Apple Believes It Invented Wireless Charging, Patents Idea

[halcyon]

The same types of articles. The same types of comments (mine included). He baits us...we come.

 

[jonathan1683]

They have the technology it's not something stolen who wants to put their phone on a pad when it can we done a meter away, of course they would patent it if they created it. Don't know why you guys are upset about it. I am sure the pad charger is patented, but that's ok right?

 

[faust_67]

Apple can patent a SPECIFIC and NEW way to wirelessly charge a device, but they cannot patent the idea of wireless charge (idea that as many pointed out was developed way before Apple even existed, and have successfully been implemented by various companies)

 

[holyknight1121]

Soon all your wireless charging products will cost 2x more, yup. They are just in this for more money and monopolization. Nothing good can come from all this patent gain.

 

[mousseng]

Yeah dude, we get it. Its the sole fact that they patent the idea and not blueprints/schematics of such a devices the part that bothers us. If it was that way, heck, I can think of something 'futuristic' patent it, and voilà. Apple probably has little info on the technical issues involved, when they are only 'in the works' of that development. And yet they file the idea, with NO major background on HOW to do it.

I won't pretend to understand it (or have even read it), but the article contains a link to the patent itself (for ease of access), and that looks quite technical and specific, and as such demonstrates an understanding of it. In fact, there's even a section in the document titled "Background."

Apple can patent a SPECIFIC and NEW way to wirelessly charge a device, but they cannot patent the idea of wireless charge (idea that as many pointed out was developed way before Apple even existed, and have successfully been implemented by various companies)

See above; it actually does appear to be a specific method, and not the idea.

The same types of articles. The same types of comments (mine included). He baits us...we come.

For as much heat as Zak gets, he's probably the most successful news writer at Tom's.

 

[Guest]

I really hate saying this (since I do enjoy Samsung products, and really do hate Apple), but they aren't patenting wireless charging, and the headline really is very misleading in that sense.
They are patenting a way of wireless charging multiple devices, but in a rather strange way.
To put it into laymen's terms, say you have a multilayer cake of 3 layers. The bottom layer would be the actual charger. The middle layer would be device #1. The top layer would be device #2.
They are patenting a way to charge device #1, and then use part of the charging that went into device #1 to wirelessly charge device #2.
It's different, but based on the same idea behind normal wireless charging. What I really think is the problem, is that they wouldn't pay any royalties to anyone who had the base idea behind wireless charging (which I think is stupid, they should).
Anyway, that's the quick and easy way to explain the patent. Has this been patented before? I kind of doubt it (as far as multiple devices are concerned). But in regards to the wireless charging, this has been done many times over before.

 

[shqtth]

Tesla invented wireless electricity to power remote devices long long time ago, so i fail to see how anyone can patent his ideas.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]tmshdw[/nom]The article title and text is misleading and just about all the commentor dufus heads are falling for it, as usual. If anyone were to read the patent, it pretains to a specific implementation using magentic ressonance. A specific instance and application of a technology is legitimately patentable.[/citation]
The thing is that Nikola Tesla method uses magnetic resonance.

 

[Guest]

i've been using wireless charging on my Nintendo Wii controllers before 2010 ... steal idea, patent it and sue the innovators, and get $1 Billion reward - good business, same as being a corrupt politician or robbing a bank, but this is safer

 

[olaf]

apple should patent the bread ... it invented it after all ...

 

[thecolorblue]

[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]watch how the USPO approves the patent. I sure as hell wouldnt want that to happen, but sadly, USPO is the lead in Apple rimming.[/citation]
uspo = us post office
uspto = us patent and trademark office

 

[Cazalan]

This just shows how easy it is to bribe the USPO.

 

[Zingam_Duo]

Apple should patent the apple. So everybody who eats an apple should pay them royalties.

 

[leandrodafontoura]

Apple doesnt choose if it gets the patent or not, they simply apply for it. A higher power decides if Apple deserves the patent or not.

 

[jj463rd]

Nope Wireless power by the magnetic resonance principle was developed by Witricity first.
MIT is working on wireless powered roads to power electric vehicles.

 

[kommenteer]

I recently switch every Apple device I had out because I believe this behavior is unacceptable. Everyone else should do the same #capitalism.

As an added bonus, my laptop was 1/3 the price and better than a Macbook, and my Liumia 920 kicks ass. Hiyo.

 

[the_brute]

[citation][nom]house70[/nom]It doesn't matter. If Apple was a car manufacturer they would patent the wheel and sue the rest of the world for it.[/citation]
The wheel has already been patented to someone. But Im sure apple could change some words around and get it patent again and sue the orignal owner and win.

 

[the_brute]

[citation][nom]tmshdw[/nom]The article title and text is misleading and just about all the commentor dufus heads are falling for it, as usual. If anyone were to read the patent, it pretains to a specific implementation using magentic ressonance. A specific instance and application of a technology is legitimately patentable.[/citation]
Yes but they will get this patent and then sue Qualcomm, on some gray area. Then they will win and claim some massive amount of money and resue with every update Qualcomm does in its technology.

 

[beayn]

We should have the term "Patent" changed to "Apple" with regards to trivial or stolen ideas getting patented. So if you've got a stolen idea? Apple it. Got a circle or square you want to sue people for using? Apple it.

 

[yannigr]

Wireless here, wireless there, we are changing our houses into radiography laboratories. All these are safe of course and I am a moron to worry anyway.

 

[freggo]

Late 1970... bought an electric toothbrush from AEG with wireless charging.
The thing lasted for over 25 years. Talk about reliable technology.

and now Apple wants to patent the idea?

Seriously, the problem is NOT Apple, but an obviously incompetent and corrupt US patent system.

 

[nameon]

FUCK APPLE!!!

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]geraldfryjr[/nom]Electric Tooth Brush's where among the First to sport wireless charging !!!!It is not a knew concept as all !!! jer[/citation]

Its about distance, ie. no direct contact with the wireless charging station is required.
That's what Apple is saying is unique, not sure if it is or not, but compare Apples to Apples in your example (no pun intended)

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Late 1970... bought an electric toothbrush from AEG with wireless charging.The thing lasted for over 25 years. Talk about reliable technology.and now Apple wants to patent the idea?Seriously, the problem is NOT Apple, but an obviously incompetent and corrupt US patent system.[/citation]

Did that have charging at a distance from the wireless charging station?

 

[wemakeourfuture]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]Nope Wireless power by the magnetic resonance principle was developed by Witricity first.MIT is working on wireless powered roads to power electric vehicles.[/citation]

And universities all over the world worked on OLEDs and other display technologies that Samsung, LG and Sharp have patented, so what's your point?