Apple Patents Wireless Charging 253
GabriellaKat writes "Via El Reg: '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 meter, rather than requiring close proximity. The Alliance For Wireless Power, which also touts long-range juicing, will no doubt be comparing Apple's designs to its own blueprints.'"
Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Informative)
I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosystem (Score:5, Insightful)
"Music, movies, TV, and podcast subscriptions. All tied up in Apple's little ecosystem. A very pretty noose to keep people chained to its hardware.
Imagine, just for a moment, that your Sony DVD player would only play Sony Movies' films. When you decided to buy a new DVD player from Samsung, none of those media files would work on your new kit without some serious fiddling.
That's the walled garden that so many companies are now trying to drag us into. And I think it stinks.
On a mobile phone network in the UK, you can use any phone you want. Hardware and services are totally divorced. It promotes competition because customers know that if they have a poor experience with HTC, they can move to Nokia and everything will carry on working just as it did before.
But, if all of your contacts, entertainment services, and backups are chained into HTC - well, then you're just shit out of luck if you want to move.
I want to see a complete separation of church and state here. Hardware should be separate from software. Software should be separate from services.
I want to watch Nokia movies on my Samsung hardware running Google's Android, and then back them up to DropBox.
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space. I don't understand why it doesn't in the tablet and smartphone space? Why would I buy a tablet that only worked with content from one provider? Whether that's Amazon, Microsoft or Apple - it's setting up a nasty little monopoly which will drive up prices and drive down quality.
I know, I know. The mantra of "It Just Works". I'm mildly sick of having to configure my tablet to talk to my NAS, and then get the TV to talk to both of them. That situation isn't just due to my equipment all coming from different manufacturers - it's mostly due to those manufacturers not implementing open standards.
http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2012/11/i-dont-want-to-be-part-of-your-fucking-ecosystem/ [shkspr.mobi]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. You're correct that someone will always crack the DRM. Restrictions like these mar the beauty of digital information though. Just because someone makes a way to break DRM, doesn't make DRM less evil. A lot of people use that to justify not caring about it - since it won't affect them. You shouldn't have to de-DRM things you buy. Not having DRM would count as beautiful.
It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say you wanted to use Bluetooth to talk to an iPod or an iPad. You'd think you could just buy a Bluetooth module from, say, Roving Networks - say, the RN-42 [rovingnetworks.com], and then connect it to your PIC/Arduino and start sending Hello World, right?
WRONG!
Apple has not only extended Bluetooth to require a special iAP authentication chip [rovingnetworks.com], but they have a special licensing program called MFi [apple.com].
Okay, you say, so maybe this is like USB, you pay a few grand and get a VID and then go about your business.
WRONG!
The requirements surrounding MFi are ridiculous. For example [apple.com], Apple will run a credit check on your company. If you are not a high-volume manufacturing company, then you're stuck with only the development license, and you will have to outsource your manufacturing. A development license is required even if you want to design an in-house app. Hobbyists need not apply - you cannot even get the development license if you want to design something for personal use. Oh, and you need to sign an NDA before they will tell you the royalty rates.
Re:It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say you wanted to use Bluetooth to talk to an iPod or an iPad. You'd think you could just buy a Bluetooth module from, say, Roving Networks - say, the RN-42 [rovingnetworks.com], and then connect it to your PIC/Arduino and start sending Hello World, right?
WRONG!
You're grossly overstating things. If you just want to "Hello World" with an iOS device (i.e., do standard things like OBEX or A2DP), you can just use Bluetooth-standard components and protocols. As Apple's documentation [apple.com] says, "Third-party accessories can use the iPod Accessory Protocol (iAP) to access advanced features of iOS devices. One such feature is the ability to communicate securely with third-party iOS applications via the iOS External Accessory Framework." (see page 21).
So, as you can see, you only need to support iAP if you want to do Apple-specific things. You can easily empirically verify that standard BT features don't need iAP support by noting that you can pair a generic Bluetooth headset (including ones that predate the iPod Touch) with an iOS device, and it will work. You don't need to get a special "Made for iPhone" headset.
Re:It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer recently submitted a grant proposal about a device that could potentially connect to an iPod over Bluetooth, and one of the grant reviewers nailed us over MFi licensing. But even aside from that...
