The patent was originally owned by Snap-On they mechanic tool company. They must have sold it to these patent trolls because they realize it was worthless. The issue the patent troll has is the fact Apple has been in the battery charging business since the 1980's they know more about charging batteries than most companies out their even the guys who actually make the batteries. Also switching from fast charge to slow charge is nothing new, it has been around since the 90's. The real knowhow comes down to knowing when best to do it and under what condition which the patent does not really get into the science behind this.
Now that I thought about this, Snap-on probably sold this and other patents to this company so they can freely sue companies like Apple. Standard defense in a patent sue it to counter sue with your own patents and force the other guy to go away of run the risk of loosing big time and having to pay licensing fees. In the case of Patent Troll who have no assets or product Apple does not have patent leverage against them. Now if Snap-on tried suing them you can image the battery patents that Apple has and could use against Snap-on.
Easy to circumvent claim 1 of this patent. It specifies a system that turns on/off AC power to the battery. I'll bet toggling from fast charge levels to trickle levels of power would accomplish the same objective, and would then not violate this claim because the power would not be switched on/off, but instead between higher and lower power levels. Next!
No, it won’t be that easy to circumvent.
I think you need to read the entire patent again cuz that’s not
what this patent is about.
This describes a method of a processor sending time variant
signals to the battery. Then the processor interprets the battery’s response to
determine the current health and charge of the battery. After the processor determines the state of
the battery, the processor then controls the charging circuit based on the
state of the battery.
Easy to circumvent claim 1 of this patent. It specifies a system that turns on/off AC power to the battery. I'll bet toggling from fast charge levels to trickle levels of power would accomplish the same objective, and would then not violate this claim because the power would not be switched on/off, but instead between higher and lower power levels. Next!
No, it won’t be that easy to circumvent.
I think you need to read the entire patent again cuz that’s not
what this patent is about.
This describes a method of a processor sending time variant
signals to the battery. Then the processor interprets the battery’s response to
determine the current health and charge of the battery. After the processor determines the state of
the battery, the processor then controls the charging circuit based on the
state of the battery.
I'm both a patent holder and I've defended against infringement claims. A read of a patent begins with claim 1. If any part of that claim can be circumvented, or does not apply to the implementation accused of infringement, then the defendant is not in infringement of that claim. All claims that then reference claim 1, which in this case are at least claims 2 and 3, would also no longer be enforceable against the defendant.
If you read back my comments, I specifically targeted only claim 1. If claim 4 and beyond are new claims, not building on claim 1, then those need to be addressed separately in any read of the patent. I am speaking only to claim 1 and any claims building upon it.
It's high time we ban all lawsuits for any reason. Just take an entire year off. Some one run you down on the street? Tough. No lawsuits. Might be a nice change to bite the lip and just deal with whatever life throws at you! :-)
There have been portable garage style lead acid car battery chargers that had fast charge and then automatic trickle charge since forever. Seems like prior art to me. I have no idea why Ford and Nissan caved in.
Conservatives wanted to curtail "frivolous" lawsuits, but did they ever look toward the patent system for "reform"? All I ever heard was about stopping consumers from filing lawsuits against corporations... for "frivolous" things like injury from bad services, drugs...
Our society is getting stomped by corporate executives and politicians who don't care about the measly insects (average civilians, workers, consumers) they trample while slugging it out with each other in the sandbox we built for them.
Hello, worker cast speaking here: it'd be nice if we tried that whole "government for the people, by the people" thing we were told about in grade school...
I suspect your view of the world has been distorted by liberalism.
Curtailing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing, many are just scams to drain big corporations. The classic example here is getting sued for hot food, especially when said food is normally expected to be sold hot.
This "hot food" lawsuit, which TV news and politicians love to bring up as an example of frivolous lawsuits is a total b.s. example. It refers to the woman who sued McDonald's because of spilled hot coffee. But did you know that the woman did not spill the coffee? That the coffee was so hot that it melted the bottom of the styrofoam up while she was sitting in the car and that's how she got scalded? This was no frivolous lawsuit! But the media loves to portray this as "someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot!"
