Re: Licensing terms - tried that

I was investigating the possible use of a Chinese "pattern part" copy of the 30-way plug. It's legal here in the UK to make pattern parts as long as they do not transgress patents or copyright. There is nothing AFAIK innovative in this connector and it would have looked non-identical, at least to the calibrated "moron in a hurry" they use, nice work if eligible :-)

Anyway, the upshot was that the Chinese were shit scared, even at the less scrupulous end of the market.

Whatever happened to the EU directive that phones shall use a micro-USB charger? .

Re: Licensing terms - tried that

"Whatever happened to the EU directive that phones shall use a micro-USB charger? ."

Someone tacked on the proviso that it's compliant if an adaptor is available, neatly sidestepping the whole effing point of having a standard charging connector.

Re: Licensing terms - tried that

Interesting anecdote about how far Apple can now reach into the Chinese market.

Re: Licensing terms

A fundamental principle of the patent system is that patents are granted on the basis that they can be licensed by anyone, ie. non-discriminatory - the inventor gets protection in return for his willingness to share his invention. AFAIK the lightning connector is designed to work with Thunderbolt which is a standard co-developed by Apple and Intel. But this is actually more about customer rights - the right to buy peripherals and services from alternative suppliers. This is essential to prevent the creation of monopolies.

Re: Licensing terms - tried that

"Whatever happened to the EU directive that phones shall use a micro-USB charger?"

I believe that was a recommendation, there isn't a law that phones must have a micro-USB plug for charging. I do believe (don't know the source) that Apple was questioned once about why don't don't have micro-USB plug and there argument is that there cable's are USB compatible and they have been using the same cable already for over 9 or 10 years. There points where valid.

Again, I don't know the source anymore but I believe that was what has been said..

Re: lightning connector isn't FRAND

Then I guess Apple need to be glad Google are there to protect them from becoming a monopoly. Otherwise they'd be in MS IE-style anti-trust territory.

Re: Licensing terms

Patent =/= Frand. If I patent something and refuse to give you a license to use it in your product, that's tough shit. You didn't invent it, you have no right to steal my idea and profit from it. You can argue I would make more money selling it to you than only producing parts myself. You might even be correct in that assertion. But UNTIL my patent EXPIRES, you have NO RIGHT TO MAKE SOMETHING WHICH DEPENDS UPON IT.

Which is part of why the time to expiration on patents and copyrights is critical to the healthy life cycle of intellectual property. It only joins the commons at that point. It needs to balance benefiting the inventor with benefiting society. Once it may have been off balance in favor of society to the detriment of inventions, but right now it is out of whack in favor of inventors (or at least the people who buy off the inventors) to the detriment of both society and additional invention.

Re: Licensing terms

Didn't a lot of lawsuits between IBM and Amdahl back in the stone age show you couldn't restrict people making plug compatible peripherals?

Re: lightning connector isn't FRAND

The irony is Google are a near monopoly on so many other things like search.

Re: Licensing terms

Must not have because I spent three long years working for a company that protected the design for their plugs.

indeed. the solution isn't to "bundle a free lightning connector" or anything like that (which would just get stolen were it in a bar or coffee shop or whatever anyway)

The solution is to tell apple to go and f*** themselves. If enough microUSB everythings appeared everywhere they'd have little choice but to comply.

Done. For several years now. It's been working out pretty well for me.

'The solution is to tell apple to go and f*** themselves. '

Sadly, he decided to tell the people who had invested in his product to do that instead. Apparently half of them didn't even have iOS devices at all. Apple's policy on connectors may be effing stupid, but this guy's acted like a spoilt child.

> but this guy's acted like a spoilt child.

Or maybe a smart child - one who never mass produced a device in his life, made false promises (no way he was putting in a 26000 mAh li-ion battery, plastic moulds, etc in for that price in 1000 quantities) and then found the perfect excuse to get out of it while plugging his own crowdfunding site.

Not a bad move if you ask me.

> Besides before you know it the Chinese crap factories will be slamming everyone with piles of fake Lightning connectors via eBay

Already are.

Neat marketing

"For this? Why? I never even heard of this charger."

... well you have now.

Of course I'm not cynical enough to think this was a deliberate move to get publicity, but as things turned out, this Kickstarter project has just gone and got a whole lot more publicity that it could ever have hoped for.

Unless they are really stupid, the project will now end up with a much larger audience for their non-iDevice charger, and Apple will once again look stupid: ideally in the coffee shops where their fanbois hang out. Result!