From Roving Networks' website:
"All products designed to connect to iPhone's, iPod's and iPad's including those that incorporate the Roving Bluetooth APL module must be registered and approved with Apple's Made for iPod (MFi) program."
From Apples' website:
"Developers who wish to develop electronic accessories for iPhone, iPad or iPod using licensed components and/or software should join the MFi Program. Companies, organizations, government entities and educational institutions are eligible to apply. Case developers, app developers and developers of accessories that only use standard technology (e.g., Bluetooth Low Energy or standard Bluetooth profiles supported by iOS) do not need to join the MFi Program."
So while you are right that a standard Bluetooth profile (e.g. headset) doesn't require MFi licensing, which of these standard Bluetooth profiles [apple.com] would you use for your Hello World example?
And just keep in mind that Android support requires NONE of this MFi shit. No special iAP authentication chip. No need to shoehorn yourself into a standard profile to avoid having Apple run a credit check on you. No onerous restrictions on hobbyists or small businesses which have no mass manufacturing capability.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space
Exactly. If I want to run Microsoft Office on FreeBSD on the new MacBookPro, it's hassle free. Everything just works.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space
Exactly. If I want to run Microsoft Office on FreeBSD on the new MacBookPro, it's hassle free. Everything just works.
Actually, I believe you're trolling. The bit you quoted from was not claiming that it was "hassle free" nor that "everything just works". It was merely claiming that it is possible to do it. And given your example, I'd say it is possible to do just that:
"On FreeBSD/i386 8.0 and later Wine should work for most user applications including Microsoft Office 2007" http://wiki.freebsd.org/Wine [freebsd.org]
So let's compare the PC space to the phone/tablet space again...
Can Microsoft make Office for Mac and sell it on their own
Re:I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosyst (Score:5, Insightful)
Fucking apologist. Don't you get it? I wouldn't touch an iPad with a fucking barge pole. I don't want to be part of your fucking ecosystem.
By the same token, you are also an apologist. However, unlike the poster you berate, who came off as pragmatic, you sound like a petulant child.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Insightful)
It really doesn't matter if it's been invented before or whether it's original or in fact even an invention at all. Indeed none of the rules that should apply to patents actually apply to patents.
All that matters is that the overworked patent-checking drone at the patent office puts hit stamp of approval on it and you're ready to retroactively sue anybody into a settlement deal.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That could work [newscientist.com], though having a patent as prior art might make it easy enough top find that even a patent clerk can.
FUD. That wasn't a patent as we understand them. Australia implemented a registration-only system a few years back. There's no examination and no presumption of validity or novelty. All you get is a filing date.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
If it's a better wheel, I'm really excited but I've got a feeling you're being sarcastic.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Great. With a bit of luck my new pending patent "Wheel" is on the way to be approved.
Apple has the patent, it's called the continuous rounded unicorner.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot to include "for mobile devices". That's why their claim is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add "bro".
Please get your AC shit posts correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Funny)
Great. With a bit of luck my new pending patent "Wheel" is on the way to be approved.
call it the iWheel and make it look all hip and trendy and you might have a chance there.
Just not too hip and trendy or Apple might whine about it and sue you.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything you, or I can come up with that improves on their method is also not in violation of the patent.
Well, that's wrong. If I patent removing expired timestamped hash table keys while traversing them during a lookup operation, and you patent the same thing but also after removing the keys you add them to a "free list" then that's the very definition of "infringing" my patent. Improving on someone's method while their patent is valid is an infringement. This means patents stifle innovation. DERP!
Re: (Score:3)
Patenting something is NOT an infringment, but if you try to actually build the invention using "your" patented idea then you'd be infringing on the original patent even though you were using your patented way of doing things. If person A patents a "lever" to move the world and person B patents a "fulcrum and leve
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How are they going to sue Nikola Tesla? Cad of a man, inventing the whole damned concept 100 years ago.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Interesting)
- U.S. Patent 0,685,953 - Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted from a Distance to a Receiving Device through Natural Media - 1899 June 24
and so on and so forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents)
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for receiving power over the air for free. ... Who the fuck are you going to get to build and run the plants that produce the power for free?
