It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
Actually, I agree it would be nice to have agreeable standards for everything, but it's not realistic. Uniqueness is what gives value to things, to follow your plan would crush the innovative spirit. Patents run out, and when they do the really great ones become standards, this system has worked pretty well for us for quite some time now.
Bullshit. Why talk about these things if you know nothing about it?
You are free to buy a Civic, juice it up, and sell it. Period.
Newtron you simply miss the point almost always. Yes you can buy a civic paint it and resell it (as long as you are selling your property and are still calling it a civic)
What you can't do it buy a civic, take out the engine put it into a new car and say your selling a new line of cars called hypercivics. Do you get it??
I was furious when I read Apple's legal action against HyperMac.
I have a long-life HyperMac battery. Said to last around 10-12 hours. If Apple does not allow other manufacturers to make these products for the Mac -- and Apple does not -- then it is just plain spitefulness.
There's going to come a day, possibly in the next iteration of Windows, then Windows -- which might not be AS good as OSX -- but it's good enough. I might hop off the train.
Apple will allow it, but HyperMac apparently didn't want to license the MagSafe connectors from Apple, so they tried an end-around and are being called on it. Apple invented, the MagSafe, they get to dictate the licensing terms, it's pretty simple really. And it's still simple when another company decides to do business with a proprietary system without getting a license. Chances are this one settles in a few months with HyperMac paying a license fee like they should have in the beginning.
It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
As much as I hate Apple not licensing this tech or, to make matters worse, not creating a slew of accessories for MagSafe, it is there right. The free market will decide and forcing a company to make any and all tech they create to be open to all to profit from will decrease innovation if there isn?t a real chance to benefit from it.
The US parent system isn?t perfect, not by a long shot, but to destroy the idea that a novel idea can?t be protected and profited from would be detrimental to the future of all industry. At least with Apple they are using the tech the created instead of just sitting on it.
Just as Apple can choose not to license their tech to others, we have the right to not buy their products. I believe very strongly in this freedom from all sides.
PS: Why haven?t other PC vendors created their own magnetic connector? This idea predates Apple?s use by decades as I seem to recall crock pots and other kitchen appliances using magnetic plugs as early as the 1980s. Apple can?t have a patent on magnetics used for power plugs in computers (at least not anything protectable), they can only have there specific plug interface protected. The other PC vendors could even ban together to get all their power plugs using the same interface. Additionally, cellphone vendors using Android (or not) could ban to get to use the same future-forward port interface thus making the idea of switching to an Android phone (or some other OS) more palatable if they could create an ecosystem for their devices that could quickly rival Apple in terms of sheer numbers. Apple is Spain and their iPhone landed in the New World with no real opposition while forever changing the culture of the smartphone industry. Unite and fight back if you want to survive.
What value does Apple find in suing accessory makers? When I choose a computer or other product, having lots of accessories available from many sources makes me more willing to choose that brand and model than one where there's hardly any accessories available.
Imagine if Apple started suing the makers of iPod/iPhone cases? They'd hurt their image even more.
If a company is selling lots of portable battery packs for Macbooks, it means people are buying and using Macbooks. This is a good thing, and Apple doesn't even sell a product in this space!
Also, Hypermac seems to be using genuine Apple-made magsafe plugs, not manufacturing their own. They're not even violating patents.
And the dock connector is an industry-standard connector; Apple did NOT invent it.
They're shooting themselves in the foot by suing. It just makes them look bad to bite the hands that feed them, albeit indirectly.
When one accessory maker decides to flaunt the licensing rules, it gives the flaunter an unfair advantage over the licensed accessory makers. Apple has to sue to enforce the licensing rules or all those license paying accessory makers will jump ship too. Leaving Apple either with a) no accessories, or b) no licensing income at all or c) no influence on how its trade marks get used in accessory marketing.
The paying accessory makers accept the licenses because it keeps the low rent fly-by-night copycats out of the legitimate retail outlets, preserving their profit margins, and they get some measure of co-branding with Apple by being on display in an Apple store or on the Apple site.
So when Apple is seen to enforce the license terms, those paying licensors see Apple maintaining value in the paid license game, which indirectly benefits their own bottom lines too.
It is called being a "patent troll". They hope to intimidate, and in that posture, it matters less whether they have a leg to stand on legally.
