New Gadgets and Gizmos

Apple fans who were expecting an iPhone instant-messaging client based on AOL’s popular software could be in for a surprise. Apple has applied for a patent on a chat feature.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published an application entitled Portable Electronic Device for Instant Messaging on March 6. That’s the same day Apple offered details on its software development kit for the iPhone.

Last month, Apple mentioned AOL’s test version of the first “official” native Web chat for the popular iPhone. But that could be a temporary solution. The patent was filed in August 2007.

The Heart of the Patent

The application reads, “The GUI has a set of messages exchanged between a user of the device and another person. The set of messages (is) displayed in a chronological order. In response to detecting a scrolling gesture comprising a substantially vertical movement of a user contact with the touch-screen display, the display of messages (is) scrolled in accordance with a direction of the scrolling gesture.”

Of course, the iPhone already has SMS messaging. But an Apple-branded chat feature would offer Apple multiple benefits, so Ilan Barzilay, a member of the Electrical and Computer Technologies Practice Group at Wolf Greenfield in Boston, was not surprised to learn about the patent.

“Texting is a huge part of cell-phone service, so if Apple could build an IM client into its iPhone that’s just another feature, that would be very appealing to consumers,” Barzilay said. “Apple could take that power out of the hands of the cell-phone companies so consumers have one less thing to worry about on their cell-phone bill.”

Keeping Apple in Control

If Apple releases its own chat feature, the company would also have more control over the modifications consumers make to the software. Apple has taken a relatively proprietary approach until now, only…

Individuals have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the connections between their personal information and the IP address they use to access the Internet, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Monday.

While the court’s ruling was based on the New Jersey constitution’s expanded definition of privacy, it is “an open question” as to whether the same privacy rights would be upheld in federal court, said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University Law School, in a telephone interview.

The case concerns an employee accused of changing content on her company’s Web site and altering the password so no one else could correct the misinformation. On Aug. 27, 2004, Timothy Wilson, owner of Jersey Diesel, noticed his company’s shipping address had been changed on its Web site.

Deficient Subpoena

The company’s IT specialist reported that someone had logged onto the server, changed the address and changed the login password. The specialist found the IP address of the person who made the changes.

Wilson suspected an employee, Shirley Reid, with whom he had recently argued, and reported her as a likely suspect to the Lower Township, N.J., police. When Wilson contacted Comcast to request the identity of the IP address user, Comcast declined without a subpoena.

The local police then obtained a deficient subpoena from the municipal court and served it on Comcast, which complied, identifying Reid as the person who changed the site. The subpoena was captioned Wilson v Reid, although no such case existed — a blatant violation of the process.

Broad Protections

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the evidence gathered from the deficient subpoena should be suppressed. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has found no privacy expectation in Internet subscriber information, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state’s constitution goes further and New Jersey citizens do have a…