Now onto to your second point, you whine about corporate executives about not caring about the little people but this is exactly the opposite of what is happening here. The little guy, in this case the patent holder, is taking on the big corporations. What people fail to understand is that a lot of technology out there is developed by small often one man engineering firms. Often these guys (mostly guys) struggle to realize the benefit of their invention when it gets stolen by big corporations like Apple.
The problem is that you're not supposed to receive a patent for an idea, only an actual implementation of an idea - a method. The patent office has gone completely mad in recent years giving patents for obvious ideas. Amazon received a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them. No one should have ever received a patent for the idea of identifying a user and storing their address and credit card information. Just because you can make a drawing of something doesn't mean it deserves a patent.
I haven't read this patent. If this firm came up with a new type of circuit to trickle charge when the phone is near charged and to fast charge when it's not and Apple copied that circuit design, then maybe they have a case. But if all they really had was an idea to do that as opposed to how to accomplish it, it didn't deserve a patent and it never should have been granted. But the patent office has become overwhelmed and incompetent and the courts have never known what they were doing when it came to technology, often awarding patents to the wrong inventors. Read a biography of Edwin H. Armstrong, the inventor of the superheterodyne circuit and FM radio for examples of how well the courts have done.
I suspect your view of the world has been distorted by liberalism.
Curtailing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing, many are just scams to drain big corporations. The classic example here is getting sued for hot food, especially when said food is normally expected to be sold hot.
This "hot food" lawsuit, which TV news and politicians love to bring up as an example of frivolous lawsuits is a total b.s. example. It refers to the woman who sued McDonald's because of spilled hot coffee. But did you know that the woman did not spill the coffee? That the coffee was so hot that it melted the bottom of the styrofoam up while she was sitting in the car and that's how she got scalded? This was no frivolous lawsuit! But the media loves to portray this as "someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot!"
The problem is that you're not supposed to receive a patent for an idea, only an actual implementation of an idea - a method. The patent office has gone completely mad in recent years giving patents for obvious ideas. Amazon received a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them. No one should have ever received a patent for the idea of identifying a user and storing their address and credit card information. Just because you can make a drawing of something doesn't mean it deserves a patent.
I haven't read this patent. If this firm came up with a new type of circuit to trickle charge when the phone is near charged and to fast charge when it's not and Apple copied that circuit design, then maybe they have a case. But if all they really had was an idea to do that as opposed to how to accomplish it, it didn't deserve a patent and it never should have been granted. But the patent office has become overwhelmed and incompetent and the courts have never known what they were doing when it came to technology, often awarding patents to the wrong inventors. Read a biography of Edwin H. Armstrong, the inventor of the superheterodyne circuit and FM radio for examples of how well the courts have done.
Wrong. She put the coffee cup between her knees and peeled the lid of towards her which caused the entire cup of coffee to spill onto her legs and buttocks. The debate was she was responsible for carelessly opening the lid. The counter argument was that McDonalds served its coffee so hot at 180 degrees F (82C) that it was dangerous. At 180F degrees the coffee was about 40F degrees (22C) hotter than any other places served it. Dooming McDonalds case was the fact that they had over 700 reports of injuries from the previous decade and still served their coffee at a dangerous temperate.
FYI, styrofoam starts to degrade @ around 212F (100C).
Curtailing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing, many are just scams to drain big corporations. The classic example here is getting sued for hot food, especially when said food is normally expected to be sold hot.
Time to educate yourself about what is simply hot food and what is truly worth suing for. The classic case people usually mean when they say the food was just hot and the customer should know better is the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit of 1992.
Sometimes the lawsuit really isn't frivolous, and that's why we shouldn't have any of our rights to sue curtailed. One day it might be you who was damaged, either by hot food or because your patent was stolen, and you will want to have the same redress as anyone else.
