Apple sues 'HyperMac' accessory maker over MagSafe, iPod cables

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 172
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    Where am I wrong? I'd like to learn.



    Like I said, it's impossible to be concise. Type this into Google, and poke around:



    "reconstruct patented products"



    You will find discussions, examples of court rulings, etc, that support and reject either of our positions. We could probably find lawyers that could present great arguments for either side. You seem to be wrong in your generality stance, i.e. using the words "modify whenever and however I want", and I appear to be wrong in my inflexibility.



    Thompson
  • Reply 162 of 172
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Like I said, it's impossible to be concise. Type this into Google, and poke around:



    "reconstruct patented products"



    You will find discussions, examples of court rulings, etc, that support and reject either of our positions. We could probably find lawyers that could present great arguments for either side. You seem to be wrong in your generality stance, i.e. using the words "modify whenever and however I want", and I appear to be wrong in my inflexibility.



    Thompson



    Thanks. I've started looking, and have found some interesting articles already.
  • Reply 163 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    Got any support for that contention?



    I think that you can reuse parts from wrecked cars without obtaining any license. I think that you can sell a used car which includes non-oem salvaged parts. I am aware of no impediments to that at all.



    Is it the trademark issues which concern you? That the seller here is "saying you can replace the stock struts"?



    Using a big block Chevy engine in a car not designed for it was a popular thing to do in the 1970's. Many of those cars were sold, and the seller most likely bragged about using the engine in the car. And I am unaware of any legal impediments to doing exactly the same sort of thing you describe.



    Got any support for your contention?



    Only about 100 years of case law. And those small block (350), not big block, Chevy engines we purchased directly from Chevrolet by the specialty builders specifically for the task. The Panterra and DeLorean come immediately to mind. Kit cars primarily come san-engine for exactly this reason. Your bad example crumbles under it's own ignorance because those Chevy purchased engines were licensed specifically for their end installation.



    Got any proof you aren't a troll who not so cunningly attempts to use misdirection and willful ignorance to make ridiculous comments?
  • Reply 164 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DarkVader View Post


    Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on with the MagSafe issue here.



    And I can't believe anyone here is truly stupid enough to think otherwise.



    You see, when you have a patent on something, you can restrict who manufactures something. And you can restrict who sells it - THE FIRST TIME.



    But HyperMac is buying the connectors either directly from Apple, or after they've already been purchased from Apple by someone else. The first sale has already happened. And the first sale is all that Apple gets to legally control.



    And if you want to use the Honda example, I can't build a clone of a Honda car. But I can buy a Honda car, disassemble it, and use the parts to build a new car. I can then sell that car, and because it's then true, I can tell you I've made it from Honda parts. And there's nothing Honda can do about it.



    If what some of you were claiming is true, it would be illegal to sell your used computer when you're done with it. Ebay would be illegal. Used car dealers wouldn't be in business. Think, people. What Apple is trying to do with MagSafe here is beyond stupid.



    No, you are incorrect. End users would have that right, but not commercial entities.



    Your other examples all miss because they are not examples of a business doing commercial remanufacturing using a legally protected component as an attempt to circumvent a patent.
  • Reply 165 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Ah, but when you modify said car, are you introducing components that are patented (and which you have not received a license for)?



    Do Hot Rod and Custom Shops use unlicensed patented components in their modifications? Does Carroll Shelby?



    Do you have any support for why these are even analogous to the current discussion?



    Thompson



    Carroll Shelby is a licensed specialty house. Everything he does is fully blessed by the parent company he cross-licenses with.



    Aftermarket Custom shops don't build on spec and sell their built cars commercially. They provide a service to an individual who owns the car and wants to have their own personal car modded. Very legal because the car's owner is not having the mod done for commercial reselling, but for personal use. So these situation are not relevant to the HyperMac discussions in any way.
  • Reply 166 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    Are you under the impression that you must receive a license in order to use a patented invention after you purchase it?



    This premise is begging your question. It is the area in dispute.



    And if you think about it for a moment, you will realize that reselling patented objects is not illegal.



    If the use is for commercial resale, yes. This is why component dealers actually sell their components, even when they are patented components. The explicit direct sale to another commercial entity as an OEM is an explicit permission to use those patented components in a derived work.



    There is no dispute, just your gap in business knowledge.
  • Reply 167 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Newtron View Post


    Where am I wrong? I'd like to learn.



    Then pay attention. This whole thread is full of digested knowledge which you have chosen to ignore to this point.
  • Reply 168 of 172
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Dfiler,



    Patents are not permanently set in stone. There is a mechanism in place that can (and has) rejected them after-the-fact. The mechanism is the very system that Apple is employing, so what's the big deal?



