The USPTO
How does it work?
Apple has filed a sweeping patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for a "magnetic attachment mechanism" that allows two electronic components to be attached to one another to "augment the functionality of usefulness" of the primary electronic device. Examples of devices that could be magnetically attached …
I have a Tom Tom Go 600, it is seated and held in place on its car mount by a magnet. This allows the unit to be removed without having to remove the sucker pad off the windscreen, or in my case where it is attached to a Brodit mount.
Oh DID I say it was held in place by a strong magnet? I did.
So how can Apple patent this?
Because, Apple are patenting being able to stick the tomtom directly to the car, what you described has a third item between the two. And of course, the tomtom is the accessory, and the car is what it's being stuck to. The car is not a mobile device (it is, but it's not) while the ipad is. Therefore completely different patents.
It's still a daft patent, I mean honestly, it's magnets. "Yeah we took two things that naturally do something, and put them together. Give us money!"
I always liked the idea of having it so your GPS would link to your cars speedometer, and then feedback whether you're going above the speed limit. Perhaps in a future of electric cars having it so that it automatically caps your top speed to 5mp above the speed limit. At least it would kind've eliminate some of the stupidity you see on the road, even if a lot of drivers would hate it.
@wowfood
I always liked the idea of having it so your GPS would link to your cars speedometer, and then feedback whether you're going above the speed limit
I had a GPS app on my phone for navigation, and it would do exactly that.
it's SO annoying - constantly pinging, especially on the motorway when I was in fast moving traffic that every 5 minutes would be changing from going 65mph then up to 85mph, then down to 75mph then up to 80mph then up to 90mph, then down to 50mph etc etc
so in the end i switched off the speed limit alert. i'm not sure that was the intended end result when they implemented that feature
@wowfood
What you are suggesting is just downright dangerous.
While most people seem to think that the brake is your safety device, there are times (just occasionally) when your accelerator is the most appropriate safety device, as I have experienced myself on a wet motorway in a borrowed car, when a car (a Porche as it happens) 100 metres in front without warning, turned right into the central armco barrier, then started slowly moving backwards towards the near side, by which time I had no wish to test out my brakes and tyres on a wet motorway so I dropped down a gear and accelerated - hard!
I think I missed him by mere inches but if I had attempted to use my brakes I would have probably have t-boned his driver's door.
Now I have no idea what my top speed might have got to during the manoeuvre but I certainly wouldn't want some clown trying to limit my top speed in those circumstances.
Would you have wanted to use that moment to see if the car you were driving was equipped with ABS?
What about Android devices that know they have been docked into a car holder, switching to "car mode", based on sensing a magnet in the right position in the dock? Let's extend this - if the device and car use Bluetooth for Media playing and the device attaches to the car using a (partially) magnetic dock that, as a side effect notifies the device it is in car mode, automatically enabling Bluetooth, does that constitute prior art?
I hate the apparent failure to engage any sort of intelligent thought within the US Patent Office prior to the rubber stamping of applications from any US company... twats.
My HTC Advantage (released before the iphone) looks exactly like the ipad/keyboard. It connected magnetically, holding the phone part at a comfortable angle, keystrokes were transmitted via contacts on the two. When not in use it acted as magnetically attached screen protector. The only difference is that the cover had a Perspex window that showed on screen notifications (the phone knew when the cover was in use)
I can't see how HTCs superior device is not prior art.
It's very simple
- US Patent Office grants obvious/ridiculous patent to a US Company.
- US Company enforces said patent world wide ensuring US interests are protected and non-US company cannot secure it for themselves.
- US Company collects worldwide patent licence fee.
- US Company pays(in theory) tax on profit from patent to US Government.
- US maintains signficiant worldwide IP control and secures profit flow into the US.
So its all about both control and profit.
Suddenly it all becomes clear
> It's very simple
It is even simpler:
> - US Patent Office grants obvious/ridiculous patent to a US Company.
- USPTO collect application fees and renewals.
- Patent is challenged as being obvious and/or prior art.
- USPTO collects patent review fees.
The USPTO neither knows nor cares about how companies sue each other, collect licence fees, or whatever.
US Patent Office grants obvious/ridiculous patent to a US Company.
The patent office is an equal opportunity grantor of obvious/ridiculous patents. Can you point to cases where they've denied obvious/ridiculous patents on a repeated basis to non-US companies?
US Company enforces said patent world wide ensuring US interests are protected and non-US company cannot secure it for themselves.
Having a US patent does not allow the company to assert its patent worldwide. That's why they have patent offices in other countries. Having a US patent that's filed before the date of a competing patent filed elsewhere gives it precedence, but the reverse is also true (at least for countries the US has a patent treaty with, which is most of the important ones)
Work rules:
Evaluate examiners on applications completed, keeping mindful that denying an application will likely lead to refiling with amendments, possibly many times. Of course, the application is incomplete until either the patent is granted or the applicant exhausts all options for amending it, something that might take years. An examiner who acts deliberately will act less quickly, receive a lower appraisal rating, be less likely to receive awards, pay raises, and promotions, and in the end, more likely to seek more rewarding and remunerative employment elsewhere. One who completes applications quickly after cursory review to ensure proper spelling and grammar will receive outstanding appraisals, performance awards, pay raises, and promotions. The "best" eventually will fill the top level executive positions. The USPTO is a bureaucracy, and Imhoff's Law applies.
