Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops

Surely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 22:31 · Score: 1

The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.

Re:Surely by maroberts · 2011-12-22 22:37 · Score: 5, Informative

The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.
The general concept may not be patentable, but specific working implementations may very well be innovative and patentable.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Re:Surely by beelsebob · 2011-12-22 23:00 · Score: 1

The fact that apple succeeded in getting the patent is an indicator that yet again slashdot is making a patent issue out to be something it isn't, and that the patent doesn't cover anywhere near as much as the headline claims it does.
Re:Surely by calibre-not-output · 2011-12-22 23:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

More likely they're not innovative, but still are patentable.

--
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.
Re:Surely by JAlexoi · 2011-12-22 23:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Innovative stuff shouldn't be patentable in any case, only inventions are patentable. Innovation != invention.
Re:Surely by GroundBounce · 2011-12-22 23:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Surely by Serpents · 2011-12-22 23:53 · Score: 5, Informative

The general concept may not be patentable, but specific working implementations may very well be innovative and patentable.
There, a working implementation from 2006 and as far as I remember it was not the first one.
Re:Surely by Serpents · 2011-12-22 23:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Double post but this one is from 2002
Re:Surely by beh · 2011-12-23 00:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).
Re:Surely by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-23 00:47 · Score: 1

The patent never revolves around the idea of putting a fuel cell into a laptop - it's about the HOW you do it...
Get laptop, insert fuel cell. I'm sure that took billions in R&D.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Surely by BasilBrush · 2011-12-23 00:48 · Score: 1

"a working implementation" is not equal to the same thing.
Re:Surely by Ironhandx · 2011-12-23 00:48 · Score: 1

You're missing the point.
People have been talking for decades about using /EXISTING TECHNOLOGY/ to make laptops run on fuel cells.
This has even been prototyped before. The technology has been there for a minimum of 15 years now.
If apple was patenting the fuel cell, or even some specific technology that made it possible to run a laptop on a fuel cell, this wouldn't be a problem.
The problem here is that all of the tech already exists and apple is simply patenting "Running a laptop on a fuel cell".
Re:Surely by Dachannien · 2011-12-23 01:05 · Score: 1, Redundant

I'm not sure if there's a difference from what you said, but the threshold is that it "must not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". The level of training varies from art to art, and could range from an entry level shop worker in one field to someone with a MS or Ph.D. in a different field. The assumption is also made that one of ordinary skill in the art is able to access any necessary prior art to obtain the teachings necessary to arrive at the claimed invention.
Re:Surely by mcvos · 2011-12-23 01:09 · Score: 1

But are there working portable fuel cells already? This patent suggests Apple has developed the first one. If they have, it's a valid patent. Of course if they're just trying to patent an idea instead of actual technology, then it shouldn't be allowed (but probably will anyway).
Re:Surely by myurr · 2011-12-23 01:29 · Score: 2

Maybe the solution to the patent problem isn't then to increase the difficulty of getting a patent, as the powers that be seem to be happy with the current system. Perhaps we would have more joy if we focussed on making it much much easier to have flimsy patents invalidated.
Re:Surely by BlueParrot · 2011-12-23 01:33 · Score: 3, Informative

You don't understand how patents work ( or at least not how they are intended to work).
The idea is pretty much the following:
Apple makes a fuel cell for laptops that runs on fuel A, using technology X. Now other companies can either license the patent from them, in which case they benefit for having invented it, or they can try to create a different type of fuel cell which doesn't infringe the patent. So say they go for the second option, creating a fuel cell running on fuel B using technology Y. Now, at least in theory, society has two types of fuel cells, and can use 2 types of fuels.
There's a lot of reasons why this may not work out in practice of course, and hence the patent system is supposed to have limitations such as obviousness and prior art, in order to stop abusive patents. Unfortunately the patent office and courts have proven unable to enforce that.
Re:Surely by Tsingi · 2011-12-23 01:43 · Score: 1

That's called "Prior Art" and since the Evil Borg Mothership has more money than the U.S. Tresury; chances are no one will launch a legal challenge.
I thought Microsoft was the evil borg mothership. Was Apple assimilated?
Re:Surely by Theaetetus · 2011-12-23 02:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Double post but this one is from 2002
That one appears to be an external fuel cell that acts as a power supply - you plug the DC power plug directly into it, as if it was the AC-DC adapter power brick. The Apple patent claims require a bidirectional communication between the computer and a controller of the fuel cell, and that implementation doesn't include one.
Re:Surely by jd2112 · 2011-12-23 02:10 · Score: 1

Apple is the new Microsoft.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:Surely by rtfa-troll · 2011-12-23 02:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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();
Re:Surely by Tsingi · 2011-12-23 02:22 · Score: 1

Apple is the new Microsoft.
LOL! You may be correct. Bill must be pretty pissed at Balmer.
Re:Surely by am+2k · 2011-12-23 02:34 · Score: 1

Get laptop, insert fuel cell. I'm sure that took billions in R&D.
Then why isn't this used in every notebook on the market already, when it would increase the charge from ~5h to one week?
Re:Surely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-23 02:47 · Score: 1

> 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.
Just to add to your already well-written post, I'd say right form the start that it's an economical issue. It's in the immediate interest of any nation to assert rights over things and extract money from others (being a non-US citizen puts me in a free position to include it in such taxonomy). It's harder to see how this is against one's own interests in the long term, but for now just imagine the state of disarray things will fall when the game is mastered by other countries -- just like China seems to be on the way to do. I wonder what the US will do then; I expect a 180 turn, but then I would laugh at these idiots for having promoted patents so strongly -- I said I would laugh, because I will be busy complaining the Chinese will be doing the same... and they will probably be laughing at the US... and at me.
"Interesting this patent game... the only winning startegy is not to play it."
Re:Surely by interval1066 · 2011-12-23 02:49 · Score: 1

I kinda agree with OP's sentiment but obviously Apple's inserted some new twist in the mix.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Surely by marcosdumay · 2011-12-23 03:40 · Score: 1

It works (well, kinda), except if Apple patented the exact invention of "powering a mobile computer with a fuel cell".
Somebody posted one of the claims up there, what is in that claim is exactly "powering a mobile computer with a fuel cell" + "adding a fuel storage to the computer". There are no specifics, just that. Now, I don't know if it is a dependent or independent claim, but there are plenty of granted patents that cover ideas, not implementation, you'd better not jump to assumptions.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Surely by MightyYar · 2011-12-23 04:13 · Score: 1

The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.
I'm not a huge fan of the way patents work in the US, but if Apple creates a laptop that lasts for weeks on a charge... well, that's what patents are for!

