Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents Wireless Charging
GabriellaKat writes "Via El Reg: 'Apple is trying to patent wireless charging, claiming its magnetic resonance tech is new and that it can do it better than anyone else. This would be cool if its assertions were true. Apple's application, numbered 20120303980, makes much of its ability to charge a device over the air at a distance of up to a meter, rather than requiring close proximity. The Alliance For Wireless Power, which also touts long-range juicing, will no doubt be comparing Apple's designs to its own blueprints.'"
Haven't they seen that there are already wireless charging standards???
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Wow. In the first claim, they actually claimed a patent on a Crystal Radio. OK - they added the bit about detuning the receiver to identify it to the transmitter, but that technique has been used in just about every RFID product in existence.
Does the USPTO actually employ anyone with an IQ above 50?
That is not how the american patent numbering system works. The last 4 digits(2012) are the year the patent was filled.
Let me fire up my somewhat used Tesla coil.
My money is on:
Apple 'Reality Distortion Field'.
?ew era, tfel ot thgir gnidaeR
A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
You know, just pop them in the microwave @1000 Watts for five minutes, and they are then fully charged. You have to remember to turn off the device first.
We already have microwavable popcorn, and microwave ovens can also be used to warm small pets, and almost every household has one already. US military specs probably already require microwave proof equipment, so those components could be used. All you need to do is to make a battery that can be charged by microwaves. Well, it sure will get hot in the oven, so maybe the heat will help somehow. Batteries always get hot when charging, so it's the heat that charges.
Maybe.
But please don't tell Apple! They will patent the idea! And then we will all have to buy iWaveOvens to charge our devices!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Tesla's main secret with most of his work was harmonic resonance. The Tesla coil is a resonant coil, and his studies were clear that resonance would increase the distance that wireless transmissions could occur. One of his experiments used this very concept, and caused some damage to a power plant in Colorado Springs...resonating and amplifying the electricity collected from the earth moving through it's own atmosphere and discharging it into the ground in such quantities that it burned out a dynamo at the local power plant... http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
Please explain exactly how Tesla's invention is covered by the claims in this patent.
No. Really, every so often a patent comes up in my area of expertise where I think "hmm that sounds interesting or realy basic", and I take the effort to plough through. An example being google's ridiculous unlocking using face recognition patent. After ploughing through some very obfuscated and incredibly turgid language (I posted a point by point rebuttal on /. about that one) I find that my suspicions are confirmed and the patent is stupid, obvious and not even remotely new using even the most generous interpretation possible.
I know a fair bit about electrical and electronic engineering, but not enough to make ploughing though the patent anything other than exceptionally time consuming.
Given the general ridiculousness of patents, the propensity of large companies like Apple (by no means the only offender, but the one in question in this case) to submit patent applications on trivial things, and the VERY long history of wireless energy transfer at this point, I feel that the default position is that the patent should have never been awarded or even applied for and the onus is on anyone else claiming otherwise.
That would be enlightening.
Possibly, but if you've ever read a patent, they are usually anything but :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Is any of Apple's current product capable of wireless charging? Did they develop any of the technology, as in doing the research?
Nah. The new Lumia and Nexus 4 can do wireless charging. Those happen to be Microsoft and Google's flagship phones. Apple's phones don't do it yet, so they want to sue this competitive disadvantage out of existence. I guess they are unable to compete otherwise ...
... it may be time to start selling it off and taking your gains.
If you own AAPL
Clearly he has his endians mixed up.
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, ten little endian bytes.
--
BMO
This would require a fairly large 'transmit' antenna.
The problems with near field charging are well known.
The field cannot be focussed effectively, due to the nature of the magnetic field.
the field production efficiency is limited by the size and weight of the transmitter.
Every metal object in the field (which may extend behind/underneath the charger) will 'short out' the field, and take some energy.
Resonance is not magic in any way at all.
For every arrangement of coils, and random debris (keys, ...) in the way, there will be an optimum frequency that results in smallest loss.
As an analogy - you're trying to power a device by jumping up and down on a trampoline, and having a reciever of that motion somewhere on the trampoline.
Other large masses will disrupt the bouncing, and reduce the fraction of power going into your device.
Without thoroughly reading their patent application it's impossible to know if there's an actual innovation involved. Although he wasn't charging batteries Tesla was using this process to power devices and over a greater distance than Apple. There's no proof his power transmission tower was ever operational but he was powering a type of florescent light in his workshop using a wireless power source very close to what they just patented. My concern is the process was well known for over a hundred years. I know there were plans to build a length of roadway with embedded coils in LA to power electric cars a couple of decades ago. Multiple car companies have discussed charging cars in garages using this process. Doesn't common knowledge fall under prior art? The equipment may be patentable but the process itself should not be given how established the concept has been for a very long time. It's a little like patenting a process for extracting electricity using photons to split off electrons when photovoltaic cells date back to the 1800s. Long established concepts and processes should not be patentable.
One little, two little, three little endians, four little, five little six little endians, seven little, eight little, nine little endians, 0x0A little endian bytes.
FTFY
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
"Music, movies, TV, and podcast subscriptions. All tied up in Apple's little ecosystem. A very pretty noose to keep people chained to its hardware.
Imagine, just for a moment, that your Sony DVD player would only play Sony Movies' films. When you decided to buy a new DVD player from Samsung, none of those media files would work on your new kit without some serious fiddling.
That's the walled garden that so many companies are now trying to drag us into. And I think it stinks.
On a mobile phone network in the UK, you can use any phone you want. Hardware and services are totally divorced. It promotes competition because customers know that if they have a poor experience with HTC, they can move to Nokia and everything will carry on working just as it did before.