Didn't you know Jobs invented magnetism before he died? So it's only natural that Apple should get the patent. Screw all those people who claimed to have something to do with it - Ampère, Coulomb, Faraday, Gauss, Heaviside, Henry, Hertz, Lorentz, Maxwell, Tesla, Volta, Weber, Ørsted - they had no clue.
Check the patent date, January 2012, months before the Surface was announced. Apple and Microsoft have a patent cross licensing deal in place so I doubt there will be any problems there.
The other Apple item, on which this seems to be based, is the MagSafe power connector which dates back to 2006. Prior art doesn't seem to be as easy to find as you think.
"How is a book prior art". I agree, the written documents in the patent files cannot be considered "first", they should MAKE a device. ;)
On a serious note, it's the first idea, if in written form or not, that usually constitutes prior art I guess. If Apple wish to patent a specific mechanism, clip and latch then fine. If they wish to patent "any device with magnets that connects and uses communication" then they can get lost.
"HOW THE FLYING F**k IS A BOOK PRIOR ART!!"
If it isn't prior art, it certainly drives a coach and horses through "non-obvious". Historically, a published description of an idea has always been something that would invalidate a patent. Even today, I think most lawyers would advise you to file the patent application *before* submitting that paper to Nature.
Yes the Apple MagSafe power adaptor was an example of a very good hardware invention and has saved many a MacBook getting dragged to the floor. The iPad Smart Cover was also excellent, and this is a continuation of that work, filed before the MS Surface was released and filed during the period when the initial Smart Cover patent application was still secret. The initial filing is kept secret precisely so such continuations can be worked on.
The Reg's interpretation of the first independent claim is also wrong. All clauses if the independent claims need to be read like a logical AND. So the claim isn't just for two magnetically attached devices communicating with each other, but where each device is also actuated based on the moment of attachment (e.g. Wakes up, comes out of standby etc.). The Register just like to moan about anything with Apple and patent in the title.
Patented inventions are always small steps on from the state of the art. It is the easiest thing to claim a patent is obvious after the fact. The black and Decker Workmate, one of the best Everyman patents ever filed also seemed obvious after the fact (a table top combined with a clamp). In recognition of this the hardest criterion on which to get a patent overturned, is obviousness.
The judge said that although it was obvious in hind sight, looking at a delicate piece of laboratory equipment like a Dewar flask and thinking "That could be made robust and portable enough to take on a picnic" was not obvious before the patent. The judge included a picture of a Dewar flask to underline his point. In the background of the picture was a small, robust Dewar flask that the lab technician had assembled to show off to friends and family at picnics.
The ideas comes early and often, but do not instantly become reality. In this case it was because rare earth magnets were not always so cheap. Apple can often beat competitors to market because Apple's customers are willing to pay more.
What really narks me is that adding "on a mobile device" to any existing invention seems to make it unique enough to repatent.
What does it matter, if the device is mobile or not? If I connect a peripheral to a desktop PC, a laptop, a tablet or a smartphone and it can communicate with said host, what makes it connecting to a tablet unique over a laptop or a desktop?
So many of the patents I see coming up are not only obvious, but were common practice when I started programming in the early 80s, only we had mainframes and micros at the time. One I read was for a menu list on a mobile device. How is that unique or obvious, how is having that same menu list taken from a 15" monitor and displaying it on a 4" display making "displaying a menu list" unique?!?!?!
"the iPad Smart Cover was also excellent"
You obviously have never used one of those shitty magnetic iPad Smart Covers. Because if you did, you would've noticed that:
1. offers zero protection for your shiny, at least not much more than a film screen protector
2. they come off all the time, so if you happen not to be holding the case and your shiny at the same time, your shiny will fall to the floor unprotected (see 1.)
3. they don't even work well as a stand, and hold your shiny in a way that it becomes too top heavy and fall over
But, it's awesome for Apple. Because of all the above, lots of new shinies can be sold to replace the the broken ones.
I like the idea of activated magnets. Maybe they really invented some kind of switchable permanent magnet -- that would be cool! It would also be very very improbable, but who knows what those lawyers came up with!
I am a little disappointed with the limitation to i-things with "a first side, [and] a second side opposite the first side". Does this mean that any type of Moebius object will circumvent this patent? Let me then be the first to suggest a magnetically attached galaxy device with a single side parallel _and_ opposite to the first side and all the required magnets to hold it to another galaxy device, blablabla. I described it first, no one can patent that now (you're welcome, unnamed producer of galaxy devices).