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Surely by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-12-23 04:22 · Score: 2

The fact that apple succeeded in getting the patent is an indicator that yet again slashdot is making a patent issue out to be something it isn't, and that the patent doesn't cover anywhere near as much as the headline claims it does.
The fact that Apple hasn't gotten the patent, but merely applied for it, in an indicator that yet again slashdot readers aren't bothering to RTFA before commenting on it.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Surely by JAlexoi · 2011-12-23 04:25 · Score: 1

Let's take LED lights as an example - has anyone used PN junction to produce light? That would be No. Then there is laser LED - which I don't believe were inventive because LEDs were already used to produce light, making it more powerful(in itself) is not invention. Overcoming some natural constraint of old LED construction to allow them to generate powerful enough light, that would be an invention.
Re:Surely by russotto · 2011-12-23 04:28 · Score: 2

Then why isn't this used in every notebook on the market already, when it would increase the charge from ~5h to one week?
For the same reason it isn't used NOW, despite that Apple has a patent for it. Nobody has come up with a practical way to do it. So not only is this patent non-novel and obvious, it fails to teach how to make the invention. So it's a total patent fail; way to go, patent office.
I suspect that someone will come up with a practical way to do it, and it will be by improving fuel cells. The improved fuel cell probably will deserve a patent. Connecting such an improved fuel cell to a laptop no more deserves a patent than connected a lithium polymer battery to a laptop deserved a patent. Yes, one can substitute one power source for another; that's OBVIOUS.
Re:Surely by JAlexoi · 2011-12-23 04:29 · Score: 1

That is pretty much what an invention is - you use something that was never used in that particular way. If I can cause a semiconductor to explode with enough force to make is a good ammo propellant, I can claim invention on it. But increasing the contact area of a semiconductor junction to get more power throughput is definitely NOT an invention(Intel's 3D transistors are not an invention, at least any physicist will tell you that he knew that would help).
Re:Surely by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-12-23 05:05 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm sure now that Apple has patented this we'll see fuel cell Macbooks in 2012, right? Don't hold your breath.
Re:Surely by neurocutie · 2011-12-23 05:52 · Score: 1

Obviously you don't understand lasers. They aren't just "more powerful" lights, created by "overcoming natural constraints" of LEDs...
Re:Surely by cusco · 2011-12-23 06:03 · Score: 1

(like preventing a large company from wiping out a small start-up who came up and patented a brilliant solution to a problem).

That already happens anyway. Small Company A comes up with a brilliant idea, patents it, and starts production. Large Company B copies device and because of lower production costs and massive marketing budget takes over the market. Company A sues, Company B has the deep pockets to pay lawyers to litigate the case for a decade. Company A ends up bakrupt, its assets purchased by Company B. For an example look at the history of the WeedEater.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Surely by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-12-23 06:21 · Score: 1

I'm not certain about this particular one but Toshiba and NEC have been working on technology to replaces batteries in laptop/mobile device with integrated fuel cells for well over a decade now. This is most definitely not new but I also don't think they care too much or are thinking about that. I think it's just another example of a company with a large budget throwing things at the wall to see what sticks down at the patent office. The defensibility of a patent is of course an important facet but it isn't the only thing that makes it valuable. It costs money to get patents thrown out. Lots of it. Companies are often very guilty of conceding to the demands of the hostage takers and terrorist instead of battling it out to prove what is right and what is wrong in court. Small start-ups don't have the cash to fight an Apple in court. Even if it's pretty obvious they have an air tight case. Larger companies just throw a wad of money at them in exchange for a license to use the tech. Apple's don't have to have good and meritous patents they just need to have patents that are cheaper to license than to fight in court.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Surely by mikael · 2011-12-23 07:11 · Score: 1

But how do you define flimsy. If some developing world doctor discovers that a $50 flatbed scanner plus GIMP plugin makes for an accurate diagnostic tool for skin diseases, is that patentable? One university managed to secure a patent for a similar application. It took them less than three month to acquire a sample set of images, and another three years of research to perfect the software.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Surely by sidthegeek · 2011-12-23 07:40 · Score: 1

It's an anti-tautology!
Re:Surely by Belial6 · 2011-12-23 08:00 · Score: 1

Innovation != invention
That is only maybe true in the pedantic sense. The dictionary does not define a difference. The whole "Innovation != invention meme seems to be about repeating a lie often enough that everyone else goes along with the new definition and starts repeating it themselves. How that new definition differs from the old one is a matter of cognitive disassociation.
Re:Surely by HiThere · 2011-12-23 08:06 · Score: 1

Not unable. Unwilling. They may also be unable, but as they haven't tried, we can't know that.
The courts general attitude is "if the patent office has oked it, then we presume the patent is valid". The patent office's general attitude is "Well, it might be a valid patent, so we'll ok it and take the money, and let the courts figure out any problems." Occasionally the patent office can be prevailed upon to re-examine a patent. When they do so they often find it invalid. Frequently, however, the courts won't wait for this process to complete, and just find in favor of the current patent holder, even if the patent is fairly clearly bad. And if the patent office later throws out the patent, you're stuck paying whatever the court decided to charge you.
This isn't unable to stop abusive patents. This is unwilling.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Surely by speculatrix · 2011-12-23 11:17 · Score: 1

yes, I distinctly remember Toshiba having fuel-cell technology that was nearly fit for consumer use for a long time. I'm no patent lawyer, but I can't see how Apple's patent won't get thrown out. Simply taking something existing and adding the phrase "on a mobile phone" or "for a laptop computer" doesn't, IMNSHO, add the crucial inventiveness stage that ensures a patent can be defended. Of course, it'll take an organisation with deep pockets to fight Apple given they have cash reserves equivalent to a small nation!
Re:Surely by Turnerj · 2011-12-23 11:44 · Score: 1

If you swap "portable computing device" with "automobile", I am gonna take a guess that is another patent that the US patent office allowed? Is it really true that a simple idea like that can be made patentable? I thought the whole idea for patents was that you also needed some prototype of the patent in question. Glad I don't live in America, though this kinda affects the world I guess.
Re:Surely by rtfa-troll · 2011-12-23 21:01 · Score: 1

No; no; you aren't getting this. When I do the swap the patent office will laugh me out of town. When a big corporation, like Apple, does it then they will accept it because they are scared of getting sued. This is, indeed, really beginning to affect the whole world.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Surely by WorBlux · 2011-12-24 04:13 · Score: 1

Depends on how you do it really. Are these control diagrams and heat dissipation something novel or could anyone with and engineering degree and experience in laptop design figure it out?
Re:Surely by Coren22 · 2011-12-29 10:21 · Score: 1

One acronym. TSA. How do you bring the fuel for this thing on an airplane? Can you think of a single business person who doesn't bring their laptop on work trips?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Surely by Coren22 · 2011-12-29 10:22 · Score: 1

Yes. Just do a Google search.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Patent the future by hlavac · 2011-12-22 22:40 · Score: 2

This patenting of general ideas is so wrong... Patents should require a working prototype - it's not a problem when it is developed in secrecy...

Dichotomy by Sitnalta · 2011-12-22 22:41 · Score: 2

I hate this because it means Apple wants to start selling consumable fuel cartridges.

I love this because it means I won't have to play retard roundup with power outlets and adapters when traveling.

Re:Dichotomy by w0mprat · 2011-12-22 22:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Trichotomy: You'll hate it again because you can't find the apple power you travel or the one reseller over charges. Oh you better be getting there by cruise ship because NO way would these be allowed on a plane.

