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.'"

40 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Worlds Gone Mad by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Leinad177 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"

    2. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your point being?

    3. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It really doesn't matter if it's been invented before or whether it's original or in fact even an invention at all. Indeed none of the rules that should apply to patents actually apply to patents.
      All that matters is that the overworked patent-checking drone at the patent office puts hit stamp of approval on it and you're ready to retroactively sue anybody into a settlement deal.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by bjwest · · Score: 3, Funny

      So this never happened because "the alliance" had yet to be established?

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    5. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great. With a bit of luck my new pending patent "Wheel" is on the way to be approved.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    6. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by pbjones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      worked for MS, should work for Apple.

      --
      There was an unknown error in the submission.
    7. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by sFurbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      That could work, though having a patent as prior art might make it easy enough top find that even a patent clerk can.

    8. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that there are wireless standards doesn't mean no-one can come up with a new way of doing this, and subsequently patenting it. Also they do not patent "wireless charging" which, in itself, would be hard to patent - they patent a method of wireless charging using some magnetic coupling trick. And they claim they have a new way of doing this, and as such it may very well be innovative and patentable.

      But well, like the summary and your outright uninformed comment the rest of the discussion here will be "patent troll hurr hurr". The first few comments that I see here are already like that, predicably.

      I skimmed through the patent text, can't tell what is new and what is old. That part would require quite some deeper study, and requires understanding of the whole field. Sensationalism like from El Reg and copied by Slashdot is simply stupid. If you have read and understand the patent, and there is nothing in it that was not invented yet at the application date, please come back and let me know exactly why the patent is faulty. Please also send the same comments to the patent office, so this application may be rejected.

    9. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by subreality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but patents are for methods, not ideas. I don't know if this patent is a legitimately a new method for wireless charging, but it doesn't matter if other techniques already exist.

    10. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Dupple · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really doesn't matter when the application was made. It still hasn't been granted.

      WiPower got a patent on this stuff that's unpatentable back in 2008

      http://patft.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=8,169,185&OS=8,169,185&RS=8,169,185

      Surely there was enough prior art for that patent to be questionable as well

      --
      Watch those corners
    11. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by louic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Resonant wireless energy transfer was published in Science in 2007 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5834/83.abstract?sid=135a98e9-4946-4b04-ab80-9dab0d9b5bd3

    12. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by dimeglio · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it's a better wheel, I'm really excited but I've got a feeling you're being sarcastic.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    13. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by mrbester · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "That part would require quite some deeper study, and requires understanding of the whole field."

      Something the patent office never claims to have, even when presented with it. So this will get approved and the merry-go-round can start again.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    14. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great. With a bit of luck my new pending patent "Wheel" is on the way to be approved.

      Apple has the patent, it's called the continuous rounded unicorner.

    15. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You forgot to include "for mobile devices". That's why their claim is valid.

    16. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great. With a bit of luck my new pending patent "Wheel" is on the way to be approved.

      call it the iWheel and make it look all hip and trendy and you might have a chance there.

      Just not too hip and trendy or Apple might whine about it and sue you.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    17. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by nyctopterus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that Apple is a patent troll [...]

      No, Apple is a patent bully. They make products, or intend to make products, that utilise their patents. They also make that vast majority of their money on actual products, not litigation. Neither of these things is consistent with a patent troll.

    18. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      How are they going to sue Nikola Tesla? Cad of a man, inventing the whole damned concept 100 years ago.

    19. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by l3v1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      - U.S. Patent 0,685,954 - Method of Utilizing Effects Transmitted through Natural Media - 1899 August 1
      - U.S. Patent 0,685,953 - Apparatus for Utilizing Effects Transmitted from a Distance to a Receiving Device through Natural Media - 1899 June 24
      and so on and so forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikola_Tesla_patents)

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    20. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure there are lots of patents on wheels. With a little bit of thought, you could probably come up with a lot of ways to make wheels perform better in certain situations, such as having more strength for less mass. Just a quick search yielded a bicycle wheel patented in 2002. But that's OK, with me, because its' a specific way of arranging the spokes, more precisely, with spokes from each side meeting at the same place on the rim. Anybody else is free to use the old method of arranging the spokes. That's also why I'm fine with this Apple wireless charging patent. It describes a specific method of charging devices wirelessly. None of the old methods infringe because they don't use the same method. Anything you, or I can come up with that improves on their method is also not in violation of the patent. Sure Apple has some stupid patents, but this isn't one of them.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are not trying to patent wireless charging, they are trying to patent a particular technology for doing so.

