It’s not even a patent. It’s an application. One unlikely to be allowed, I would guess.
Oh, I don’t think it would be a big problem. Won’t let me channel-surf during ads? Fine, I’ll wait till the show comes back on.
Good point!
If that self-destructive idea were ever implemented, could you imagine how infuriating it would be when the set was left on another channel, and you arrived in the room ready to watch a scheduled program only to find that you had to wait for the interminable break to end to switch to what you wanted?
I don’t really get how this would ever provide a significant benefit anyway, (even if tolerated.) How many people “flip” during commercial breaks? Anywhere I’ve ever been, if you’re watching something, you’re watching something – you don’t change the channel if you’re expecting to pick up after the break. Now, if they disabled the “mute” and “power” buttons, that would have an impact – but if I change the channel, it’s because I want to watch something else, not merely avoid a commercial.
Why not? Dumber patents than this have been allowed.
I have some. 
Oh, I’m sure it will be allowed, assuming there’s not a similar patent already in exsistence. I doubt it will ever be used, though, as the consumer backlash would be too great.
As it is, I hardly ever watch TV anymore. I just wait for the DVD. No commercials, watch as much or as little as I want, no commercials, pause, no commercials, rewind, no commercials, fast forward, no commercials. Did I mention no commercials? That’s a big factor for me.
Not in my household. My beau will always flip during the commercials. No matter how good a show is, as soon as a commercial comes on the flipping starts and we usually make it back to the show a minute, or two, or more after it has re-started. This causes me stress. I wait as long as I can because I hate to ask, “Can we see if the show is back on now?”
Sometimes, I will think to myself the whole time, “you’re probably not missing anything, you can catch the show some other time, your love for your beau is stronger than your interest in that tv program, just tough it out.”
…Actually, I think I love this Philips idea!
Wow, really? I’d never thought of that! I’ll have to try it sometime…
:rolleyes: 
How bad has it gotten that we now have to break the law just to get a basic level of use out of something we’ve already bought? The crap surrounding DVDs and music is already well-known, and I hate to think what an expansion would do to the respect people have for laws.
Why would it be against the law to modify your own property?
What if you happened to be watching QVC or an infomercial, would it let you change the channel at all? Does the technology (I’m using the term loosely here) know the difference between a commercial pushing Tide or tampons, and some Get-Rich-Quick scheme that happened to have bought a half hour block at 4:00 am? Ron Popeil would get better ratings than the SuperBowl if you couldn’t turn his show off.
What happens if your watching a show & you start surfing. Suddenly, you hit a channel that has an all important ‘commercial’ on.
eeerrrrrrttttt. Your surfing comes to a complete stop while the ad finishes.
vrrrroommmmm back to surfing… next channel…
eeerrrrtttttt.
This will never happen, but if it does I too will do away with TV completely.
Because you could be modifying it in ways that might possibly enable you to violate someone’s copyright.
Modifying a device in your home isn’t a copyright violation. Did you mean that it might be violating a provision of the DMCA? In any case, the solution is easier – don’t buy a device with this stupid feature.
Most likely this patent was filed to add to Philips’ portfolio or to beef up some tool’s resume. I can’t imagine a TV being sold with this feature. But I could see an application where TVs or PVRs with this feature were given away or sold at low cost to commercial venues (e.g. bars, motels, etc.). Maybe you could add it to plasma TVs and then sell them below cost.
I wonder, if you could get an $80/mo digital cable package with DVR for $40/mo if this feature were enabled, would you go for it? How about for $10/mo?
If you read the patent, the idea is that several signals are used. At the beginning of the program, an initial signal would display an indicator that the content will be “commercial locked,” and give you the opportunity to change the channel if you didn’t want to stay on that program. If the tuner is left on the same channel for some time after that, then it goes into locked-in mode, waiting for another signal at the beginning of the commercial to disable the controls.
Still too much of a pain in the ass to ever get legs, but it is designed in such a way that you could still flip past incidental commercials, but couldn’t watch an entire block of locked programming without committing to the commercials associated with it.
I got this question on my SAT once, I think. Hell is to good for Phillips Electronics as Heaven is to bad for Satanists.
I’ve been meaning to ask the mods to correct the typo, but you’ve made good use of it now 
This is an excellent question, and one that brings up an issue which, in your rage, many of you are ignoring. TV programs are (traditionally) paid for by advertisers. The fact that you paid $x dollars for a TV and $x for cable service does not mean that you paid NBC to produce Law and Order, or whatever. You don’t have a god-given right to see that show. (Unlike, say, HBO, where part of what you’re paying for your cable service IS the right to watch HBO.) Why shouldn’t NBC investigate ways to ensure that advertisers will pay them money? Why shouldn’t advertisers be able to be guaranteed that if they’re spending $x for an ad on a popular TV show, people will actually be watching it?
I agree that this solution sounds awfully stupid, but this issue isn’t going to go away.
Yeah. Congress would NEVER pass any foolish bills.
Bob