Awesome stuff that I will sign up for at anytime.
But in you little ACtastic world
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Standards are for losers. Winners force proprietary systems into the market to further enhance their dominance.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Insightful)
worked for MS, should work for Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't talking about patents, he was talking about closed proprietary standards such as office documents (even OpenXML isn't that open) , or the HTML rendering behaviour of IE.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that there are wireless standards doesn't mean no-one can come up with a new way of doing this, and subsequently patenting it. Also they do not patent "wireless charging" which, in itself, would be hard to patent - they patent a method of wireless charging using some magnetic coupling trick. And they claim they have a new way of doing this, and as such it may very well be innovative and patentable.
But well, like the summary and your outright uninformed comment the rest of the discussion here will be "patent troll hurr hurr". The first few comments that I see here are already like that, predicably.
I skimmed through the patent text, can't tell what is new and what is old. That part would require quite some deeper study, and requires understanding of the whole field. Sensationalism like from El Reg and copied by Slashdot is simply stupid. If you have read and understand the patent, and there is nothing in it that was not invented yet at the application date, please come back and let me know exactly why the patent is faulty. Please also send the same comments to the patent office, so this application may be rejected.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Insightful)
"That part would require quite some deeper study, and requires understanding of the whole field."
Something the patent office never claims to have, even when presented with it. So this will get approved and the merry-go-round can start again.
Re: (Score:3)
The patent office of course can not hire experts in every single field. Vetting patents is difficult, and with technology getting more and more advanced it's getting harder to know all the little details. Having them know everything there is to know about everything, that's impossible and not reasonable.
The way it should work (don't know actual practice) is that if there is a real issue of not being innovative, then third parties may notify the patent office of just that, including relevant references and e
Re: (Score:3)
The patent office of course can not hire experts in every single field.
No, the way it should work is that to get your patent approved you must pay for the patent office to hire two independent 3rd party groups who are individuals skilled in the art -- The first group you ask: "Is this obvious and why", the second you ask, "I have this specific problem and I want you to try to solve it", e.g., "Come up with a solution for wireless charging at greater distances". If the first group shows them the patent is obvious then that's it's not patentable. If the second group comes up w
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Insightful)
And in what way does this fix ("you want a patent? Great, the fee is $5 million, we take cash or bank check, no personal checks please!") not "fuck over the little guy"?
The "little guy" doesn't have a few million dollars laying around to spend on ramming his patent application through. Your proposed "fix" would simply enshrine the notion that unless you're a big multinational with a billion dollar bankroll, you can't innovate, so don't even bother.
While I agree that patents are probably too easily granted, your proposed solution doesn't really do much to foster innovation and open the field up to "the little guy." Every little guy without a giant bankroll will automatically be at a disadvantage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing technically new in Apple's patent. What the patent is about is using a well-known wireless charging technique to charge a wireless powered local computing environment (as opposed to some other kind of device).
Apple basically missed the boat on wireless power, and now they are trying to grab whatever ridiculous patent they can to have a little bit of leverage.
Hopefully, the rest of the industry will tell them to go take a hike on making compliant products, and then sue Apple into oblivion for
Re: (Score:2)
But well, like the summary and your outright uninformed comment the rest of the discussion here will be "patent troll hurr hurr".
Assuming it was NOT some form of patent trolling would be the uninformed opinion. The context of the patent may matter more than the specifics of the patent.
Is it a patent covering mobile technology? Yes? Then odds are it's going to be used not to protect innovation that the holder invested in, but rather to punish those people who actually ARE making advances in technology and daring to sell it, or is going to be used to try to stifle competition without actually offering a better product. Or, in oth
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Apple is a patent troll [...]
No, Apple is a patent bully. They make products, or intend to make products, that utilise their patents. They also make that vast majority of their money on actual products, not litigation. Neither of these things is consistent with a patent troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. It should also be clear to everybody with a rational noodle at this point that Apple intends to seek a monopoly in the smartphone space by means of the State apparatus (chiefly the unworkable patent process). Judging by the way they're behaving in Europe, any imposed regulation due to this status will pushed off and perhaps half-implemented over time (there's more profit in paying the piddling fines and pushing ahead with vigor).
