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."
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
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.
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.
Isn't it enough that Apple products are already prone to fires and explosions?
...omphaloskepsis often...
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.
Woo hoo. Apple are back to removable batteries.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Double post but this one is from 2002
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).
But has anyone patented using power cells in a robot designed to infiltrate human colonies and assassinate them from within? I think not.
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.)
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.
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
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();
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.