--
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Re:Dichotomy by Rogerborg · 2011-12-22 23:08 · Score: 1

An external battery pack has about 80% of the energy of a hand grenade stored in it and can get past the, uh, highly trained TSA agents. Heck, you could probably carry a hand grenade on if you put an Apple logo on it.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Re:Dichotomy by mythar · 2011-12-22 23:38 · Score: 3, Funny

Picking up terrorist demographic with patent for "Hand Grenade System to Power a Portable Computing Device".
Re:Dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-23 01:06 · Score: 1

iBoom
Re:Dichotomy by sjames · 2011-12-23 05:47 · Score: 1

I noticed that the cart has an eeprom like toner and ink carts for printers. That's fairly ugly since it indicates that they likely want to make dirt cheap methanol more expensive than the finest wine. Assuming a modest $3 for a cart, that's $0.30/hour
Meanwhile, if a conventional laptop was either fitted with a small holdover battery or with 2 batteries, they could be hot swapped for continuous operation and cost a bit over a penny an hour to operate on battery (that counts electricity to recharge AND battery wear).
In order to be anything like competitive, the fuel cell will need to be refuelable from non-special bulk methanol.
Re:Dichotomy by rubycodez · 2011-12-23 07:57 · Score: 1

ooo, white and rectangular with rounded corners; selectable HE, WP and shrapnel apps, and a MagSafe Pin that slides off smoother than a spent penis out of a wet vagina.
Re:Dichotomy by rtb61 · 2011-12-23 09:49 · Score: 1

It is just another mind boggling stupid patent. They are not patenting their own fuel cell, just the idea of sticking one notebook and dressing it up with some B$ window dressing for the layout.
Imagine how the companies that actually design and manufacture fuel cells are going to be able to sell their products, when a whole range of utterly dickwad companies have patented inserting them in various devices.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen

Re:They're at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 22:46 · Score: 1

Oh yeah! i'm going to get a patent on farting, then i'm gonna sue your ass!

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by WegianWarrior · 2011-12-22 22:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Patent the future by meerling · 2011-12-22 22:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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...

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. :) Nite

danger, Will Robinson ! by swell · 2011-12-22 22:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Isn't it enough that Apple products are already prone to fires and explosions?

--
...omphaloskepsis often...

Re:danger, Will Robinson ! by Issarlk · 2011-12-22 23:08 · Score: 1

That's probably the only feature they won't try to patent. But probably have considered it anyway at some point.
Re:danger, Will Robinson ! by angel'o'sphere · 2011-12-22 23:29 · Score: 1

A fuel cell running that long is likely a based on a solid and oxygen and not on a liquid.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:danger, Will Robinson ! by Dr+Max · 2011-12-23 00:05 · Score: 1

You usually just use the oxygen from the air (although using pure does boost performance), its the hydrogen that is the issue.

--
Rocket Surgeon.
Re:danger, Will Robinson ! by angel'o'sphere · 2011-12-23 00:44 · Score: 2

Well, if they indeed try to use a hydrogen cell then it is ceertainly stored in a metal hydrid storage, and neither as liquid nor as gas.
However I doubt yuo can store somewhere in a notebook enough hydrogen to power a laptop for a week or longer.
Hm ... I looked a bit around 1kg H2 holds roughly 50kWh of energy.
In a 250g metal hydride storage you can store roughly 20g H2 which is the equivalent of 1000Wh.
That would power a laptop roughly 25h.
There is an idea floating around to use NH3 as storage, as a liquid. But you would need a process to get H2 from it to use it in a fuel cell.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:danger, Will Robinson ! by Dr+Max · 2011-12-23 12:48 · Score: 1

Nice number crunching. Also i completely agree solid state hydrogen storage is the way to go.

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by skovnymfe · 2011-12-22 23:05 · Score: 2

A flat rectangular computing device with rounded corners and a black edge around a touchscreen. Not just any flat rectangular computing device. :)

Re:Surprise by tdc_vga · 2011-12-22 23:06 · Score: 2

You mean like this patent on the magsafe power supply connector: http://patft1.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=7311526.PN.&OS=PN/7311526&RS=PN/7311526

Re:Surprise by beelsebob · 2011-12-22 23:06 · Score: 1

Actually, they do

o_O by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 23:08 · Score: 1

How, oh how is that patentable?

Recharge? by deniable · 2011-12-22 23:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Woo hoo. Apple are back to removable batteries.

Re:Recharge? by CaptBubba · 2011-12-23 02:13 · Score: 1

No, more like removable fuel cartridges which I'm sure will be totally sealed and chipped so you will only be able to buy them from Apple.
I think Apple got upset that they weren't getting Apple markups every time someone installed extra electrons into their macbook via the charger.

Re:Patent the future by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 23:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just skimmed the patent, so not going to make any judgement on the patentability of this. Certainly the first few claims look fairly broad but this is normal. Somewhere down in the sub-claims, there could be something new and inventive.

A couple of points though. This is just the published patent application - it has *not* been granted yet, so Apple certainly havn't succeeded in getting the patent. Also, from even a very quick search in a couple of online databases , there appears to be a load of prior art in this field as you'd probably expect. I'd expect the USPTO will find at least some of it. Chances are that either Apple won't get this at all, or they will end up with a very limited patent to a particular feature needed to make this work and not a general 'fuel cell in a laptop' patent.

Finally, check out the fuels they're proposing. Good luck getting a cartridge of sodium borohydride, or lithium aluminium hydride on an aircraft. Patented invention does not necessarily mean commercial uptake of invention.

Run on fuel cell patents? by mythar · 2011-12-22 23:29 · Score: 1

Fine. I've got "Fuel Cell System to Power a Sexual Empowerment Device" and "Fuel Cell System Coupled to a Sexual Coupling Device".

I'm going to be rich.

Re:Run on fuel cell patents? by jbeaupre · 2011-12-23 01:58 · Score: 2

Don't forget to cite the Apple patents. Sounds like they are interested in screwing customers too.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.

Re:Surely it's already done by Dr+Max · 2011-12-22 23:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Better than that it has already been done http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/ . Do people at the patent office not know how to Google an idea, cause i'm betting the apple innovation department knows how. Its not something that's even deserving of a patent if they actually invented a new type of fuel cell then sure give them a patent but just putting the word it infront of laptop is the reason the whole patent system is a joke.

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Re:"NO way would these be allowed on a plane." by einhverfr · 2011-12-22 23:43 · Score: 1

Well there's a difference between something like coal which is very energy dense and burns and something like natural bas which is not very energy dense comparatively but poses a much greater explosion hazard.

Please call me when the TSA stops allowing jet (coal) jewelry for airline passengers.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:"NO way would these be allowed on a plane." by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 23:43 · Score: 1

The right question to ask is: what do battery packs have to do with the airport security theater? Nothing. Can they sell you battery packs at airport shops after the security checkpoints? Yes they could, but there are too many sizes and not all computers have user serviceable batteries. How inconvenient. Compare that with the ban on water and the sales of water bottles in airports. If we end up with a small set of standardized sizes for fuel cells (like for A, AA, AAA batteries) then I bet that we'll quickly be faced with the choice of whether to buy a fuel cell in the airport shop or when we arrive at destination. No fuel cells allowed across security checkpoints. Just wait for the first terrorist plotting to blow up a plane with a fuel cell. That was all they needed to start this insane and very profitable ban on water back in 2006. I wonder if terrorists still laugh thinking about how successful they been with such a small effort or feel sorry for making those western businesses still more profitable.

I beg your pardon for posting this as AC.