Typically the term "patent troll" is applied to persons or companies that have no intention of using the intellectual property (IP). They just reserve ownership of an idea (usually pretty vague and/or obvious) in case someone ever makes money off of anything that smells remotely like it. Then they try to siphon off some $$$. Usually a big company goes ahead and settles for a sum that is small to them but big to the troll, in order to save money on litigation.
Let's see... Apple patented, implemented, and is selling the technology in question. Then somebody extracts the components and uses them in their own product line. You can call it however you see it, but I don't see where the particular phrase "patent troll" is appropriate. Maybe just call Apple "big meanies" and move on?
The gun is always implied. Without it there is no enforcement.
No, guns are never implied or used in civil cases. Just good old fashioned accountant enforced solutions. Something often far more powerful than a gun.
This really sucks. Apple needs to provide low-cost licensing for the MagSafe. Acceptable alternatives would be to have a secondary charging port or replaceable batteries.
What this means for me is that I'll need to buy a PC simply because I couldn't power my MacBook on some of the trips I go on.
Well, if they had to license it for what you would like, they would essentially be allowing those other "PC" manufacturers to create laptops with magsafe connectors. That is the stumbling block, Apple doesn't want everyone else to build laptops with it, because the feature is that good.
Bullshit. Why talk about these things if you know nothing about it?
You are free to buy a Civic, juice it up, and sell it. Period.
Such a strong strawman you build! Just as strong as the house of straw in the Three Little Pigs!
But you cannot buy wrecked cars and tear down any undamaged Koni Macpherson struts for the special Koni valve and put that into your own Macpherson strut that you say can replace the stock struts. Then say they are great compatible struts because you salvaged the special patented part you know you are not allowed to produce.
No, guns are never implied or used in civil cases. Just good old fashioned accountant enforced solutions. Something often far more powerful than a gun.
What is an accountant going to do, punch you in the jaw with a roll of nickels? The word "Enforce" root is "FORCE" as in cruise missile.
It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
Your morality must be pretty fuzzy. If I make a port system, anyone can use it to piggy back on the products that I market. Why can't they just clone my product that uses that port? What's the difference? I invented both of them. Port systems are just not important as a part of the way I want to make money from my invention. Really, Apple is not bound to license any of their inventions, they only do so because they believe it will increase their profits for the items that they are marketing. Most of what they do is amoral, profit motivated, not immoral. Unless you think that profit is bad, most people don't think it is.
If they ban these products, they are just harming the consumer by removing the ability to take a Mac laptop or iOS device on a long journey like a camping trip.
If you are camping hopefully using a laptop is way low on the priority list. As for iOS devices, solutions are plentiful since is uses the industry defacto standard iPod dock connector for which there are a plethora of devices. I can recharge my iPad with a $25 eneloop battery pack and a standard iPod cable.
I'll put in with you for laptops, esp. the new ones with non-removable batteries. However Apple does offer airline/car adaptors and you can alway use an inverter.
Quote:
That will drive people to buy non-Apple devices that they can take with them.
Doubtful. I know of no friends or families who have car specific adapters -even third party/cheaper ones for standard PC's. They just use an inverter. And the number who have a second battery, let alone some sort of external charger is even more minuscule. Like it or not, these are extreme edge cases - which is probably why Apple feels little pressure to license MagSafe like they have the ipod dock
What is an accountant going to do, punch you in the jaw with a roll of nickels? The word "Enforce" root is "FORCE" as in cruise missile.
Worse, file a court approved form with a bank, provide a copy of the judgement, and seize your assets or garnish your wages. All without you even having to be present if you lose your case.
And by the time it gets to this the judge would be pretty pissed off because the loser has failed to pay the judgement willingly.
It is you that is injecting the words enforce and force here. I didn't, and can't be held liable for your lack of knowledge for how the civil system actually works. So take your high-hobby horse language parsing elsewhere, it broke.
I wonder if a troll that is being paid by a company to make negative posts (a form of guerilla marketing) on websites dedicated to a rival has to tell the truth when asked that as a direct question. Kind of like undercover law enforcement having to admit they're cops if challenged. I've heard several respected regulars here speculate about how our current trolls may be being paid, but I've never heard anyone ask them directly, and I've heard the trolls deny every accusation leveled against them except that. Maybe someone should ask them directly and see if they sidestep in their answer.