Hard wire an Apple lightning cable - job done.

But, does it seem he is trying to screw any customers?

I just read:

https://secure.christiestreet.com/about

And the sponsorship/supporing, and refundidng mechnanism explanation are what I wish I read about on Kickstarter and Indiegogo.

It is almost an amalgem of traditional invention submission/inventor society type ingress, but supported by crowd funding instead of investor funding.

I like that they release 1/3 of the funding after the campaign ends, so the inventors can run off to a suitable IP attorney and factory (matched by Christtie Street? I don't know) to get prototypes made. I do not recall reading such support in KS or IGG material on their respective sites.

Now, if CS is going to be really successful, and do something I think KS and IGG are not doing, then CS needs to partner with IP lawyers, patent filing experts, and local area manufacturers to drive down the costs associated with patenting.

That's an atttactive lure, especially since KS and IGG and similar crowdfunding sites suggest that creators/inventors do not advert more than 2 simultaneous campaigns, in order to avoid "donor fatigue". With KS, it appears that a creator has good luck and good timing, s/he can advert and release products on staged timing cyces and if up front about his/her campaign's, products' progress, then might avert the fear of "donor fatigue". If a product reaches a sufficient amount of funding prior to the end of the campaign, and if the money could be escrowed and in part released for document vetting and patent filing, and AS LONG AS the donors agree to it prior to donating, then CS might be THE best crowdfunding site to come along, as long as they are and remain professional and are not taking a cut so huge you're almost no different from being with equity funding.

If all this is true, then CS is the very idea I thought of a few weeks ago. In the name of integrity and sincerity, I wanted to deliberately have my Indiegogo campaign spell out the risks along with the rewards, and to up-front tell the donors that I wanted to escrow their fundings and self-limit myself to taking and using initially ONLY what it would take to officially certify and file the invention docs, then get a prototype going. This could only partially be met on IGG, as I think that IGG does not explicitly demand a physical, non-photo-realistic product to appear on the site. That is what turned me off to KS.

Unfortunately, as much as I am tempted to jump to CS, they for now appear to have only ONE displayed campaign. If they start getting plugged by major news outlets and carry a few hundred tech or geek or other inventors, then I will DEFINITELY swing to them. I would do so because I am not dumb enough to display my sketches ahead of having a physical prototype. And, without money, I cannot yet show a prototype. If I did, I'd be beaten to manufacture. The trick is to show enough of the prototype sketch, but then maybe receive directional votes from funders, and get their blessing to crank out two prototype sketch finalists once the first 1/3 of funding is released for filing. This allows the inventor to sidestep the last-minute discovery of a patent protected invention discovered too late to warn the funders.

I think that if CS is legit and worthy of a shift, we'll in a few months see more tech/geeky products move to there or advert in parallel as a hedge. Having production assistance in the loop (if they do not behave as equity investors or sharks) can remove several nearly-insurmountable obstacles.

Re: But, does it seem he is trying to screw any customers?

As of 11 hours ago (it is 0320 PST for me), the KS project appears to still be on. It just to me seems the CS site creators may have undergone some angst over their understanding of KS' refund policy, modified heavily by the uncertainty of Apple's pending decision. On the KS comments at:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/siminoff/pop-the-intersection-of-charging-and-design/comments

It seems that Apple is not asking for a license to use the cable alongside other USB cables. The CS site creator appears to be promising he will hand deliver a funder her product when it is ready to ship. Seems he is committing himself to a coast-to-coast flight from Jersey to Santa Monica/nearby.

Interesting.

>Boycott Apple?

A computer that stands there blocking for 3days, then sores 200, then slaps your girlfriend

Five dollars! I'll wait until I can get one in Poundland.

Re: For £10 or so...

Erratum: "4x18690" should read "4x18650"

Re: For £10 or so...

If you want 4 x 18650 batteries for £10 - good luck. Those things hold quite a lot of power and buying the lot for £10 probably means you are buying faulty cells or ones recycled from laptop battery packs. High quality cells from someone like Panasonic can run to about £10 each - maybe a bit less in quantity.

Also 4 cells would not give you 16000mah as each cell is not 4000mah - the best cells are usually around 3000-3100mah and that is not even at 5v required for USB - the max voltage of the cells is around 4.2v and the nominal voltage 3.7v - so 4 x 3000mah cells would give 12000mah at 3.7v and probably more like 8000mah at 5v (with conversion losses).

Re: For £10 or so...