Go Apple! Now fuel cells will be viable in 20yrs by einhverfr · 2011-12-22 23:44 · Score: 1

Well, not sure I like fuel cells or the market that Apple is going for here. There may be a silver lining here in that this may delay the entrance of these for the main stream for another 20 years!

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:They're at it again by Antarius · 2011-12-22 23:46 · Score: 2

Too late.

The Australian Government is well ahead of you. With the passing of the Carbon Tax, they've finally been able to achieve that Holy Grail of taxation; Taxing the air we breathe.

Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by gb7djk · 2011-12-22 23:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Toshiba have demonstrated fuel cells for laptops since at least 2006. They may not be pretty, but the principle should not be patentable (at least by Apple). http://www.pcworld.com/article/157606/toshibas_fuel_cell_laptop.html

Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by maroberts · 2011-12-22 23:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Toshiba have demonstrated fuel cells for laptops since at least 2006. They may not be pretty, but the principle should not be patentable (at least by Apple).
http://www.pcworld.com/article/157606/toshibas_fuel_cell_laptop.html

From an extremely quick glance, Apples patent seems to be for a failry specific implementation of a hydrogen driven system, not Toshiba's methanol driven system. Also the patent diagrams illustrates a number of elements required in their design, so I would guess that it is their complete implementation that they're patenting not the general principle.

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by RenHoek · 2011-12-23 00:24 · Score: 1

so I would guess that it is their complete implementation that they're patenting not the general principle.
Do you think that would stop them filing injunctions for anything that even remotely resembles a generic fuel cell?
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by Theaetetus · 2011-12-23 02:02 · Score: 1

Toshiba have demonstrated fuel cells for laptops since at least 2006. They may not be pretty, but the principle should not be patentable (at least by Apple). http://www.pcworld.com/article/157606/toshibas_fuel_cell_laptop.html

Apple's patent claims require a bidirectional communication link between the portable computing device and a controller on the fuel cell, and that doesn't appear to be there for the Toshiba implementation. It's prior art (because it's in the art, and it's prior), but it's not anticipatory prior art (a single publication or device that discloses each and every element of the claims). Now, combine that with smart batteries, and you might be getting somewhere...
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by wvmarle · 2011-12-23 02:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sorry to say it a bit bluntly, but you like so many others have obviously not a single clue about what a patent is, and what it is for.
A patent is for very specific inventions. Now of course the idea of "putting a fuel cell in a laptop" is of course not patentable, and that's not what Apple patents. From the first glance that I have the core of the patent revolves around the fuel cell itself, they did something innovative to it to make it suitable for these very small scale applications as for example in laptops. It being Apple, laptops of course are the first application they think of. But the same tech might be used to power your phone, or when scaled the other direction to power your car, who knows. But afaict it's the fuel cell where the invention is in.
There is no way Apple or any other company will be able to patent "fuel cell powered laptop". They can only patent a very specific way of doing this, or a very specific fuel cell implementation, so specific that if a patent is written incorrectly changing the voltage of your implementation may already circumvent it.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by Kagetsuki · 2011-12-23 03:39 · Score: 2

Yeah! And it's not like Apple patents things that are unoriginal. I mean I can't find a single item anywhere that didn't have round corners before the iPod/iPhone/iPad. It was like living in a MineCraft world! And it's not like Apple would intentionally write their patents all vaguely so they could sue anybody for anything vaguely similar, I mean it's never happened before has it?
OK, sorry about that. I completely understand what you are trying to say but you're talking about what the patent system claims to be and what it should be, but the reality is it is not those things and Apple has continually abused that fact.
Oh and fuel cells in phones and music players have already been developed and produced: http://www.gizmag.com/go/4609/ and fuel cell cars already exist and are on the market (I rode in a fuel cell taxi two weeks ago!), so when you say "might be used to power your phone... or car" it's already here and Apple didn't do it. Won't stop them from trying to sue people who try to do it from now on.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by wvmarle · 2011-12-23 04:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

And now you're mixing up regular "invention-type" patents and design patents as well.
Admittedly I haven't read the design patent, but one thing for sure: they haven't patented "rounded corners". They have patented a complete look, and with that prevent other manufacturers to make one that looks exactly or almost exactly like theirs. They sued Samsung because the Samsung devices look very much like Apple's devices, and Apple thinks it's too close alike.
Apple will not get far suing just anyone using fuel cells. They're surely not stupid enough to even think about that. They can only sue people that use their exact implementation of the fuel cell, and trust me the fuel cell in that taxi will not scale down to anything near laptop size, let alone laptop battery size.
Just like you can not compare the technology of a car battery (lead-acid) with that of a phone battery (Li-ion or NiMH - which are two different types in itself again). Now if you would be able to scale down a lead acid battery and make it suitable for say laptop power supply, now that may very well be patentable (oh and I'm not saying that it is necessarily useful or practical, just patentable).
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by future+assassin · 2011-12-23 05:15 · Score: 1

So if Toshiba Says that the "hydrogen" fuel cell is only for Toshiba laptops then thats a whole new patent?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by rtfa-troll · 2011-12-23 07:11 · Score: 2
When you read a patent the key part to start with is not the introduction or the explanation. These are, mostly background reading and/or fluff (though can be very important if they change the meaning of a word in the document). The important part is the claims. I already gave an analysis of claim 1 which shows that, despite the introduction which looks reasonable this patent really is claiming the world.
Probably, in some sense, you are right, and Apple's patent will effectively be narrowed to very specific cases if there ever is a lawsuit about it; prior art would eliminate many of the claims that are very broad (e.g. the fuel cells on the space shuttle must have been able to be controlled and must have been able to communicate their current status with the on board computer) and the narrow claims in areas where Apple hasn't really done work will turn out not to be very applicable. However you can't count on this.
The original work is probably on exactly what you said; that's almost certainly exactly what the engineer who did the actual invention described to the lawyer. The problem is that this has been through the lawyers with almost no limits to how they "improve" it. The lawyers for Apple are paid to make this as general as they are allowed to so that Apple gets the best value they can from the patent. For example, if you invented a new sensor and just happened to use copper wire in the sensor, the lawyer would (rightly) make claims for a) a copper wire, dependent on a claim for b) any metal wire at all, dependent on c) a claim for any conductor whatsoever. They are both trying to cover all bases and at the same time try to extend the claim as much as they can. Basically, if they could get away with it they would make patent claims like (imagine this is a numbered list, no matter what Slashdot does with it):
1. an invention
2. an invention as in claim 1; which does something
3. an invention as in claim 2; which involves people
4. an invention as in claim 2; which doesn't involve people
5. ...
The job of the patent office is supposed to be to stop that stuff and make them claim specific patents. The problem is that, when the patent office used to reject patents, this was taken to the courts which often allowed the patents. The patent office oversight was weak to begin with and is now totally ineffective. Looking at this patent the system clearly isn't working.
--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-23 07:16 · Score: 1