I'm not quite sure how Apple loses profits from these products, they don't sell external batteries.
If they ban these products, they are just harming the consumer by removing the ability to take a Mac laptop or iOS device on a long journey like a camping trip. That will drive people to buy non-Apple devices that they can take with them.
Who says the products are banned? Why is everyone, including the moderator taking the unfounded word of a known BS artist like Newtron as gospel? He's factually incorrect on every point.
QuickerTek is a well known accessory maker, they sell the solar charger you are errantly believing does not exist because Newtron want's you and others to think so. It is expensive as hell because 27 watts of on-the-go solar is expensive by definition, not because there is some problem with MagSafe connectors. That was the first non-forum link on the search [macbook pro solar], and third link overall. Hardly obscure.
So can we just let this whole damn fake problem die? The stores the OP cited that he went to (later in the thread) carry the stuff that would have done the trick, he just "missed" them and didn't want to ask a salesperson -- his problem, not Apples. Then the later MagSafe rant was pulled out as a red herring too. Quickertek proves that MagSafe licensing isn't an issue in providing mobile power for a MacBook/MacBookPro, the whole issue is just plain made up trolling-bait.
Most external chargers require electricity. It's true that there's no reason why a AA battery hookup couldn't be made legitimately by using the licensed dock connector, but it's also relatively difficult to find a AA battery backup for the iPhone out in the middle of Nowheresville.
I have an external AA charger. I don't know what Newtron's problem is.
Comments
I despise these immoral lawsuits.
It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
Actually, I agree it would be nice to have agreeable standards for everything, but it's not realistic. Uniqueness is what gives value to things, to follow your plan would crush the innovative spirit. Patents run out, and when they do the really great ones become standards, this system has worked pretty well for us for quite some time now.
Bullshit. Why talk about these things if you know nothing about it?
You are free to buy a Civic, juice it up, and sell it. Period.
Newtron you simply miss the point almost always. Yes you can buy a civic paint it and resell it (as long as you are selling your property and are still calling it a civic)
What you can't do it buy a civic, take out the engine put it into a new car and say your selling a new line of cars called hypercivics. Do you get it??
Back to topic.
I was furious when I read Apple's legal action against HyperMac.
I have a long-life HyperMac battery. Said to last around 10-12 hours. If Apple does not allow other manufacturers to make these products for the Mac -- and Apple does not -- then it is just plain spitefulness.
There's going to come a day, possibly in the next iteration of Windows, then Windows -- which might not be AS good as OSX -- but it's good enough. I might hop off the train.
Apple will allow it, but HyperMac apparently didn't want to license the MagSafe connectors from Apple, so they tried an end-around and are being called on it. Apple invented, the MagSafe, they get to dictate the licensing terms, it's pretty simple really. And it's still simple when another company decides to do business with a proprietary system without getting a license. Chances are this one settles in a few months with HyperMac paying a license fee like they should have in the beginning.
I despise these immoral lawsuits.
It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
As much as I hate Apple not licensing this tech or, to make matters worse, not creating a slew of accessories for MagSafe, it is there right. The free market will decide and forcing a company to make any and all tech they create to be open to all to profit from will decrease innovation if there isn?t a real chance to benefit from it.
The US parent system isn?t perfect, not by a long shot, but to destroy the idea that a novel idea can?t be protected and profited from would be detrimental to the future of all industry. At least with Apple they are using the tech the created instead of just sitting on it.
Just as Apple can choose not to license their tech to others, we have the right to not buy their products. I believe very strongly in this freedom from all sides.
PS: Why haven?t other PC vendors created their own magnetic connector? This idea predates Apple?s use by decades as I seem to recall crock pots and other kitchen appliances using magnetic plugs as early as the 1980s. Apple can?t have a patent on magnetics used for power plugs in computers (at least not anything protectable), they can only have there specific plug interface protected. The other PC vendors could even ban together to get all their power plugs using the same interface. Additionally, cellphone vendors using Android (or not) could ban to get to use the same future-forward port interface thus making the idea of switching to an Android phone (or some other OS) more palatable if they could create an ecosystem for their devices that could quickly rival Apple in terms of sheer numbers. Apple is Spain and their iPhone landed in the New World with no real opposition while forever changing the culture of the smartphone industry. Unite and fight back if you want to survive.
