Thank God, I thought the world had ended over the last few weeks or that I'd been cryogenically frozen.....
Apple are back in the news with patents.... I'm alive.
Apple is trying to patent wireless charging, claiming its magnetic resonance tech is new and that it can do it better than anyone else. This would be cool if its assertions were true. Apple's application, numbered 20120303980, makes much of its ability to charge a device over the air at a distance of up to a metre, rather than …
> "Think it up first then patent it without actually having built it, in the hope that technology advances far enough to make it happen... In the next 50 years."
Which is precisely what Tesla did not do, he built cool stuff without bothering too much with patents. Too bad his ideas still were decades ahead of the time. See http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla
They weren't decades ahead of their time. They just didn't work very well. The ionosphere hasn;t become any more reflective nor the ground plane more conductive since his experiments failed.
I do wish people would stop worshipping Tesla for the wackjob stuff he played around with late in his cereer. The stuff he did earlier is just as interesting, and actually works.
That someone demonstrated wireless power transfer does not mean a specific implementation is not patentable. For instance you might use directional beaming based on tracking the device location, to greatly improve the maximum charging distance.
The article title is deliberately misleading, this is nothing like what Nokia are doing - for once this sounds like a proper patentable idea and the issue is with the specific other company named.
The new bit you add to prior art to create a new patent must be more than just "neat" or "handy": the new bit must itself be *inventive* and "not obvious to anyone skilled in the art".
The seperate issue of patenting things you haven't (or as yet can't) make is yet another hole in IP law. But let's face it: IP law is starting to push the "collander" comparison further than you'd want a collander to go.
But it does... see a patent needs to be unique inventive and non-obvious.
Once Tesla showed this off (for free) to everyone... ANY patents resulting from just simple mundane alterations of the the basic idea and technology are not INVENTIONS.. or if you want to calm that, they are certainly OBVIOUS ones. Its same thing with all these RETARDED internet inventions.
Say you have a process ....something like associating a name with a number in a filing cabinet....
Then the internet gets invented (Internet was new and worthy of maybe a few patents) just because you now associate a name with number on internet does not make it worthy of Patent!!!!
That's the part these trolls don't get, and that our governments don't understand..... Patents are not just because you got there first. All the finger gestures in the world will be figured out and used eventually by every company... NOW that touch screens are cheap and popular. CRAPPLE does not get to PATENT and own this technology just because they have the cash to file patents.
I propose we make a change in the law and when a company files a patent where it can be shown that a simple search would have shown the prior art, or where the invention on review is an obvious one... the loose the patent and get a fine for filling a frivolous patent..... these funds would then be used to review more similar frivolous patents.
Crapple and certainly all the patent trolls would be bankrupt in 2 years time.
Depends on your standard. The impact on the average person from Darwin or Einstein is fairly small. The practical applications are a bit of medicine from Darwin, nuclear energy and GPS from Einstein. They were both of great academic importance, but it doesn't filter down to day-to-day life. Tesla, however, invented the electric grid - he turned what may be the single most important technology ever invented from a laboratory curiosity into the power source for almost every technological item and industrial process that would follow. Never mind the wireless power dabblings: Three-phase power and his improvements to generator, motor and transformer design were the big ones.
re: Spurious tacking on of "on a mobile device". I'm getting pretty sick of this. From now on when Apple come up with a "new" patent for something "on a mobile device", I'm going to run their patent through this page and rush down to the patent office so I can patent the new invention "on a mobile device - in bed!"
In fact, I''d love to filter Reg Comments through the same script (just to preserve some slim semblance of sanity in the world) but it appears that it doesn't support entering URLs any more.
But did he "applying power at a distance wirelessly - on a mobile device"?
I'm fairly sure Tesla himself didn't, as iWhatever devices were a bit thin on the ground back then About as thin as common sense is at Apple's legal department. But let's test what he COULD have done.
/me wheels out a Tesla coil and positions it some distance from an iWhatever. What did the patent say, one meter?
*throws the switch* For SCIENCE
Whilst completely true about Tesla, this has never stopped large companies like Apple from patenting the obvious and in a way that obviscates it so the lamentable patent clerks will just tick it thru to approval.
Give it a few years and they will probably patent time travel as a means to obtain patents!
If it works better than QI and has benefits such as smaller coils or lighter coils then it's a good thing. But I doubt Apple can improve something as simple as induction. If they could then AC transformers could be more efficient too.
It just shows how far behind Apple are now, even Nokia and Palm beat them to market with wireless charging. Palm were one of the first with their proprietary system and Nokia are one of the first to release a QI based phone.
"It just shows how far behind Apple are now"
Sorry, now? Apple have rarely been first to market with a technology; what they do best is innovate around the user interaction side of things to make a technology that's already been invented far more usable for the average punter. They do this by designing very usable UIs, and/or locking it down so it works seamlessly with other Apple products.
Wireless charging will only really work if it either becomes so cheap you can get one for each of your devices, or they finally come up with a standard so your charger will work with all your stuff. Granting Apple a patent in this area won't really help with either of those.
Retina displays were way ahead of the competition when introduced. They had Intel produce a special lower power processor for the first Macbook air, using a smaller process than the rest at the time.
iPhone 5 uses a thinner combined touchscreen display.
iPhone was the first to use Gorilla Glass, Steve Jobs was looking for some decent glass for the original iPhone and Corning found a design they had sitting on the shelf for decades.
There are many other examples, you can't say Apple hasn't been on the cutting edge at times.
"hey Intel, here's a fat check, gimme some of your first production run on the new process"
"hey Samsung, here's a fat check to help you build your next LCD fab"
"hey Corning, here's a fat check, gimme some of that Gorilla glass that you didn't need my help coming up with"
I'm off to Innovate myself some MP3's at Amazon.
OpenMoko had 295ppi on sale a month after the release of the first iPhone, and that was an off the shelf lcd even then. I suspect Apple were waiting for mobile CPU/GPUs that could render smoothly at that resolution before they brouht it to the mass market with a catchy name.
As much as I liked your post and wanted to upvote it, I have an automatic habit of downvoting anyone who throw currency symbols into company names (Microsoft often gets a dollar symbol for its S) or adding letters to drag down the name (prefixing Apple with a C).
Its a habit I'm not planning to change either.
I enjoy constructive criticism of companies, not childish name calling.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019