How do you patent clipping a connector to a device?
I loved that part. "We're going to complain because Apple won't let us use their design, so we came up with our own design that we also won't let people use".
[deleted]
BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#12How do you patent clipping a connector to a device?
upon filing a provisional patent i believe you can then use 'patent pending' wordage - so thats how. esp. given that no patent has been awarded at that time, you can effectively call anything patent pending but the operative word is pending which could be replaced by 'maybe', 'possibly', 'attempted' etc.
I have always wondered why 'patent pending' or 'patented technology' is used to market to consumers, you see it on a lot of commercials. Sure it suggests to the consumers thinking deeply that perhaps they won't be able to get that design anywhere else, but anyone thinking about it that deeply in 2014 might also say to themselves 'screw that, its a plastic clip'.
Patents are for businesses, not consumers, companies shouldn't advertise patents for a device/solution, they should advertise the solution or device.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#13How do you patent clipping a connector to a device?
I loved that part. "We're going to complain because Apple won't let us use their design, so we came up with our own design that we also won't let people use".
Patenting it doesn't necessarily mean they won't let other people use it. It could, for example, be for protection against Apple patenting it themselves and not letting anyone use it.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#14Seems like the course of action here would be to pay Apple the licensing fee rather than building your own, very odd, clip on connector.
AFAIK Apple does not license MagSafe for any amount of money.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#15The link to the patent 7,517,222 is wrong; it's to an application with the same title. Here's the key claim: 1. A magnetic connector system comprising: a first connector having a first plurality of electrical contacts and a plurality of magnets; and a second connector having a second plurality of electrical contacts and a magnetic element, the second plurality of electrical contacts being adapted to mate with the fir…
Animats, your idea is great and it's something we considered a lot when we were thinking about the connector. We almost went and did it. However there were a couple of problems with that patents (as a side note - my co-founder is actually a former patent troll, so we dug quite deeply into the patents). Our priority was to not infringe on any of Apple's patents, so we were as thorough as possible with our research.
Here are the main patents around the MagSafe: http://www.google.com/patents/US7645143 http://www.google.com/patents/US7901216 http://www.google.com/patents/US8087939 http://www.google.com/patents/US8177560 http://www.google.com/patents/US7311526 (the key patent)
Here are the main claims (apart from the one you mentioned): (a) A first connector comprising: a first plurality of electrical contacts, the first plurality of electrical contacts to mate with a second plurality of electrical contacts when the first connector couples to a second connector, wherein the first plurality of electrical contacts consisting of a central contact to convey a signal, two contacts to convey a power supply, one contact on each side of the central contact, and two contacts to provide a return path, one contact on each side of the central contact, wherein when the first connector couples to the second connector, the first and second plurality of electrical contacts define a corresponding plurality of electrical paths; and a magnetic element, the magnetic element to mate with a plurality of magnets in the second connector that are proximally located and arranged in opposing polarities with respect to each other so that when the first connector is brought in close proximity to the second connector, magnetic field lines travel through the magnetic element of the first connector from one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector to another one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector.
(b - part of it) a plurality of movable first contacts to make electrically conductive paths with a plurality of second contacts in a second connector when the first connector is mated with the second connector, each of the movable first contacts biased by one of a plurality of first springs;
The biggest problem is with the claim that speaks about a magnetic field from multiple magnets (4 are present on computer side) traveling through a magnetic element (ie. metal) on the connector side, which the patent states creates a stronger attraction. We thought it would be possible to place metal bits on the connector side in such a way that the magnetic field would only be passing through one element - thus creating less of a magnetic attraction but being a different invention. Unfortunately, at this point it becomes a matter of proving wether or not that's what's actually happening (this was our biggest worry as burden of proof would be on us).
There were another 2 - 4 other claims that also made it hard to improve upon (also not infringe on any of their patents) and create our own connector - not to mention the design patents.
I was actually thinking of writing a blog post about this issue, it was extremely interesting to look into all of this.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#16> "Recently however, we became aware of an Apple prohibition on re-using their products - even when their devices are not altered. Because of this, we decided it wouldn’t be appropriate to continue forward with our original plan." ...What? Can someone comment on the legality of such restrictions and the pros/cons of following/ignoring them? (To me it seems like first sale doctrine would be applicable, though that cer…
Hey - I'm one of the founders, maybe I can comment on this. You're completely right, first sale doctrine is something that would be applicable in a case like this (at least to my knowledge), but a users rights can be restricted by the EULA (End-user license agreement) and Terms of Use and Conditions when purchasing from a store.
The actual adaptor we planned to use didn't have any EULA restrictions that would have prevented us from going forward, however we at the last minute found out that the places we were purchasing these from did have Terms of Use restrictions that weren't favourable to us.
Though our situation was more of a grey area than a black and white one, we decided that the cons outweighed the pros. After all, our legal budget is a little lower than that of Apple :)
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I loved that part. "We're going to complain because Apple won't let us use their design, so we came up with our own design that we also won't let people use".
Patenting it doesn't necessarily mean they won't let other people use it. It could, for example, be for protection against Apple patenting it themselves and not letting anyone use it.
They should make it clear if its a defensive patent.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I loved that part. "We're going to complain because Apple won't let us use their design, so we came up with our own design that we also won't let people use".
Patenting it doesn't necessarily mean they won't let other people use it. It could, for example, be for protection against Apple patenting it themselves and not letting anyone use it.
Our intention is definitely defensive rather than offensive.
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#19How come there's no test for the 15 inch Macbook Pro?
Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info
#20How come there's no test for the 15 inch Macbook Pro?
That would be my oversight - we tested it but didn't post it. Will update today!
With the test the 15" MacBook lasted for around 4 hours, BatteryBox on its own did about 2 hour 20min.
It's the equivalent of 58% of the battery, or 55Wh (the 15" MacBook has a 95Wh battery).