

The first one would be the algorithm like GrooveShark's radio function that selects music it thinks you will like based on your previous choices (or Pandora's that uses choices that others select to try serve you stuff you'll like) and the second is saying we're going to put this thing on our iDevices.

The difference is that instead of just the streaming stuff it'll pull music from your local library, too. Neat huh? I mean it's not revolutionary and they didn't "invent" it but if they don't patent it someone else will and sue them for licensing fees for every iPod and iPhone they sell :)
 
mope54 said:
I believe you are not mistaken.

The first one would be the algorithm like GrooveShark's radio function that selects music it thinks you will like based on your previous choices (or Pandora's that uses choices that others select to try serve you stuff you'll like) and the second is saying we're going to put this thing on our iDevices.

The difference is that instead of just the streaming stuff it'll pull music from your local library, too. Neat huh? I mean it's not revolutionary and they didn't "invent" it but if they don't patent it someone else will and sue them for licensing fees for every iPod and iPhone they sell :)
Click to expand...

Unless Apple is claiming to own if then, for next and do while, this is not an invention. Software patents are absurd; imagine if one could patent a literary device such as writing a book where a disgraced police officer solves a murder and that's basically what software patents are.

It is impossible to write software without infringing on one of the hundreds of thousands of patents granted for the most trivial aspects of software. The standard advice that every patent shyster gives is don't even bother checking to see if your software violates patents because it almost certainly does and if you do check, that makes it willful infringement.

It is impossible to start a software company inside the Corporate States of America without being shaken down by these vermin. It is the equivalent of terrorism; every small business owner and independent software developer lives in constant terror of having their livelihood stolen by these shysters.

What is laughably called the "justice system" in the US is basically highest payer wins. The barbaric adversarial system ensures that he who has the most money will always win; it costs millions of dollars to defend yourself against a BS patent and most people can't afford that so they are forced to settle. The judges do not care if one side is at a disadvantage; the courts do not help out, no legal advice is offered. This is in stark contrast to more civilized countries that use the inquisitorial system where the courts are more concerned with finding the truth and the pursuit of justice rather than turning something that could ruin someone's life into a grudge-match.
 
so in my discipline, what I earned my doctorate in, ok? is this particular way of analyzing law. I guess the best way to describe it here would be the disjuncture between the theory of law and the practice of law.

that is, how law is written on the books vs. how it is experienced by people in society. I look at that intersection.

and what you've done here is you've separated two distinct theoretical positions of law but that's not necessarily how we find them in practice. and when we look at the substantive issues, what we find might surprise and give you pause in championing one over the other.

in the context of adversarial systems what we find is that the practice of law is much more in congruence with the theory of how law should operate. it's by no means a perfect system but it develops more organically and can shift over time as the corpus of law develops. whereas with the inquisitorial model the theory of law often is quite incongruent with how the practice occurs because it's regulated and piecemealed together in a distinct fashion.

substantively this means that the litigants in the first system reasonably find themselves roughly where they suspected they'd end up whereas with the latter system litigants often end up in different places than they might suspect.

In the US model we've prioritized consistency. That is, fairness is achieved by everyone adhering to the same rules. And if some people wind up in an unfair position so long as they all have access to the same rules and are on a level playing field then the outcome, in and of itself, is fair.

frankly, I'm a critical conflict theorist and I do not believe that participants can be on a level playing field. I've written extensively on the subject, in fact. in that regard we would agree...

however, that does not automatically mean the other system you have named is better. some people think that judges finding fair results at the end of a process is unfair because that means some participants get special attention. in your example above you'd have to help the underdog a little more than average in order to ensure he was getting a fair shake. well, that's not necessarily more fair is it? that's just one theory of fairness. and the empirical evidence doesn't show that the two systems converge more often than they diverge.
 
mope54 said:
so in my discipline, what I earned my doctorate in, ok? is this particular way of analyzing law. I guess the best way to describe it here would be the disjuncture between the theory of law and the practice of law.

that is, how law is written on the books vs. how it is experienced by people in society. I look at that intersection.

and what you've done here is you've separated two distinct theoretical positions of law but that's not necessarily how we find them in practice. and when we look at the substantive issues, what we find might surprise and give you pause in championing one over the other.

in the context of adversarial systems what we find is that the practice of law is much more in congruence with the theory of how law should operate. it's by no means a perfect system but it develops more organically and can shift over time as the corpus of law develops. whereas with the inquisitorial model the theory of law often is quite incongruent with how the practice occurs because it's regulated and piecemealed together in a distinct fashion.

substantively this means that the litigants in the first system reasonably find themselves roughly where they suspected they'd end up whereas with the latter system litigants often end up in different places than they might suspect.

In the US model we've prioritized consistency. That is, fairness is achieved by everyone adhering to the same rules. And if some people wind up in an unfair position so long as they all have access to the same rules and are on a level playing field then the outcome, in and of itself, is fair.

frankly, I'm a critical conflict theorist and I do not believe that participants can be on a level playing field. I've written extensively on the subject, in fact. in that regard we would agree...

however, that does not automatically mean the other system you have named is better. some people think that judges finding fair results at the end of a process is unfair because that means some participants get special attention. in your example above you'd have to help the underdog a little more than average in order to ensure he was getting a fair shake. well, that's not necessarily more fair is it? that's just one theory of fairness. and the empirical evidence doesn't show that the two systems converge more often than they diverge.
Click to expand...

The US courts are anything but consistent. One only has to look at the different rules in different appeals circuits to see that as well as the Supreme Court which seems more like a political body than a court of neutral judges. Every district in the federal court system has it's own local rules; is there any particular reason why, for example, each district needs it's own rules as far as page formating goes (I'd think we could just adopt a unified rule for page margins on filings nationwide but that would be too easy).

The system is rigged so that someone who is not a lawyer has a very limited chance of success. The clerks are beyond useless; while they will gladly provide advice to a lawyer, they will not help someone who is pro se. Judges frequently stick pro se cases in the back of the line in favor of hearing cases where lawyers are involved. The court "filing" fees are absurd; if it costs $350 for the Clerk to file a lawsuit, it is obvious that either the clerks are overpaid or people are being fleeced. Rule 24 IFP motions are decided on arbitrarily on the whims of the robed lawyer in the court, with no clear standards. Pro se litigants have restricted access to e-filing, making it more difficult to file court documents. Pro se litigants also lack the ability to even properly research case law without paying outrageous sums of money to PACER (at .10c a page) or to the LexisWestLaw Cartel.

Merely having "access to the same rules" does not make a level playing field because if you are being sued by someone with millions of dollars to spend on litigation, they can hire an army of lawyers to bombard you with one discovery after another (lawyers in the Corporate States of America are allowed the unfettered ability to issue subpoenas; in other countries, discovery has to go through the judge first). You will be unable, as an individual, to keep up with all of them and to file the appropriate motions to quash. In addition, you yourself, as a pro se, do not have the ability to issue subpoenas like the lawyers do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top