The courts are doing just fine. Reform the patent system.
I suspect your view of the world has been distorted by liberalism.
Curtailing frivolous lawsuits is a good thing, many are just scams to drain big corporations. The classic example here is getting sued for hot food, especially when said food is normally expected to be sold hot.
This "hot food" lawsuit, which TV news and politicians love to bring up as an example of frivolous lawsuits is a total b.s. example. It refers to the woman who sued McDonald's because of spilled hot coffee. But did you know that the woman did not spill the coffee? That the coffee was so hot that it melted the bottom of the styrofoam up while she was sitting in the car and that's how she got scalded? This was no frivolous lawsuit! But the media loves to portray this as "someone sued McDonald's because the coffee was too hot!"
The problem is that you're not supposed to receive a patent for an idea, only an actual implementation of an idea - a method. The patent office has gone completely mad in recent years giving patents for obvious ideas. Amazon received a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them. No one should have ever received a patent for the idea of identifying a user and storing their address and credit card information. Just because you can make a drawing of something doesn't mean it deserves a patent.
I haven't read this patent. If this firm came up with a new type of circuit to trickle charge when the phone is near charged and to fast charge when it's not and Apple copied that circuit design, then maybe they have a case. But if all they really had was an idea to do that as opposed to how to accomplish it, it didn't deserve a patent and it never should have been granted. But the patent office has become overwhelmed and incompetent and the courts have never known what they were doing when it came to technology, often awarding patents to the wrong inventors. Read a biography of Edwin H. Armstrong, the inventor of the superheterodyne circuit and FM radio for examples of how well the courts have done.
Wrong. She put the coffee cup between her knees and peeled the lid of towards her which caused the entire cup of coffee to spill onto her legs and buttocks. The debate was she was responsible for carelessly opening the lid. The counter argument was that McDonalds served its coffee so hot at 180 degrees F (82C) that it was dangerous. At 180F degrees the coffee was about 40F degrees (22C) hotter than any other places served it. Dooming McDonalds case was the fact that they had over 700 reports of injuries from the previous decade and still served their coffee at a dangerous temperate.
FYI, styrofoam starts to degrade @ around 212F (100C).
Here the interesting part of this, and why McDonald made their coffee so hot. My dad loves McDonalds coffee, why because it was always hot, and he is not the only person who likes their coffee hot, really hot, especially when you put in a paper of styrofoam cup and walk out and drink it later. My dad use to complain all the time of getting a coffee to go only to have it too cool once he started drinking it like 5 or 10 minutes later. You also have to keep in mind when this happen most people used stove top coffee pots which boiled the water to make coffee so when you poured it into your cup the coffee was closer to 212F than the 180F of the McDonalds coffee. Any serious coffee drinker always knew to let it cool before you but your mouth to the cup. No home coffee maker was making coffer at 140F.
Just remember you can not fix stupid, but this county has awarded stupid people with money for things like the McDonalds case and others similar to this one like the Guy in New Hamshire who sue Sears because a had a stroke trying to pull start is Sear lawnmower, and won because Sears failed to warn people with a heart condition should not attempt to pull start a lawnmower.
I always said this, sue as you like, but the looser pays everyone bills, even the government when they go after people and companies to try and prove a point and loose they should have to pay everyone bills, This would stop politically motivated prosecution because the public will no put up with their tax dollars paying for lost case the government should have not gone after.
Comments
The patent was originally owned by Snap-On they mechanic tool company. They must have sold it to these patent trolls because they realize it was worthless. The issue the patent troll has is the fact Apple has been in the battery charging business since the 1980's they know more about charging batteries than most companies out their even the guys who actually make the batteries. Also switching from fast charge to slow charge is nothing new, it has been around since the 90's. The real knowhow comes down to knowing when best to do it and under what condition which the patent does not really get into the science behind this.