Electromagnet have the tiny disadvantage that they eat electricity. I am not aware of any portable device (portable as 'in my pocket') using an electromagnet. To get to the magnetic field strength trivially available with a permanent magnet, you need some serious power. Unless you got some superconductor at hand and then you have to think about liquid nitrogen cooling.
It's not just anyone that's allowed to wield the power of such expressions.
There are extended periods of structured knowledge reception, followed by formal evidencing of your acquired skillset, before you are allowed to publish on a open platform this level of corporate bovine waste product.
This totally fell down the bonkers tree and hit every branch on the way down.
How long before Apple patents the use of feet in conjunction with two eyes for the purpose of transportation of organic entities from one place to another having used two eyes to identify the destination and estimate the distance to that destination?
"Cue ranters moaning that Apple would have patented gravity if Newton hadn't created prior art. Very therapeutic but it might be a good idea if the ranters RTFA once their arteries return to normal diameter."
Oh your sooooo clever sir, any other nuggets of wisdom?
I wish to design a two part device held together by magnetic force. Each part to be in the shape of a Mobius strip.
Which as all you amateur topologists will know only has one side and one edge therefore dodging the Apples innovation (?? Ed) patent completely.
(I'm working on the Klein bottle variant but I'm a little short of dimensions..)
Your DVD drive has magnetic clips, but connects to the NT330i via a regular USB cable. It doesn't care if the DVD drive is clipped to it or not. To count as prior art clipping the DVD to the base unit (without ANY other connection) would have to cause both units to wake up and data to be transferred from the DVD to the system unit.
Your saying you cannot make a device wakeup with such a setup? Or that wakeup on connection is patentable?
Or that magnets can have a patent on them?
Oh, but if I glue magnets to a cable, then cause the device to wakeup it is a new invention?
Devices have had magnets and detected cables for decades.
No, I'm saying that the Apple patent application covers a magnetic catch that (1) self aligns and precisely connects, (2) automatically detects when it is connected and (3) without any additional connection communicates between the two active parts (either through electrical connections included in the catch or wirelessly). Item (2) can cause the devices to wake.
The Foxconn device fails to meet the above requirements in all three regards as far as I can see. There's no keyed alignment, there's no detection that the DVD drive has clipped to the system unit and it requires manual connection to start communicating.
Now if you can find an example of something that does all three of those things prior to January 2012 then you might have a case ...
"The Foxconn device fails to meet the above requirements in all three regards as far as I can see. There's no keyed alignment, "
"(1) self aligns and precisely connects"
Actually it does self align - that's the beauty of using magnets (and it is keyed - if you count keeping the long sides matching up)...
That said the magnetic attachment doesn't trigger anything in itself. So fair play.
No. The HTC does not turn on a video game or GPS map when you plug it in with the magnetic connectivity keyboard.
You see the very cleaver people at Apple have invented and thus applied for a patent for "a device using magnets to secure a device and subsequently applying a pre-specified action", thus superseding in a non-incremental non-obvious step.
Next they are patenting "two devices that communicate between each other while in a format of easy transportation through the transmission of energy from stored resources" but adding the important factor of "while on a planetoid". As I'm certain no one has patented that specific example just yet.
/sarcasm
Yes. Perhaps Reg should ask for comments from the Patent office and Apple?
For reference:
http://sci-toys.com/my_toys/2007/09/cube-world.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radica_Games
Increasing the strength of the magnet and the functionality of the toy/device is obvious, right?
I'm waiting for the news that Apple has been awarded a patent for "submitting written words via an electromagnetic or carbon-based communication channel to the US Patent Office for the purposes of obtaining a patent, where the words cause the US Patent Office to issue a corresponding patent".
I have a toy my kids left behind when they grew up and moved out. One of them now with an 8 year old kid of his own.
It comprises of a base upon which the model Vegeeta stands, the feet being held by magnets in the base. The magnets and metal slugs in the models feet, are used to provide power to a yellow LED in the head of the model. When you push the button on the base, the electronics within the base make the appropriate noises, and power up the LED in the model in harmony with the sound effects.
Magnets to hold the two electronic units together in correct alignment? - Check!
The magnets allow the two electronic units interact? - Check!
Year of manufacture 2002.
I'd claim that as over 11 years of prior art, not to mention patently obvious.
.... because people needs to augment a table functionalities for any productive tasks.
Look as there are more and more BT stylus being developed to add iPads digitizer-like features. I'm sure the next "big new feature" for the iPad will be a Wacom digitizer...
Never mind all the Prior Art arguments.
What happened to the rule that you can't Patent the Laws of Physics?
Magnetism is fundamental to the way the Universe works.
That alone should get this application laughed out the door.
But, hey, Apple Owns Congress, so "What Apple Wants, Apple Gets."
You say "After all, the USPTO is a bit of a black box – pop something into it, and you never really know what will come out the other end."
Surely the point of a Black Box is that you generally DO know what th eoutput will be for a given input, you just don't know exactly one leads to the other.
None of which advances the argument one iota and probably has equal numbers of people saying "he's right, you know" and "What an idiot". So I think that's a perfect internet posting.