    In my mind, there are two opportunities to apply the consideration you seek: (1) the patent approval process, and (2) in courts later. In this case, we are already past the first opportunity. If you feel strongly about it, then you should see this case as a GOOD thing. Without it, nobody will ever question the patent, and too few vendors will do what HyperMac had the cojones to do.





    Thompson



    Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the case is a GOOD thing. But you have a point that it may result in overturning a patent that I disagree with. However I still consider it immoral in that Apple is suing because somebody soldered something onto a plug. This is rather typical behavior by corporations so it isn't like i'm singling Apple out. They just happen to be the example we're discussing here.
  • Reply 169 of 172
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the case is a GOOD thing. But you have a point that it may result in overturning a patent that I disagree with. However I still consider it immoral in that Apple is suing because somebody soldered something onto a plug. This is rather typical behavior by corporations so it isn't like i'm singling Apple out. They just happen to be the example we're discussing here.



    If the somebody was an end user I would agree with you, but for a business to do it with the express intent to resell it, I don't.
  • Reply 170 of 172

    Well, after one hour spent reading all the previous posts, I try to add my knowledge about why Apple is not happy for unauthorized usage of their Magsafe connectors.

    The point is that Apple is not selling these spare connectors as OEM components. It is unclear where Hypermac purchases the "original Apple Magasafe connectors", as Apple has no product line for them.

    I know, because I wanted to buy some of these connectors for a project here at the Parma University lab, and I was answered by the Apple Store that the only way to get these connectors is to buy a whole power supply and cut the chord...

    And definitely this is not what Hypermac is doing... This would make their products much more expensive than what they are...

    They probably have found a way to purchase the connectors from the Chinese factory who manufactures them for Apple, or through some other trick. But the purchase was not authorized by Apple: till now they refused to sell these connectors as OEM parts to everyone.

    So this is the infringement, as these connectors are probably stolen, or purchased through a  backdoor of the official Apple supply chain.

    If there was a legal and official way for purchasing the magsafe connectors, there would be no case. As a Magsafe power connector is definitely something designed to be connected in between of a power source and a Macbook, in the moment you sell such connectors, you cannot later complain for them being used exactly for the purpose they were built for.

    But Apple does not sell them, so Apple complains because Hypermac found the way to get these connectors illegally.

    Patent law is not so relevant here, that's only a venial civil infringement, just matter of money for royalties. Here we see a true crime, as, without a crime, I do not see how the hell Hypermac gets these connectors.

  • Reply 171 of 172
    macslutmacslut Posts: 514member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by angelofarina View Post

     

    But Apple does not sell them, so Apple complains because Hypermac found the way to get these connectors illegally.

    Patent law is not so relevant here, that's only a venial civil infringement, just matter of money for royalties. Here we see a true crime, as, without a crime, I do not see how the hell Hypermac gets these connectors.


     

    Actually, just the opposite.  It's not a criminal law that applies (or "true crime") from illegal activity, but rather patent law that applies here.  The connector isn't rocket science; it's extremely easy to replicate and there are plenty of manufacturers with the ability to do so.  However, in cloning the connector, they're violating a patent that Apple owns on the connector. 

     

    Apple could have licensed the connector to Hypermac or offered batteries themselves, but unfortunately, they continued to refuse to license to anyone who could provide longer-lasting options for MacBooks.

  • Reply 172 of 172

    Macslut, what you say is true, if Hypermac was manufacturing its own Magsafe connector.

    But on their web site, they claim to be not violating Apple's patent, because they are not manufacturing the patented components, they are purchasing them from Apple (although they do not explain through which channel).

    Which, in my knowledge, cannot be true.

    Or, at least, Apple refused to sell the same components to my University, and we were told that Magsafe connectors can be lawfully purchased only buying a complete Magsafe power adaptor....

    Now, I do not have insider's knowledge about the origin of the Magsafe components employed by Hypermac.

    But only two cases are possible:

    1) They really purchase them from Apple factories, through some sort of unauthorized backdoor.  In this case their claim is true, but there is something illegal, or at least unauthorized, in the purchasing channel, which made Apple to react.

    2) They actually manufacture the connector themselves, or by means of some subsidiary, in which case you are right, they are violating the Apple's patent. But, as I did explain, this would be just a minor, civil infringement, something which does not involve jail.

    In this case, the severe penal crime is the false declaration on their web site. It depends on the country, but such a false statement is a major penal crime in most juridical environments. Here in Italy, for example, such a false statement is a crime which can cause up to 3  years in jail!

Sign In or Register to comment.