App Permission Control for Background Hardware Access

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Users face difficulties in controlling application permissions when the application is executed in the background state, allowing unauthorized access to device components despite user intent.

Innovation Solution

An electronic device and method that differentially manage permissions based on the application's state, allowing or restricting access to hardware and software components, and providing notifications when applications are in the background state.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the application is given permission to access hardware components when downloaded and installed, then the application can function properly when executed in the foreground state, but the application may access hardware components unauthorized when executed in the background state

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveapplication permission controlVSAvoidunauthorized access to hardware components

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies dynamics by making the permission control adaptive to the application's execution state. The system dynamically adjusts permission granting based on whether the application is in foreground or background state, transitioning from static permission allocation to dynamic state-dependent control. This resolves the contradiction by enabling proper functionality in foreground while preventing unauthorized access in background.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by differentiating permission control based on the specific execution state (foreground vs. background) of the application. Instead of applying a uniform permission policy globally, the system applies different permission rules locally to each execution state, allowing full access in foreground state while restricting access in background state.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

2Ease of operation

If the user is prompted to grant permission at installation time, then the application receives necessary permissions for operation, but the user cannot control or revoke permissions while the application runs in the background

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveuser control over permissionsVSAvoiduser intent and needs information

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies feedback by continuously monitoring the application's execution state and providing real-time information to the user about background operations. The system establishes a feedback loop where the user is notified when applications run in the background, enabling informed decision-making and ongoing control over permission usage based on current system state.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies self-service by enabling users to independently control and manage application permissions through the interface. Users can autonomously decide whether to allow background execution and can revoke or modify permissions without requiring developer intervention or system administrator access.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

3Productivity

If the application executes in the background state with full permissions, then the application can perform background tasks, but the user interface cannot be displayed and user control is lost

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebackground task executionVSAvoiduser interface accessibility

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies segmentation by separating the application execution into distinct states (foreground and background) with different permission levels and user interface accessibility. The system segments the execution context so that background tasks can run with restricted permissions while foreground execution maintains full permissions and interface accessibility, resolving the contradiction between productivity and user control.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP3610406B1Method and electronic device for controlling permission of application program

Publication Date: 2026.03.11 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO LTD

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

AI summary

An electronic device is provided. The electronic device includes a housing, a touchscreen display, a wireless communication circuit, a processor electrically connected to the touchscreen display and the wireless communication circuit, and a memory electrically connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store an application program comprising a user interface, and store an instruction that, when executed, enables the processor to store a permission for accessing, by an application program stored in the memory, at least one among hardware components or software components of the electronic device, activate the application program, allow the application program to access the at least one among hardware components or software components based on the stored permission and display a user interface (UI) of the application program on the touchscreen display, hide a part of the user interface while the application program is executed in a background state, and monitor whether the application program uses the at least one among hardware components or software components while the application program is executed in the background state.