      This isn't even a software patent.. if it is legit then this is more in line with patents historically covered, physical implementable technological advancements.

    22. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The disparity between hundreds of dollars to apply for patents and millions to invalidate patents should tell you the system is designed to fuck over the little guy they claim to help protect.

      And in what way does this fix ("you want a patent? Great, the fee is $5 million, we take cash or bank check, no personal checks please!") not "fuck over the little guy"?

      The "little guy" doesn't have a few million dollars laying around to spend on ramming his patent application through. Your proposed "fix" would simply enshrine the notion that unless you're a big multinational with a billion dollar bankroll, you can't innovate, so don't even bother.

      While I agree that patents are probably too easily granted, your proposed solution doesn't really do much to foster innovation and open the field up to "the little guy." Every little guy without a giant bankroll will automatically be at a disadvantage.

    23. Re:Worlds Gone Mad by jakimfett · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nikola Tesla called, he wants his royalty check.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
  2. Re:Crystal Radio by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, he's the guy collecting the patent fees.

  3. Re:20120303980 Patents by worip · · Score: 4, Funny

    ?ew era, tfel ot thgir gnidaeR

    --
    A picture is worth exactly 1024 words.
  4. Why not just make microwavable devices . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!
  5. Re:120 years late? by michael_rendier · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Re:20120303980 Patents by bmo · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  7. Re:Crystal Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you ever filed a patent? Each individual claim MUST be novel (unique) and not be obvious.

    In this case, they slapped two aspects together in one claim, which I suppose does make that claim unique (combination of tuned energy coupling, and reverse comms channel by RF load). But is it non-obvious? Marconi himself observed that variations in the receiver could be observed at the transmitter, To any person versed in the field, this would qualify the combination of the two as 'obvious' and hence invalid.

    And yes, I have filed patents (but only in semiconductor physics), and I have built RF powered bidirectional comms devices. And I also 'discovered' that tuning the coils improved energy transfer. And I also detuned the receiver to communicate back to the transmitter. But did I file a patent on it? NO. Why not? Because there was nothing novel in what I did. (And believe me - the university's IP people would have definitely required that I file, if even one person at the department thought it was in any way patentable.

  8. Re:20120303980 Patents by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosystem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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/

  10. Re:Patent Troll by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

  11. Sensationalist FUD by El Reg by Kergan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosyst by docmordin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] by Dahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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!

      You're grossly overstating things. If you just want to "Hello World" with an iOS device (i.e., do standard things like OBEX or A2DP), you can just use Bluetooth-standard components and protocols. As Apple's documentation says, "Third-party accessories can use the iPod Accessory Protocol (iAP) to access advanced features of iOS devices. One such feature is the ability to communicate securely with third-party iOS applications via the iOS External Accessory Framework." (see page 21).

      So, as you can see, you only need to support iAP if you want to do Apple-specific things. You can easily empirically verify that standard BT features don't need iAP support by noting that you can pair a generic Bluetooth headset (including ones that predate the iPod Touch) with an iOS device, and it will work. You don't need to get a special "Made for iPhone" headset.

    2. Re:It gets worse! [Re:Fuck your ecosystem] by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My employer recently submitted a grant proposal about a device that could potentially connect to an iPod over Bluetooth, and one of the grant reviewers nailed us over MFi licensing. But even aside from that...

      From Roving Networks' website:

      "All products designed to connect to iPhone's, iPod's and iPad's including those that incorporate the Roving Bluetooth APL module must be registered and approved with Apple's Made for iPod (MFi) program."

      From Apples' website:

      "Developers who wish to develop electronic accessories for iPhone, iPad or iPod using licensed components and/or software should join the MFi Program. Companies, organizations, government entities and educational institutions are eligible to apply. Case developers, app developers and developers of accessories that only use standard technology (e.g., Bluetooth Low Energy or standard Bluetooth profiles supported by iOS) do not need to join the MFi Program."

      So while you are right that a standard Bluetooth profile (e.g. headset) doesn't require MFi licensing, which of these standard Bluetooth profiles would you use for your Hello World example?

      And just keep in mind that Android support requires NONE of this MFi shit. No special iAP authentication chip. No need to shoehorn yourself into a standard profile to avoid having Apple run a credit check on you. No onerous restrictions on hobbyists or small businesses which have no mass manufacturing capability.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  14. News-flash: Technician missing what users want. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3

    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
  15. Re:I Don't Want To Be Part of Your Fucking Ecosyst by djdanlib · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.