The vast majority of cars have 4 wheels, a "bump" where the passanger compartment is with typically 2 front seet and a center console and a full 3 "bench" style back seat. They all have headlights, breaklights and typically have the same spot for the engine and license plates Remove the insignia from the from a large number of cars, and I'll bet you you'll name a hand ful of them wrong.
I can distinctly tell the difference between a Galaxy Tab 10.1. It doesn't have a button in the middle, it's widescreen, and has a huge freaking Samsung logo in the back. The homescreen has live wallpaper, widgets and possible empty spaces on your homescreen that's not in the lower right hand corner. There should have been no way the two should have been confused. Sure the App Drawer looks similar, but that's not serving remotely the same function (you could argue a list of files in Explorer looks similar)
There's no reason why a smaller battery of a larger version should be individually patentable. The original owner of said fuel cell should be able to patent it, not a company that's using it for a specific purpose.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-12-23 07:53 · Score: 1

But then if it has to be TOO specific, it will not (or should not, anyway) pass the obviousness test. Utter failure on the part of the Patent Office to properly enforce the obviousness test in recent years has led to no end of chaos.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by Kagetsuki · 2011-12-23 13:35 · Score: 1

I guess you missed this line in my post so I'll write it again:
"I completely understand what you are trying to say but you're talking about what the patent system claims to be and what it should be, but the reality is it is not those things and Apple has continually abused that fact."
Here's the reality of things. Patents don't make it so people can't copy you or make too similar things, they make it so when you sue them when you think they copy you or make too similar things your standing has more weight - after that it's basically up to the lawyers. Apple has time and time again misused BOTH technology and design patents and it's likely they'll misuse this one as well. That's what essentially everyone is getting their feathers ruffled up about here.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by sonicmerlin · 2011-12-23 18:12 · Score: 1

Despite the morass of stupidity on Slashdot, Apple is generally looked up to and praised for the specificity and efficacy of its patents. Unlike MSFT and Google, Apple seems to produce its own innovations rather than buy up tons of companies with their own patents.
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it by LordVader717 · 2011-12-24 03:59 · Score: 1

I'm guessing this is much more legit than some other Apple patents we have discussed here. But despite understanding a thing or two about fuel cell chemistry and electronics I couldn't figure out what this patent is for just by reading the article. As you say, "putting a fuel cell in a laptop" is not patentable, but then can't they give it a better name than "Fuel Cell System to Power a Portable Computing Device". You too are beating about the bush. Surely this "innovative thing to make it suitable for these very small scale applications" can be summarized in no more than a paragraph.
Is there someone out there who can explain what this patent is about?

Re:Go Apple! Now fuel cells will be viable in 20yr by erroneus · 2011-12-22 23:53 · Score: 2

I like your line of thinking on this. It would be interesting if you were to cite your source indicating that fuel cells at that scale are 20 year away from being consumer ready.

Still, this falls clearly under "obvious." Half of the discussions of fuel cells I have seen talk about laptops and the rest about data center backups or other.

Please, someone accept my money. Form a patent buster group and bust these patents and then lobby for removal of other patent laws which accept software as patentable among other problems with the industry. Please make it so that patent trolls cannot possibly exist. I don't have a lot of money, but I have a few bucks I would gladly share to help clean up this mess.

They should file lawsuits already, too . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-12-22 23:58 · Score: 2

. . . against as yet unknown potential infringement parties, who shall be named later. Then they could get the courts to ban competitors' products from store shelves, even before they are produced.

See, the system is efficient and does work, if used correctly.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Patent the future by thegarbz · 2011-12-23 00:03 · Score: 2

Well that hasn't stopped others from trying fuel cells in various devices like cameras, naturally followed immediately by some company patenting the implementation.

But their implementation is new. See the fuel cell also powers the attached flash. Well there's something that isn't immediately obvious to anyone who has used a point and shoot cameras, attached a GPS receiver to a camera which is powered through the connector, or used a lens with an autofocus motor / VR system in it. You're saying you can use one device to power the other? Say it ain't so! How novel.

Prior Art ... by garry_g · 2011-12-23 00:11 · Score: 1

I could swear I saw reports of companies building experimental Notebook fuel cells years ago ...

Re:Prior Art ... by catmistake · 2011-12-23 01:46 · Score: 1

I could swear I saw reports of companies building experimental Notebook fuel cells years ago ...
did you? OK, well... in order for your comment to be on topic, you must tell us, please... how exactly is that prior art? I'm afraid that your complete lack of understanding what prior art is does not qualify you for commenting in this discussion. Back up... try again, please. If you must, since this is an Apple-related summary, feel free to troll for karma points.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Prior Art ... by garry_g · 2011-12-23 02:01 · Score: 1

Well, it may be the first time APPLE is doing it, but others have been there, done that ...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Panasonic-Fuel-Cell-Prototype,6516.html (2008)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/lg_chem_fuel_cell/ (2005)
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1008_3-1022130.html (2003)
If any patent office employee granted a patent on the idea of using a fuel cell in notebooks, they are obviously incapable of doing a simple google search and should therefore be fired for being unfit to do their job ...
Re:Prior Art ... by catmistake · 2011-12-23 02:19 · Score: 1

Ok, you've just wasted our time again. I implore you to do a little more research in understanding what a patent is, what is patentable, and what prior art is before campeigning against Apple. See... what happens is you appear to be a busy body idiot, lashing out with irrellivant facts... promote facts that are irrellivant to the discussion because it is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject about which you are commenting. Perhaps you should consider what Wittgenstein said about speaking about that which you know nothing about... he's says you're saying nothing at all. By your twisted and incorrect understanding of prior art, anything that has been conceived or created in the past in general prevents anything specific being patentable. Please stop crapping up Slashdot. kthxbai.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Prior Art ... by catmistake · 2011-12-23 02:33 · Score: 1

Calm down, it's just a company, not a religion. Oh wait, it's Apple, carry on.
This isn't Apple, this is Slashdot. Apple is whatever, Slashdot is fucking sacred.... at least until the quality comments are drowned out by the noise of Apple trolls and dullwitted idiots that think they are clever or funny or something. Once the comments turn to shit, Slashdot is nothing. Good job Apple trolls. Not only have you done nothing to effect the change you intended, you've destroyed the only thing worthwhile on the Internet. I, for one, hope you all DIAF.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

imagine a beowulf clus... by decora · 2011-12-23 00:12 · Score: 2

oh wait, apple patented the beowulf cluster.

Re:Patent the future by gnasher719 · 2011-12-23 00:12 · Score: 1

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 employed to power isn't bloody obvious. Now the or might be unique, but that isn't what they are patenting.

It seems that in the first patent, you don't just connect power source to device, but the power source is capable of producing lots of information about its state and transmitting it to the device, to which the device can react, and the device can tell the power source exactly who much power it wants and control the operation of the power source.

This would be for example different from your usual AA battery, which doesn't give any information about its state, but just produces some voltage until it runs out of power and the voltage drops down.

Seriously? by whisper_jeff · 2011-12-23 00:27 · Score: 1

Seriously? Are we going to post every single story about a major tech company filing a patent for something? Or are we just going to do it when Apple files a patent because "they are teh evil!!"? I mean, come on! "Major tech company files patent for new tech - news at 11!" Uh. Yeah. Happens _literally_ every single day.

One of the worst non-stories I've seen in a while...