Now that I thought about this, Snap-on probably sold this and other patents to this company so they can freely sue companies like Apple. Standard defense in a patent sue it to counter sue with your own patents and force the other guy to go away of run the risk of loosing big time and having to pay licensing fees. In the case of Patent Troll who have no assets or product Apple does not have patent leverage against them. Now if Snap-on tried suing them you can image the battery patents that Apple has and could use against Snap-on.
No, it won’t be that easy to circumvent.
I think you need to read the entire patent again cuz that’s not what this patent is about.
This describes a method of a processor sending time variant signals to the battery. Then the processor interprets the battery’s response to determine the current health and charge of the battery. After the processor determines the state of the battery, the processor then controls the charging circuit based on the state of the battery.
If you read back my comments, I specifically targeted only claim 1. If claim 4 and beyond are new claims, not building on claim 1, then those need to be addressed separately in any read of the patent. I am speaking only to claim 1 and any claims building upon it.
The problem is that you're not supposed to receive a patent for an idea, only an actual implementation of an idea - a method. The patent office has gone completely mad in recent years giving patents for obvious ideas. Amazon received a patent for "one-click" which Apple had to license from them. No one should have ever received a patent for the idea of identifying a user and storing their address and credit card information. Just because you can make a drawing of something doesn't mean it deserves a patent.
I haven't read this patent. If this firm came up with a new type of circuit to trickle charge when the phone is near charged and to fast charge when it's not and Apple copied that circuit design, then maybe they have a case. But if all they really had was an idea to do that as opposed to how to accomplish it, it didn't deserve a patent and it never should have been granted. But the patent office has become overwhelmed and incompetent and the courts have never known what they were doing when it came to technology, often awarding patents to the wrong inventors. Read a biography of Edwin H. Armstrong, the inventor of the superheterodyne circuit and FM radio for examples of how well the courts have done.
I don't understand the claims of the patent. It seems like another prior art thing that everyone else has been doing for yonks.
The debate was she was responsible for carelessly opening the lid. The counter argument was that McDonalds served its coffee so hot at 180 degrees F (82C) that it was dangerous. At 180F degrees the coffee was about 40F degrees (22C) hotter than any other places served it. Dooming McDonalds case was the fact that they had over 700 reports of injuries from the previous decade and still served their coffee at a dangerous temperate.
FYI, styrofoam starts to degrade @ around 212F (100C).
Read this and be educated: https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
Sometimes the lawsuit really isn't frivolous, and that's why we shouldn't have any of our rights to sue curtailed. One day it might be you who was damaged, either by hot food or because your patent was stolen, and you will want to have the same redress as anyone else.
The courts are doing just fine. Reform the patent system.
===============
How hard is it to adjust the context and presumption to what it should be?
============
Here the interesting part of this, and why McDonald made their coffee so hot. My dad loves McDonalds coffee, why because it was always hot, and he is not the only person who likes their coffee hot, really hot, especially when you put in a paper of styrofoam cup and walk out and drink it later. My dad use to complain all the time of getting a coffee to go only to have it too cool once he started drinking it like 5 or 10 minutes later. You also have to keep in mind when this happen most people used stove top coffee pots which boiled the water to make coffee so when you poured it into your cup the coffee was closer to 212F than the 180F of the McDonalds coffee. Any serious coffee drinker always knew to let it cool before you but your mouth to the cup. No home coffee maker was making coffer at 140F.
Just remember you can not fix stupid, but this county has awarded stupid people with money for things like the McDonalds case and others similar to this one like the Guy in New Hamshire who sue Sears because a had a stroke trying to pull start is Sear lawnmower, and won because Sears failed to warn people with a heart condition should not attempt to pull start a lawnmower.
I always said this, sue as you like, but the looser pays everyone bills, even the government when they go after people and companies to try and prove a point and loose they should have to pay everyone bills, This would stop politically motivated prosecution because the public will no put up with their tax dollars paying for lost case the government should have not gone after.