The current system incentivizes this type of behavior. Any ethical
At what distance? (Score:2)
My Nexus 4 already wirelessly charges with a magnetic coupling trick.
How far away from the charger?
Most of the current wireless standards have you place a device basically on a charging plate.
Apple's idea is that instead, it has a fairly broad field that exists into which you can place a device anywhere to charge - so you don't need to have wires running out to a charging plate, and you can also power a range of computer peripherals (like keyboard and mice) via remote power as well.
I don't know if that is p
News-flash: Technician missing what users want. (Score:4)
It's a horrible idea. The amount of power wasted just emitting it out into the air, especially at distance.
The idea is great. Who does NOT want a keyboard and mouse that you don't need to attach with wires or replace batteries in?
You seem to be concerned with power wasted, but you are missing the broader point of thinking up good ideas and then figuring out how to make them practical. One possibly is that it's issuing a very low amount of power, not nearly enough to charge a phone - but enough to let a keyboard/mouse transmit.
You need to learn to separate how truly good an idea is from the technology of the moment that could make it happen but may have flaws.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but patents are for methods, not ideas. I don't know if this patent is a legitimately a new method for wireless charging, but it doesn't matter if other techniques already exist.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's supposed to be for something novel - not just a minor tweak.
Why place a lower bound on the degree of novelty? If you patent a minor tweak that no one needs then everyone will just ignore your method and use the original one - which your patent doesn't cover.
Re: (Score:3)
Wireless charging at a range of several meters is simple.
Oh, you wanted it to be safe?
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I have not looked at the patent application, but based on the description, it appears to me that Apple is trying to patent something similar to what WiTricity [wikipedia.org] is doing, rather than what Tesla has demonstrated. From the WiTricity wiki:
Unlike the far field wireless power transmission systems based on traveling electro-magnetic waves, WiTricity employs near field resonant inductive coupling through magnetic fields similar to those found in transformers except that the primary coil and secondary winding are physically separated, and tuned to resonate to increase their magnetic coupling. These tuned magnetic fields generated by the primary coil can be arranged to interact vigorously with matched secondary windings in distant equipment but far more weakly with any surrounding objects or materials such as radio signals or biological tissue.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess actual products like the Palm Touchstone were just figments of my imagination.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't even a software patent.. if it is legit then this is more in line with patents historically covered, physical implementable technological advancements.
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:4, Funny)
So this [wikipedia.org] never happened because "the alliance" had yet to be established?
Re:Worlds Gone Mad (Score:5, Informative)
Really doesn't matter when the application was made. It still hasn't been granted.
WiPower got a patent on this stuff that's unpatentable back in 2008
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=8,169,185&OS=8,169,185&RS=8,169,185 [uspto.gov]
Surely there was enough prior art for that patent to be questionable as well
Re: (Score:3)
Also several years after I bought my toothbrush [oralb.com] base.
With luck, the person reviewing the patent actually practices oral hygiene, and realizes that wireless charging has been commercially available for decades.
Crystal Radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow. In the first claim, they actually claimed a patent on a Crystal Radio. OK - they added the bit about detuning the receiver to identify it to the transmitter, but that technique has been used in just about every RFID product in existence.
Does the USPTO actually employ anyone with an IQ above 50?
Re:Crystal Radio (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, he's the guy collecting the patent fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are there any AC's with an IQ above 50? This is probably the stupidest comment that I have seen here. If you have no clue whatsoever on how patents work, refrain from making these comments. Not all claims have to be unique and innovative, they just describe the complete working and outline of a device.
Re:Crystal Radio (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever filed a patent? Each individual claim MUST be novel (unique) and not be obvious.
In this case, they slapped two aspects together in one claim, which I suppose does make that claim unique (combination of tuned energy coupling, and reverse comms channel by RF load). But is it non-obvious? Marconi himself observed that variations in the receiver could be observed at the transmitter, To any person versed in the field, this would qualify the combination of the two as 'obvious' and hence invalid.