Re:Seriously? by mrbester · 2011-12-23 01:19 · Score: 1

If they have actually _made_ a laptop powered by a hydrogen fuel cell that resembles the diagram and can demonstrate it (it doesn't even need to work, just exist) then I have no problem with them patenting it as that is the point of patents. If all they've got is a picture then they can sod off as they are trying to patent something that doesn't exist or might be made in the future in order to leech fees.

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"

Re:Ridiculous by PPH · 2011-12-23 00:28 · Score: 1

I haven't read the patent. But TFA summary (and we all know how accurate those are) describes:

a new breed of fuel cell-powered laptop computers

So, its possible that Apple has developed some new technology in the area of fuel cells and/or laptops that makes this practical. You'd still be free to use the old school fuel cells in laptops without infringing on these patents.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Surely it's already done by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-23 00:30 · Score: 1

I'm honestly shocked that nobody has patented "fuel cells on a laptop" before. That's the sort of obvious fluff that you'd expect to have been patented the moment some greedy little bastard learned of the concept of fuel cells.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Patent the future by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-23 00:35 · Score: 1

Not new. I was planning a device that's only become possible due to advancements in battery and electric motor tech made over the last few years. Nothing innovative, it's always been theoretically possible but only recently became practical.

There were patents on every concept involved going back to the freaking 70s. Oddly enough I saw a very unambitious version of my idea released onto the market yesterday, pretty expensive too.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-23 00:41 · Score: 1

That sounds like an advert for "M&S" ( a major retailer in the UK).
For several years they used the phrase 'not just any...' in their advertising.

Some shyster lawyers will be contacting you shortly.

Re:Patent the future by PIBM · 2011-12-23 01:03 · Score: 1

There has been quite a lot of prototype and working versions, but not by apple..

Re:They're at it again by mrbester · 2011-12-23 01:08 · Score: 2

Dammit Cohaagen, give dose people ayuh!

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"

Re:Surely it's already done by Scragglykat · 2011-12-23 01:09 · Score: 5, Funny

But has anyone patented using power cells in a robot designed to infiltrate human colonies and assassinate them from within? I think not.

That's not how patents work or why they exist by F69631 · 2011-12-23 01:10 · Score: 5, Informative

The history of patents dates back to 15th century Venice. Venice had a lucrative glass-blowing industry and major artisans had different kinds of trade secrets that related to the craft. Each artisan vigorously guarded their own trade secrets and often took those to the grave with them, so the technology didn't progress. So, they came up with a system: Artisan could claim their method of glass-blowing as patently original, have no longer the need to keep the method secret and would not take the method to the grave with them. Everyone won.

In those days, patents weren't for "Glass-blowing". That's a concept. They were for "A very specific method of glass-blowing, that the artisan had researched themselves (or learned from their master) and would otherwise have to keep secret". That much still applies to the modern patents (abominations such as "1-click shopping" being an exception). The patent isn't "The concept of using fuel cells as batteries". It is "Using specific type of fuel cells for laptop power in a specific and non-obvious way". It doesn't matter that someone else has used fuel cells for batteries before.

(FWIW: I think that there is still need for a system like that, so I also support software patents in cases where the patented idea is non-obvious enough that it probably wouldn't have became "public knowledge" in the next 20 years without the patent. This could well apply to specific encryption algorithms and stuff like that.)

Re:That's not how patents work or why they exist by marcosdumay · 2011-12-23 03:42 · Score: 1

Except that in practice there are those abominations like 1-click shopping.
In theory you can't patent a general idea, in practice you can and several people already did.

--
Rethinking email
Re:That's not how patents work or why they exist by BonThomme · 2011-12-23 06:59 · Score: 1

Fuel-cell powered one-click shopping patented in 3, 2, 1...
Re:That's not how patents work or why they exist by Dr+Max · 2011-12-23 12:29 · Score: 1

So what your saying is patents were invented so that a person could still have a comfortable living for 20 years but the tech wouldn't die with them. Thus in our day and age they are actually being more harmful than the old system; If we were working off the old system then any one else that wants to put a fuel cell on a laptop can they just don't have apples textbook picture of a fuel cell with two lines connected to a textbook picture of a computer, and instead of protecting one man's livelihood it's used to block as many competitors products (for 20 years which in electronics is a millennia) as possible to return enormous revenues and limiting more innovation. We need a new system to fit the new model just like the artisans did.

--
Rocket Surgeon.
Re:That's not how patents work or why they exist by F69631 · 2011-12-27 00:55 · Score: 1

I guess it depends on your world view: I could see someone making an argument that even if some patents aren't good for the society, individuals should be given the right to control what they've created (and conversely, someone could argue that patents shouldn't exist even if they are good for the society). From the point of view of the society, patents only make sense if they are a method of increasing the pool of public knowledge and should only be allowed in such cases. By that logic, you couldn't patent anything that can be deducted by examining the end product but you could patent the unique methods you used to manufacture it, for example. (Which would actually be going to the roots of the system!) You couldn't patent user interface components of operating system but if you were only able to create them because of some extremely clever engineering/optimization trick, you might be able to patent that.
One could argue that allowing entities to patent things that could be deduced from the end product would encourage them to invest more in R&D and that would have positive net impact. That, however, is purely a question of costs and benefits analysis (Cost being potential to patent technology that would have became available even without patents, benefit being potential for technology that wouldn't have became available without patents). I remember seeing quite a few discussions related to patents but I can't recall anyone having made the math for what would be the optimal patent duration, etc. [where the technology could be deduced from the end product] for technological advancement. I doubt it's 20, but I also doubt it's 0.

Re:Patent the future by PIBM · 2011-12-23 01:15 · Score: 1

The voltage varies depending on the remaining charge, and is thus a message from the power source telling how much power it has left. Depending on the instantanneous resistance shown from the device, the power source will react instantly producing more or less power (higher current for the given voltage) thus being message sent from the device to the power..

Re:Surprise by PIBM · 2011-12-23 01:18 · Score: 1

I though it was pretty clear he was going after the lolz of this one!

Re:Go Apple! Now fuel cells will be viable in 20yr by sosume · 2011-12-23 01:19 · Score: 1

I think it means another 20 years of patent wars. And after 20 years, companies can finally deploy these cells.

It's a discrete system by Rambo+Tribble · 2011-12-23 01:26 · Score: 1

The power supply is a discrete subsystem and should not be construed as sufficiently integral to the device it powers to allow such a broad patent. Will Apple now patent the replacement of a substation transformer to extract royalties from the power company?

previous and next patents.. by gl4ss · 2011-12-23 01:28 · Score: 1

Previous Patent: USAGE OF REGENERATIVE BRAKE POWER FOR SYSTEM RESTART IN START-STOP OPERATION OF FUEL CELL HYBRID VEH...
Next Patent: INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM

-----

it's official, the patent system is just a joke. a computer could generate these patent titles and a monkey could do the write ups.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:previous and next patents.. by catmistake · 2011-12-23 01:58 · Score: 1

it's official, the patent system is just a joke. a computer could generate these patent titles and a monkey could do the write ups.
Yes... but you are well aware you only belive this to be true regarding Apple patents. Except for anything Apple does, the patent system is broken just fine. If Apple tries to use it, then it is broken beyond recognition and just another tool for Apple's world domination. Seriously... Microsoft, Google, Samsung... could pen the same EXACT patent, and no one would care because beating up the retarted pulsy kid just doesn't have the same interest it once did, and it is now a vastly more popular activity to impotently conspire against the star quarterback homecoming king, who got the pro contract and is skipping college... but don't be so quick to judge the jock... that "jock's" accumulated AP credits put them at graduate level technologies... yes, I am saying that compared to everyone else, Apple's devices are now years ahead and no longer have legitimate competition. It only makes sense that Apple would be the first to take a bite at the Apple of unpatented technolgies as they're they ONLY technology manufacturer with a successful brand that could actually, conceivably bring a quality and finished product to market in the near future utilizing this patent. Once you remove your blind hatred of all things Apple (we call this 'bias'), you will see this is true... and its a shame because Apple fans are annoying... but lets not make it about them because... no matter how annoying Apple fans get, it will never effect Apple products.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:previous and next patents.. by sgt+scrub · 2011-12-23 02:03 · Score: 1

a computer could generate these patent titles and a monkey could do the write ups.
Oh sure, give our jobs to the monkeys. This is a down economy sir. Shame on you!