Well the charger was around £10...you still have to buy batteries. But here:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4X-UltraFire-18650-3-7V-Rechargeable-Li-ion-Battery-4900mAh-Purple-/180961966166?pt=UK_Camera_Batteries&hash=item2a222c7856

I bought 4 ultrafire 3600 mAh last year (and 10 x 2000 mAh for other people) and they are all still perky and haven't exploded or anything. I didn't -have to confess here- remember about the change to 5v and what effect that would have on the milliamperage; nor do I claim to be a battery expert.

The year before that I bought (another) torch and 2 x 2000 mAh batteries and they are still going strong too.

Anyway...say you're 100% correct...that's still pretty well a total laptop charge or a couple/few phone charges for around £10 for the charger plus more for whatever batteries you choose to throw in there.

Re: Hmmm

Micro USB as a connector sucks, small fiddly and directional. The Apple connector is actually a good idea, it's just that they don't let anyone else use it.

But it is a sad day when you have to rely on a port connector as a selling point for your device.

Re: Hmmm

It would be great if the EU were to get it's teeth into Apple and blanket ban any mobe that doesn't use a built-in uUSB charging mechanism.

Apple would cry foul, but the purpose of imposing a charging standard is worthy.

Re: Hmmm

Isn't the point of this standardisation to make sure that you can use a single charger with any data enabled phone and not to ensure that every phone has a uUSB connector? God forbid that uUSB is the connector technology that any standards compliant manufacturer must now use forever.

Every iPhone I've had comes with a charger with a USB type A socket on it - I can use that charger with any phone designed to use the EU common external power supply by using the relevant cable. This seems more sensible than having a charger with a fixed uUSB terminated cable.

In any case, as far as I can tell, Apple comply with the EU common external power supply standard as long as they provide a cable that will connect the iPhone to an EU EPS, which they do.

Re: Hmmm

>God forbid that uUSB is the connector technology that any standards compliant manufacturer must now use forever.

Yes but I said "charging mechanism", not connector tech. There's no reason why the iThings couldn't retain their lightning connector, but still have a separate uUSB which doesn't do anything other than charge. It could still charge through the lightning connector too.

We used to have phones that had a charge that was completely separate from the data connector. There wasn't a lot wrong with that idea. It's buttons extra pence I'm sure, and takes up a tiny bit more space but would it be a major backtrack to reimplement that for uUSB?

Re: Hmmm

I'm never had an issue plugging one in.. takes 1 second even in the dark.

Re: Hmmm

'Isn't the point of this standardisation to make sure that you can use a single charger with any data enabled phone and not to ensure that every phone has a uUSB connector? God forbid that uUSB is the connector technology that any standards compliant manufacturer must now use forever.'

It's not even a useful standard anyway. OK, you have a micro-USB port on your mobile device. That's fine. But the variation in ampage required to actually charge various makes of device is insane. I've seen some that will charge fine on an iPhone charger but not on an iPad charger and others that are vice versa. Ones that will work fine with both of those but not a BB charger and will say they are charging on a Nexus 7 charger but in fact weren't actually charging much at all (I test mobile devices as part of my job. I have LOTS of USB chargers hanging around). The only consistency I've found is that any device will charge with the charger that comes with it. Anything else? Whim of the Gods.

I've got 4 USB chargers on my desk here. Yes really. They're all rated at 5V. The ampage ratings are 1.2A, 2A, 0.7A and 2.1A. So a device that only needs .5A will charge on all of them, but one that requires 2A will only charge on two of them. One that specifically requires 2A will only charge on one. Standard? What standard?

Basically put, with the EU standard you can be sure the wire from your charger will plug into the port on your device. Can you actually be sure the charger will charge your device? No, not at all. So the 'standardisation' is in fact a complete waste of time.

'Scuse me, rant over.

Re: Hmmm

One that specifically needs regulated 5VDC @ 2A and won't work with regulated 5VDC @ 2.1A?

Slightly concerned that you think that could exist, given that you claim that's your job...

Apple used to have a data connection to the charger to refuse to charge if it wasn't appropriately blessed, but I don't think they do that anymore.

Although to be fair, there are a lot of "copies" of USB chargers that don't actually contain a regulated power supply and are barely more than an oscillator and a transistor, but those tend to not work at all, catch fire, kill/injure the user via electric shock and/or destroy the device.

Those are actually illegal to sell in the EU, unfortunately Trading Standards seem far more interested in chasing copied CDs than dangerous goods, if the TV show us anything to go by.

Huh, I just now noticed my typo.

throw away everything with an Apple logo

There, corrected myself.