But, if all of your contacts, entertainment services, and backups are chained into HTC - well, then you're just shit out of luck if you want to move.
I want to see a complete separation of church and state here. Hardware should be separate from software. Software should be separate from services.
I want to watch Nokia movies on my Samsung hardware running Google's Android, and then back them up to DropBox.
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space. I don't understand why it doesn't in the tablet and smartphone space? Why would I buy a tablet that only worked with content from one provider? Whether that's Amazon, Microsoft or Apple - it's setting up a nasty little monopoly which will drive up prices and drive down quality.
I know, I know. The mantra of "It Just Works". I'm mildly sick of having to configure my tablet to talk to my NAS, and then get the TV to talk to both of them. That situation isn't just due to my equipment all coming from different manufacturers - it's mostly due to those manufacturers not implementing open standards.
http://shkspr.mobi/blog/2012/11/i-dont-want-to-be-part-of-your-fucking-ecosystem/
That is all that patents have ever been used for since their inception. It is their primary function. Their side effect is spreading of knowledge (the eventual purpose).
It seems to me that the actual claims and subsequent description are on (1) a method to wirelessly charge devices, with one device serving as secondary power source source for another device if needed, and with devices up to a meter away from the primary and secondary power sources; (2) a method that improves the efficiency of charging high capacity batteries as a bonus from the circuit needed to do (1); and (3) using (1) and (2) to charge a mouse and keyboard (explicit in the claims). Evidently, (1) and (2) could also be used to charge phones and tablets in an office environment too.
At any rate, I merely scanned the patent, but contrary to what TFS and TFA suggest, Apple didn't patent wireless charging, or even long range wireless charging. What Apple patented is cooperative and efficient wireless charging of a network of devices; in particular of peripherals located on a desk. I presume that plenty of researchers are working on the same kind of stuff, but assuming it hadn't been done yet, nobody can argue with a straight face that this patent is without merits.
Fucking apologist. Don't you get it? I wouldn't touch an iPad with a fucking barge pole. I don't want to be part of your fucking ecosystem.
By the same token, you are also an apologist. However, unlike the poster you berate, who came off as pragmatic, you sound like a petulant child.
I made a very similar analogy at least ten years ago, except I was saying, "what if you could only play a record on one authorized turntable?" The beauty of the digital world is that there is always a way around whatever restrictions they try to force you into. Anything I pay for is mine, and I do as I like with it. If I can't figure it out, there's always someone smarter than me who will.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Let's say you wanted to use Bluetooth to talk to an iPod or an iPad. You'd think you could just buy a Bluetooth module from, say, Roving Networks - say, the RN-42, and then connect it to your PIC/Arduino and start sending Hello World, right?
WRONG!
Apple has not only extended Bluetooth to require a special iAP authentication chip, but they have a special licensing program called MFi.
Okay, you say, so maybe this is like USB, you pay a few grand and get a VID and then go about your business.
WRONG!
The requirements surrounding MFi are ridiculous. For example, Apple will run a credit check on your company. If you are not a high-volume manufacturing company, then you're stuck with only the development license, and you will have to outsource your manufacturing. A development license is required even if you want to design an in-house app. Hobbyists need not apply - you cannot even get the development license if you want to design something for personal use. Oh, and you need to sign an NDA before they will tell you the royalty rates.
:(){
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space
Exactly. If I want to run Microsoft Office on FreeBSD on the new MacBookPro, it's hassle free. Everything just works.
It's a horrible idea. The amount of power wasted just emitting it out into the air, especially at distance.
The idea is great. Who does NOT want a keyboard and mouse that you don't need to attach with wires or replace batteries in?
You seem to be concerned with power wasted, but you are missing the broader point of thinking up good ideas and then figuring out how to make them practical. One possibly is that it's issuing a very low amount of power, not nearly enough to charge a phone - but enough to let a keyboard/mouse transmit.
You need to learn to separate how truly good an idea is from the technology of the moment that could make it happen but may have flaws.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The innovative part of the claim is actually to have the computer send power to a one device then have that device in turn send some of that power to one or more other devices.
The main benefit is that you can support multiple wireless devices and only one of them needs to be within range of the main charger.
I know what Harmonics are I know what Resonance is, but I don't understand the term "Harmonic Resonance".
I'll bet that you don't either.
Likewise the term "resonating and amplifying". Resonance doesn't Amplify. Only Amplifiers Amplify.
You come across as just another Tesla fan boy. Scientifically Illiterate.
Yep. You're correct that someone will always crack the DRM. Restrictions like these mar the beauty of digital information though. Just because someone makes a way to break DRM, doesn't make DRM less evil. A lot of people use that to justify not caring about it - since it won't affect them. You shouldn't have to de-DRM things you buy. Not having DRM would count as beautiful.
That's how it works - more or less - in the PC space
Exactly. If I want to run Microsoft Office on FreeBSD on the new MacBookPro, it's hassle free. Everything just works.
Actually, I believe you're trolling. The bit you quoted from was not claiming that it was "hassle free" nor that "everything just works". It was merely claiming that it is possible to do it. And given your example, I'd say it is possible to do just that:
"On FreeBSD/i386 8.0 and later Wine should work for most user applications including Microsoft Office 2007" http://wiki.freebsd.org/Wine
So let's compare the PC space to the phone/tablet space again...
Can Microsoft make Office for Mac and sell it on their own website? sure, no doubt they already do.
Can Microsoft make Office for iOS and sell it on their own website? well, they could, but no one would be able to install it.
Can Microsoft make Office for Android and sell it on their own website? sure, no problem, so long as the customer's Android build supports side-loading (which it will unless the software provider specifically disabled it).
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.