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:previous and next patents.. by catmistake · 2011-12-23 02:25 · Score: 1

Where did he mention Apple or Apple patents in his post?
I direct you to the summary, and the summary title, which (if you missed it) GP has commented on:
Apple Files Patent For Fule Cell Laptops
Try to be a little more observant before trolling, kid.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:previous and next patents.. by catmistake · 2011-12-23 02:53 · Score: 1

That wasn't his post, but since I'm feeling generous, I'll give you another chance. Point out the Apple patents mentioned in his post.
You believe you have a point. Allow me to religuish you of your quite unexamined and false belief. If you wish to suggest that OP is offtopic, that is your perogative. In any case, that is the only way what you are insinuating could be topical... that OP was offtopic, therefore I am offtopic.... and therefore you are offtopic. You may have as well merely posted "My post is off topic, and I will leave you to discovery why yourself." Thanks for wasting time with a completely innacurate, meaningless and inappropriate attempt at indicating a minor pendantic observation... which, again, is incorrect and irellavant. You gonna wait for the comment timer again this time? or log in, coward?

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:previous and next patents.. by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2011-12-23 06:34 · Score: 1

it's official, the patent system is just a joke. a computer could generate these patent titles and a monkey could do the write ups.
You are of course correct, but I already hold the patent on this method of patent trolling, so don't even think about trying to use it.

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-23 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

> 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.

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by catmistake · 2011-12-23 01:42 · Score: 2, Funny

We're talking about a company who tries to stop anyone else making a flat rectangular computing device with a touch screen after all...

The real tragedy is that the moderation system here only goes up to +5 Insightful, because what you just said could be the most original, never before seen, most insightful comment anyone has ever constructed, and I've never seen it repeated here a thousand times before. How did you come up with that all by yourself? We've read your other comments which are quite dull and usually annoying flamebait, unlike this one... be honest... you were coached by someone, weren't you?

--
The Admin and the Engineer

ROFLOL by fadethepolice · 2011-12-23 01:48 · Score: 1

Should toshiba quietly let them build it and then sue for royalties? http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/01/toshiba-shows-off-latest-laptop-fuel-cell-prototype/

Re:Surely it's already done by Theaetetus · 2011-12-23 01:58 · Score: 1

Better than that it has already been done http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/ . Do people at the patent office not know how to Google an idea, cause i'm betting the apple innovation department knows how. Its not something that's even deserving of a patent if they actually invented a new type of fuel cell then sure give them a patent but just putting the word it infront of laptop is the reason the whole patent system is a joke.

So, you're going to do something about it, like send a copy of that publication to the Examiner under 37 CFR 1.99, right? Or are you just going to complain impotently?

Smart move by sgt+scrub · 2011-12-23 02:00 · Score: 1

If a patent troll had gotten hold of this patent they would have... oh wait.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Re:Surely it's already done by catmistake · 2011-12-23 02:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Better than that it has already been done http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/ . Do people at the patent office not know how to Google an idea,

Hello. I for one would like to see your bullet points for "Better than that has already been done." Your comment inspired me to read both articles, and now that I have wasted my time I expect some satisfaction. Just what the fuck are you talking about? Are you suggesting that you know more than the sparse, truncated information written in TFA and in the link you provided? What I would like to know is why the US Patent Office doesn't simply close its doors and forward all applications to you, because apparently you are omnipotent and everyone else is an idiot.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Prior art? by joaommp · 2011-12-23 02:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple sure does like to patent stuff they didn't invent.

--
Onda Technology Institute

Goon Show by Tokolosh · 2011-12-23 02:30 · Score: 1

Grytpype: ... and I warn you, nobody shout "Help". That is a word I've just invented and will cost anybody five hundred pounds to use. Now, give me that green liquid. Right, Neddie, into the canal.

Seagoon:
But I can't swim without that green liquid. Aarrggh

FX:
(splash)

Seagoon:
You swine, you pushed me in! Help!

Grytpype-Thynne:
Out you come, Ned. To using the word "Help", five hundred pounds

FX:
(cash register)

Grytpype:
Thank you.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number

You got to be kidding.. by SuperDre · 2011-12-23 02:45 · Score: 1

If Apple is granted this patent then we certainly know they have bribed the patentofficers, as this has been publicized a lot already and even been shown by some engineers already FOR MOBILE DEVICES.. just like they got a patent on using an app during a phonecall, how in the world did they even be able to get that (multitasking) patent at all can only be contributed to a patentofficer been bribed..

Re:Surely it's already done by Tsingi · 2011-12-23 03:17 · Score: 4, Funny

But has anyone patented using power cells in a robot designed to infiltrate human colonies and assassinate them from within? I think not.

I tried patenting that, they said I had to prove that it could be done. So that's what I'm working on now.

Toshiba already did it! by Kagetsuki · 2011-12-23 03:27 · Score: 1

Well, they sold a fuel cell for one (they had a portable music player with a fuel cell as well but I can't remember if it was widely available) and they still sell an external unit with a set of adapters for pretty much any notebook. The product is called "Dynario", it's been around since 2003.

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by berashith · 2011-12-23 03:30 · Score: 1

yup, this place is full of anonymous cowards that deny the existence of what actually happened. Or are you saying that Apple only prevented someone from selling the devices, because then you would be correct. Samsung can make tons of these , just not market and sell them.

Re:Patent the future by tom17 · 2011-12-23 03:31 · Score: 1

Interesting. I too had an idea a couple of years ago involving new battery and motor tech. I wonder if we were looking at similar ideas or not. I didn't look hard, but could not find anything resembling my idea. Care to share a link to the product you saw?

Apple is not the new Microsoft by marcosdumay · 2011-12-23 03:35 · Score: 1

They still need to pass though the ritual where you backstab everybody that once cooperated with you.

But they are advancing, and fast.

--
Rethinking email

Re:Apple is not the new Microsoft by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-12-23 05:02 · Score: 1

Samsung makes Apple's chips and Apple is suing the shit out of every Android maker including Samsung. They're well past that ritual.

