Slashdot Mirror
Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops
An anonymous reader writes "Apple Insider reports that Apple recently filed two patents for a new breed of fuel cell-powered laptop computers. The devices would eschew lithium ion batteries in favor of fuel cells that are capable of running for weeks without requiring a recharge. The patents are entitled 'Fuel Cell System to Power a Portable Computing Device' and oeFuel Cell System Coupled to a Portable Computing Device."
lets hope they play nice and licence the tech....
This is Apple we're talking about - since when did they play nice? We're talking about a company who tries to stop anyone else making a flat rectangular computing device with a touch screen after all...
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Except for all the people actually developing fuel cells for higher density portable applications such as cell phones and computers that have been talking publicly about this exact usage for over a decade now...
:) Nite
I tried to read the patent, but after the billionth self-reference, my eyes went cross and I still can't see straight. Maybe I could tolerate more of that junk if it wasn't almost 3 am. Even so, I can't really say I could find anything interesting in the articles that hasn't been done or published before. Of course, I can't believe a patent examiner would think than any implementation of <power source> employed to power <device> isn't bloody obvious. Now the <power source> or <device> might be unique, but that isn't what they are patenting.
I won't exclude the possibility that I'm too bloody tired to make heads or tails of this, so I'll leave it to those of you who aren't half asleep, and can read legalese and the like without wanting to strangle someone.
More likely they're not innovative, but still are patentable.
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
Innovative stuff shouldn't be patentable in any case, only inventions are patentable. Innovation != invention.
That's not completely true, at least as the system works. If there is something sufficiently innovative that it is "not immediately obvious to someone trained in the field", then it essentially qualifies as an invention. Inventions can be small and limited in scope as well as large. The real problem is in determining what is innovative enough that it would not almost immediately occur to most people trained in the field as an obvious solution to the problem. It is a subjective test, and IMHO, too many patents are given for things that really shouldn't pass that test. Patents can always be contested, but, it is a long and expensive process, so bad patents have a way of sticking around.
People have been talking for decades about the sort of application that a cure for cancer could have...
Will that prevent patenting one, once you would come up with a way to _actually_ make one _work_?
The patent never revolves around the idea of putting a fuel cell into a laptop - it's about the HOW you do it...
You may not like that Apple files for a patent for this, but the problem is that Apple, like all companies needs to also look after the interests of its shareholders - if you create a solution and NOT attempt to monetize it, how will your shareholders react? May you even run the dangers of running into a liability for not pursuing profits (after all - that's what _for profit_ companies are for).
For what it's worth - seeing how Apple, Motorola, and other companies are cross-suing each other for patent violations, we should end up with far more attention on how to solve the patent crisis (and, no, I don't think just ditching patents is the way to go - just like there are bad reasons for patents (trolling readily springs to mind), there are also good ones (like preventing a large company from wiping out a small start-up who came up and patented a brilliant solution to a problem).
> We're talking about a company who tries to stop anyone else making a flat rectangular computing device with a touch screen after all...
No, they're the company who idiots on Slashdot like to suggest are a company who tries to stop anyone else making a flat rectangular computing device with a touch screen.
*sigh*
The once brilliant Slashdot has become another site that is no longer worth visiting.
That's ok with me, as long as any judge understands the patent protects specific details but just that sole working implementation --
Let's have a look at this specific case; I'll take one of the claims of the patent:
What is claimed is:
1. A fuel cell system for a portable computing device, comprising:
a fuel cell stack which converts fuel to electrical power;
a fuel source for the fuel cell stack;
a controller which controls the operation of the fuel cell system; and
an interface to the portable computing device, wherein the interface comprises,
a power link that provides power to the portable computing device, and
a bidirectional communication link that provides bidirectional communication between the portable computing device and the controller for the fuel cell system.
So; the first part is a completely normal fuel cell with controllable output. The second part is a completely standard set for any existing computer battery. In other words, this is the only possible way an reasonable person would come up with to put a fuel cell into a computer. It's beyond obvious; it's inevitable.
Claiming this as patentable is outrageous. The US patent office is clearly not even trying to do its job. It doesn't do any good to have judges which fix this after the fact since it will already scare people away from developing fuel cells.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Apple sure does like to patent stuff they didn't invent.
Onda Technology Institute