And yes, I have filed patents (but only in semiconductor physics), and I have built RF powered bidirectional comms devices. And I also 'discovered' that tuning the coils improved energy transfer. And I also detuned the receiver to communicate back to the transmitter. But did I file a patent on it? NO. Why not? Because there was nothing novel in what I did. (And believe me - the university's IP people would have definitely required that I file, if even one person at the department thought it was in any way patentable.
Re: (Score:2)
But did I file a patent on it? NO. Why not? Because there was nothing novel in what I did.
Yep, I do the same thing. The idea of patents is inherently flawed deeply in many aspects; One of which is that the examiners are expected to funnel the entire world of innovation through their tiny minds in a tiny window of time. Sadly, they can't even effectively search their own patent databases despite the fact that the technology to do so exist... To say nothing of the world wide web -- THAT is our "unpatentable prior art database" and should be where they search for prior art, but they don't.
If y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The following patent US51612443 for employing people with IQ above 50 is actually owned by Apple.
Abstract:
A method and system for selecting any new candidate through coded intelligence quotient points by repeating steps E & F until displaying logically progressively trying more candidates having the said quotient above limit prescribed in step A.
Patent Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Is any of Apple's current product capable of wireless charging? Did they develop any of the technology, as in doing the research?
Re: (Score:2)
These days patents are only used for stopping others from doing something.
Re:Patent Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is any of Apple's current product capable of wireless charging? Did they develop any of the technology, as in doing the research?
Nah. The new Lumia and Nexus 4 can do wireless charging. Those happen to be Microsoft and Google's flagship phones. Apple's phones don't do it yet, so they want to sue this competitive disadvantage out of existence. I guess they are unable to compete otherwise ...
... it may be time to start selling it off and taking your gains.
If you own AAPL
They can also patent time travel (Score:2)
What will they call it? (Score:3)
My money is on:
Apple 'Reality Distortion Field'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Fox News may have them beat with prior art...
Prior Art. (Score:2)
http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/25/wireless_electr/ [ted.com]
>2009
--
BMO
Why not just make microwavable devices . . . ? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, just pop them in the microwave @1000 Watts for five minutes, and they are then fully charged. You have to remember to turn off the device first.
We already have microwavable popcorn, and microwave ovens can also be used to warm small pets, and almost every household has one already. US military specs probably already require microwave proof equipment, so those components could be used. All you need to do is to make a battery that can be charged by microwaves. Well, it sure will get hot in the oven, so maybe the heat will help somehow. Batteries always get hot when charging, so it's the heat that charges.
Maybe.
But please don't tell Apple! They will patent the idea! And then we will all have to buy iWaveOvens to charge our devices!
Re: (Score:2)
While I know this is in jest...there's some strange appeal to this concept.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not far off the mark. You can easily send 1000W of power via microwaves with 0 new technology. The last time I saw it one of the space elevator university teams was using a microwave oven with a hole in the door and a rectifying antenna to get more then enough power to run their machine up a rope.
Scratching my head in utter disbelief (Score:2)
I know for sure that there have been body-implantable MEMS devices described in scientific articles dating back to the early '90s. I cannot believe Apple can get a patent on something so old and, at this pint, so obvious.
I am starting to suspect that the USPTO is biased pro-Apple
The up to a meter claim. (Score:3)
This would require a fairly large 'transmit' antenna.
The problems with near field charging are well known.
The field cannot be focussed effectively, due to the nature of the magnetic field.
the field production efficiency is limited by the size and weight of the transmitter.
Every metal object in the field (which may extend behind/underneath the charger) will 'short out' the field, and take some energy.
Resonance is not magic in any way at all.
For every arrangement of coils, and random debris (keys, ...) in the way, there will be an optimum frequency that results in smallest loss.
As an analogy - you're trying to power a device by jumping up and down on a trampoline, and having a reciever of that motion somewhere on the trampoline.
Other large masses will disrupt the bouncing, and reduce the fraction of power going into your device.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the thread where I reference the TED talk.
--
BMO
As many pointed out Tesla did this a 100+ ago (Score:3)
My Get Rich Quick Plan (Score:2)
In the grim future of /. (Score:2)
All posts will have the words "patent" and "Apple".
Oh my god (Score:2)
Whoever is working the patent offices that keeps giving Apple the OK needs to be fired. Now.
