Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

blog.getbatterybox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#21

Post by kalleboo »

Animats wrote: post #10

The 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…

The problem isn't defeating the patent technically - it's defeating it legally, while still remaining profitable. And nobody has more money to throw at lawyers than Apple, Inc.

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#22

Post by pkulak »

wmf wrote: post #14
pkulak wrote: post #5

Seems 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.

Gotcha. I didn't notice that. That is a real shame.

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#23

Post by kalleboo »

mmastrac wrote: post #6
dangrossman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has in the past sued other accessory makers that reused recycled Apple parts for patent infringement. http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hyperma...

Didn't pg specifically call them lawsuit-proof? Edit: s/lawsuit/apple/: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204 Also, I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors rather than they current business model that involves severing an existing charger.

> I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors

From his link:

> Instead of mimicking Apple's patented MagSafe connectors, Sanho's products actually rely on recycled official MagSafe products made by Apple. "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility," the company's website reads

The issue is that even if they're right, nobody can afford to defend themselves in the face of the financial might of Apple's lawyers. And Apple can just refuse to sell to them/their suppliers - that's fully in their right.

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#24

Post by kalleboo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #7

How do you patent clipping a connector to a device?

You can patent anything these days. Patents aren't really tested until you have to defend them in court. The PTO can't afford to figure out if patents are valid so they lay that burden on the courts and whoever has to dispute/defend the patent.

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#25

Post by tw04 »

igul222 wrote: post #13
freehunter wrote: post #9

Earlier 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.

Ya, there's this thing called prior art. Apple can't patent someone else's idea just because that person chose not to.

Re: BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

#26

Post by tw04 »

timsher wrote: post #18
igul222 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So I assume you're offering licenses royalty free to anyone who wants one?
Post reply on HN