Apple Files Patent For Fuel Cell Laptops 215
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."
Dichotomy (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 batte
danger, Will Robinson ! (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it enough that Apple products are already prone to fires and explosions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A fuel cell running that long is likely a based on a solid and oxygen and not on a liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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. ... I looked a bit around 1kg H2 holds roughly 50kWh of energy.
However I doubt yuo can store somewhere in a notebook enough hydrogen to power a laptop for a week or longer.
Hm
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
Recharge? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it (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 [pcworld.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
So if Toshiba Says that the "hydrogen" fuel cell is only for Toshiba laptops then thats a whole new patent?
Re:Not just talked about, Toshiba demonstrated it (Score:4, 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: (Score:3)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, 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 cell
They should file lawsuits already, too . . . (Score:3)
. . . 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.
Prior Art ... (Score:2)
I could swear I saw reports of companies building experimental Notebook fuel cells years ago ...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [tomshardware.com] (2008)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/29/lg_chem_fuel_cell/ [theregister.co.uk] (2005)
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1008_3-1022130.html [cnet.com] (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
imagine a beowulf clus... (Score:3)
oh wait, apple patented the beowulf cluster.
Seriously? (Score:2)
One of the worst non-stories I've seen in a while...
It's a discrete system (Score:2)
previous and next patents.. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [slashdot.org]
Try to be a little more observant before trolling, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
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 inappr
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Smart move (Score:2)
If a patent troll had gotten hold of this patent they would have... oh wait.
Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple sure does like to patent stuff they didn't invent.
Toshiba already did it! (Score:2)
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:Surely (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.
Re:Surely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely (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: (Score:2, 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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surely (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 [gizmag.com] and as far as I remember it was not the first one.
Re:Surely (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Surely (Score:4, Informative)
Double post but this one [wired.com] 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is the new Microsoft.
LOL! You may be correct. Bill must be pretty pissed at Balmer.
Apple is not the new Microsoft (Score:2)
They still need to pass though the ritual where you backstab everybody that once cooperated with you.
But they are advancing, and fast.
Re: (Score:2)
"a working implementation" is not equal to the same thing.
Re:Surely (Score:4, 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Surely (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Surely it's already done (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Surely it's already done (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Surely it's already done (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.
I tried patenting that, they said I had to prove that it could be done. So that's what I'm working on now.
That's not how patents work or why they exist (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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Surely it's already done (Score:5, Funny)
Better than that it has already been done http://www.gizmag.com/go/5325/ [gizmag.com] . 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go Apple! Now fuel cells will be viable in 20yrs (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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 amon
Re: (Score:2)
I think it means another 20 years of patent wars. And after 20 years, companies can finally deploy these cells.
Re:Surely (Score:5, 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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. Th
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There has been quite a lot of prototype and working versions, but not by apple..
Re:Patent the future (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Patent the future (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well that hasn't stopped others from trying fuel cells in various devices like cameras [engadget.com], naturally followed immediately by some company patenting the implementation. [photographybay.com]
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [wired.com]
Of course this is a sad little foot-segway compared to the sweet foot-R6 I had in mind.
Re:Post jobs world may be positive (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I though it was pretty clear he was going after the lolz of this one!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they do [uspto.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget to cite the Apple patents. Sounds like they are interested in screwing customers too.