Sensationalist FUD by El Reg (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me that the actual claims [uspto.gov] and subsequent description are on (1) a method to wirelessly charge devices, with one device serving as secondary power source source for another device if needed, and with devices up to a meter away from the primary and secondary power sources; (2) a method that improves the efficiency of charging high capacity batteries as a bonus from the circuit needed to do (1); and (3) using (1) and (2) to charge a mouse and keyboard (explicit in the claims). Evidently, (1) and (2) could also be used to charge phones and tablets in an office environment too.
At any rate, I merely scanned the patent, but contrary to what TFS and TFA suggest, Apple didn't patent wireless charging, or even long range wireless charging. What Apple patented is cooperative and efficient wireless charging of a network of devices; in particular of peripherals located on a desk. I presume that plenty of researchers are working on the same kind of stuff, but assuming it hadn't been done yet, nobody can argue with a straight face that this patent is without merits.
not quite correct (Score:3)
The innovative part of the claim is actually to have the computer send power to a one device then have that device in turn send some of that power to one or more other devices.
The main benefit is that you can support multiple wireless devices and only one of them needs to be within range of the main charger.
Another Wrapper Patent (Score:2)
The usual s*** (Score:2)
It's been more than 10 years that some of us have tried very hard to give the /.-community a basic education in patent law. And yet, for the umpteenth time, confusion reigns above good sense.
1. It is an application [only / yet]
2. What matters legally are only the claims.
"A battery charging circuit, comprising: a first node arranged to receive wirelessly provided power; a short term charge storage device having a first charge capacity; and a long term storage device having a second charge capacity, wherein t
Apple Once Again, Rips off, then shuts pioneers ou (Score:2)
History repeats itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:20120303980 Patents (Score:5, Funny)
Re:20120303980 Patents (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly he has his endians mixed up.
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, ten little endian bytes.
--
BMO
Re:20120303980 Patents (Score:5, Funny)
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, 0x0A little endian bytes.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain exactly how Tesla's invention is covered by the claims in this patent. That would be enlightening.
Re:120 years late? (Score:5, Informative)
"Harmonic Resonance" ? (Score:3)
I know what Harmonics are I know what Resonance is, but I don't understand the term "Harmonic Resonance".
I'll bet that you don't either.
Likewise the term "resonating and amplifying". Resonance doesn't Amplify. Only Amplifiers Amplify.
You come across as just another Tesla fan boy. Scientifically Illiterate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please explain exactly how Tesla's invention is covered by the claims in this patent.
No. Really, every so often a patent comes up in my area of expertise where I think "hmm that sounds interesting or realy basic", and I take the effort to plough through. An example being google's ridiculous unlocking using face recognition patent. After ploughing through some very obfuscated and incredibly turgid language (I posted a point by point rebuttal on /. about that one) I find that my suspicions are confirmed and
Re: (Score:2)
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
Re: (Score:2)
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
One is the state making accusations of wrongdoing against an entity, with monetary or restrictive consequences.
The other is an entity petitioning the state to recognize and grant them a temporary monopoly, with monetary rewards potentially enforced by the state against other entities.
Naturally, the two are somehow equivalent and should be handled in the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
And given how criminals tend to be, well, criminal, the default position is that they're guilty and the onus is on them to prove their innocence. I mean, who cares about due process?
One is the state making accusations of wrongdoing against an entity, with monetary or restrictive consequences.
The other is an entity petitioning the state to recognize and grant them a temporary monopoly, with monetary rewards potentially enforced by the state against other entities.
Actually, the latter is also the state making a quasi-judicial decision to deny property rights to an inventor. The due process requirement absolutely applies.
Re: (Score:2)
Its easier to steal from dead people, they don't fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
To decode this somewhat.
"One independent claim requires that "the device [to be charged] tunes the resonance circuit to at least one of the resonance frequencies of the NFMR power supply and subsequently de-tunes the resonance circuit to provide a device identification to the NFMR power supply using a change in a resonance circuit load factor".
Sounds at least basically clever to me."
This is how essentially 90% of existing RFID tags work.
"3. A battery charging circuit, comprising: a first node arranged to re