Re:Patent the future by GameboyRMH · 2011-12-23 04:01 · Score: 1

Might as well, I've seen a few hacker projects do similar things over the last year:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/12/electric-skates-for-sci-fi-roller-diners/

Of course this is a sad little foot-segway compared to the sweet foot-R6 I had in mind.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Surely it's already done by catmistake · 2011-12-23 04:21 · Score: 1

Not my problem; it is your problem that you believe your non-expert opinions are fact. It is your problem that you actually think you know more or know better on this or any subject. It is your problem that you are attempting to engage a thread when from the uninspired beginnings you are completely lacking humility and/or awareness of not understanding something... or worse, attempting to promote something that is clearly false. It is your problem that you begin converstations with ignorant lies, and are disingenuine about your reasons for doing so (as it is obvious you know you are playing a childish game, as only children and low cognative performers find entertainment by using ridiculously obvious deception).

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Already Made by CryptDemon · 2011-12-23 04:56 · Score: 1

This thing was already made 5 years ago for military applications. http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-12-23 05:06 · Score: 1

There is no "tech" to license.

Re:Surely it's already done by Shompol · 2011-12-23 05:24 · Score: 1

Why don't they? Approving everything in exchange for the application fee sounds like a posh way to make a living. And if anything is approved in error, that's what the courts are for, right?

If the fuel cell is round... by saint0192 · 2011-12-23 05:45 · Score: 1

Then Apple will have both Rectangles and circles patented! Other manufacturers will have to resort to really odd shapes for everything eventually!

Re:"No way would these be allowed on a plane" TRUE by neurocutie · 2011-12-23 06:11 · Score: 1

TSA and FAA regulations already prohibit spare lithium batteries from being packed in baggage. Anything similar with an even higher energy density would also be prohibited unless one could show there is no way to release the energy quickly (explosion or flammable). But it can't be too slow since laptops need high current (low internal resistance), so only a very narrow range of properties would be acceptable as a long-life high energy power source that cannot be exploited as a bomb or at least a firestarter.

Re:Patent the future by tom17 · 2011-12-23 06:14 · Score: 1

Heh, similar I guess. I was going for a skateboard style single-wheel affair... I don't think it's worth pursuing though.

Especially now I have talked about it in public!

Re:danger, Will Robinson ! Methanol fuel cells by neurocutie · 2011-12-23 06:16 · Score: 1

A fuel cell running that long is likely a based on a solid and oxygen and not on a liquid.

no... the FC most considered to be currently practical and immediately marketable (like next year), is based on methanol (a liquid). You can just pour in fresh methanol to recharge the FC. Of course its a fire hazard (although it can be mixed with water to reduce its flammability).

Re:Patent the future by tom17 · 2011-12-23 06:16 · Score: 1

Damn, thinking about it more, I wish I didn't post it now lol.

Re:Surely a Twisty Little Maze by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-12-23 07:53 · Score: 1

The fact that people have been talking about exactly this sort of application for decades would make it not novel and thus not patentable.

The general concept may not be patentable, but specific working implementations may very well be innovative and patentable.

You are in a twisty little maze of what is and is not innovative, what is and is not patentable, what is and is not prior art, what is and is not obvious, what is and is not Apple, and how stupid or stupider the US Patent Office is, all different.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

The Best 3 Things About a Fuel-Cell Computing... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-12-23 08:05 · Score: 1

The best 3 things about a fuel-cell powered computing device:

1: It's instantly rechargable -- just slap on a new fuel tank.

2: It would actually be possible to have an accurate readout of power remaining.

3: It might (hopefully) retain its full capacity for the lifetime of the fuel-cell.

The worst 1 thing about a fuel-cell powered computing device:

1: All of the Apple lawsuits trying to keep anyone else from doing it also no matter how obvious this patent is in foresight.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Prior art? by bestoffrm · 2011-12-23 08:07 · Score: 1

Thanks for sharing such an interesting and informative post. yazili sorulari

Re:Surely it's already done by Dr+Max · 2011-12-23 12:13 · Score: 1

For some one that doesn't believe in non-expert opinions you sure have a big one with a lot of assumptions on me. Besides I haven't lied, some one has already invented fuel cells (thank you NASA) and people have already run laptops of them. Apples patent drawing is a textbook image of a fuel cell connected to a textbook image of a laptop if you think that deserves a patent then your an idiot. Finally considering you never answered my question and just filled a reply with insults and ego defences I'll amuse its the whole idea of a fuel cell that baffles you to a point to consider just handing a patent over to apple; It's really quite simple you store hydrogen (or something you can get hydrogen from) and oxygen and you release both gasses on opposite sides of a PEM (proton exchange membrane) plate (which combines the gasses with the catalyst platinum) which creates water (H20) and electricity. This tech has been around for a very long time and people have run all kinds of stuff on it. All I want is all this stupid big business bitchiness to stop so that us the consumers can benefit with a larger selection of innovative and inventive products from the biggest marketplace possible, and also make it easier for me to get into the game one day (just like apple did in old Steve jobs garage).

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Re:Surely it's already done by HiThere · 2011-12-23 14:46 · Score: 1

IIRC, you can't get a patent on doing something illegal. So what you do is patent it, but describe what it's doing in such a way that it can't be definitively shown to be illegal. This has the side benefit of allowing you to twist the definition to apply in circumstances that you'd never thought of.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Post jobs world may be positive by sonicmerlin · 2011-12-23 18:05 · Score: 1

If you think he was coached, well... then you're holding it wrong.

*stabs myself in the eye*

Re:Surely it's already done by Dr+Max · 2011-12-23 20:41 · Score: 1

Good point, I didn't even realize I could do anything. Thank you for the link, however I still doubt my email will mean much to the army of apple lawyers.

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Re:Surely it's already done by catmistake · 2011-12-24 09:19 · Score: 1

Besides I haven't lied, some one has already invented fuel cells

Except that you are using deception, and a disingenuine arguement. Yes... someone invented fuel cells. So... the race is over, and I guess all the engineers can go home because there no money there, because it, and apparently everything that even looks a little like it, is upatentable. That's basically what you are saying, isn't it, that its a proverbial or literal crime the patent system is so broken that Apple can take someone elses invention that was already patented, and re-patent it as there own. Wow, what a screwed up world, huh.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Re:Surely it's already done by Dr+Max · 2011-12-24 13:24 · Score: 1

That's basically what you are saying, isn't it, that its a proverbial or literal crime the patent system is so broken that Apple can take someone elses invention that was already patented, and re-patent it as there own. Wow, what a screwed up world, huh.

Yes pretty much, i'm sorry that shocks you so much but frankly i think you should only be able to patent technology once, and you should only be able to patent it if you actually invented it your self not just plugged it in to your device or drawn a picture of it plugged into your device. For example a lot of work and money is being spent on ultracapacitors (some with nano particles, some with integrated circuits) at the moment, and some pretty big promises like 500 kWh per kilogram are being made. I think it would be fairly uncompetitive, and dishonest for me to own the patent for using it in laptops and other portable electronic devices; because I haven't done anything at all to help the r&d being done on the capacitors (other than draw a box that has ultracapacitor on it then two wires connecting to a box called motherboard). Just my opinion, however seeing that we are living in your world and it doesn't look like it's going to change. I'm putting myself out there as a contractor, I can come up with patents like this once a week to once a month on average.

--
Rocket Surgeon.

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops

158 of 215 comments (clear)