You are just a mean ASS. Chill the hell out. The guy was making a comment and you say LIE and incompetent.
You need to take your meds and a nap.
Looking at the MenLoveToys join date and other MenLoveToys posts, I suspects me a custom-cut faux-third-party duplicate account!
Bullshit. Why talk about these things if you know nothing about it?
You are free to buy a Civic, juice it up, and sell it. Period.
I was trying to be concise, so I left out the context that I thought was inherent to the thread. Allow me to reinstate the context...
Sure, you can purchase up a car, work it over, and then sell it as a modified "whatever".
But you can't just build your own brand of car using other company's patented components and then mass market it as something new.
Thompson
Okay, I don't get it.
What value does Apple find in suing accessory makers? When I choose a computer or other product, having lots of accessories available from many sources makes me more willing to choose that brand and model than one where there's hardly any accessories available.
Imagine if Apple started suing the makers of iPod/iPhone cases? They'd hurt their image even more.
If a company is selling lots of portable battery packs for Macbooks, it means people are buying and using Macbooks. This is a good thing, and Apple doesn't even sell a product in this space!
Also, Hypermac seems to be using genuine Apple-made magsafe plugs, not manufacturing their own. They're not even violating patents.
And the dock connector is an industry-standard connector; Apple did NOT invent it.
They're shooting themselves in the foot by suing. It just makes them look bad to bite the hands that feed them, albeit indirectly.
When one accessory maker decides to flaunt the licensing rules, it gives the flaunter an unfair advantage over the licensed accessory makers. Apple has to sue to enforce the licensing rules or all those license paying accessory makers will jump ship too. Leaving Apple either with a) no accessories, or b) no licensing income at all or c) no influence on how its trade marks get used in accessory marketing.
The paying accessory makers accept the licenses because it keeps the low rent fly-by-night copycats out of the legitimate retail outlets, preserving their profit margins, and they get some measure of co-branding with Apple by being on display in an Apple store or on the Apple site.
So when Apple is seen to enforce the license terms, those paying licensors see Apple maintaining value in the paid license game, which indirectly benefits their own bottom lines too.
It is called being a "patent troll". They hope to intimidate, and in that posture, it matters less whether they have a leg to stand on legally.
Typically the term "patent troll" is applied to persons or companies that have no intention of using the intellectual property (IP). They just reserve ownership of an idea (usually pretty vague and/or obvious) in case someone ever makes money off of anything that smells remotely like it. Then they try to siphon off some $$$. Usually a big company goes ahead and settles for a sum that is small to them but big to the troll, in order to save money on litigation.
Let's see... Apple patented, implemented, and is selling the technology in question. Then somebody extracts the components and uses them in their own product line. You can call it however you see it, but I don't see where the particular phrase "patent troll" is appropriate. Maybe just call Apple "big meanies" and move on?
Thompson
Apple is being absolutely ludicrous here.
Apple can go f*ck themselves this time around. I hope HyperMac wins this case, and kicks Apple to the curb.
Not even a remote possibility.
The gun is always implied. Without it there is no enforcement.
No, guns are never implied or used in civil cases. Just good old fashioned accountant enforced solutions. Something often far more powerful than a gun.
This really sucks. Apple needs to provide low-cost licensing for the MagSafe. Acceptable alternatives would be to have a secondary charging port or replaceable batteries.
What this means for me is that I'll need to buy a PC simply because I couldn't power my MacBook on some of the trips I go on.
Well, if they had to license it for what you would like, they would essentially be allowing those other "PC" manufacturers to create laptops with magsafe connectors. That is the stumbling block, Apple doesn't want everyone else to build laptops with it, because the feature is that good.
Bullshit. Why talk about these things if you know nothing about it?
You are free to buy a Civic, juice it up, and sell it. Period.
But you cannot buy wrecked cars and tear down any undamaged Koni Macpherson struts for the special Koni valve and put that into your own Macpherson strut that you say can replace the stock struts. Then say they are great compatible struts because you salvaged the special patented part you know you are not allowed to produce.
No, guns are never implied or used in civil cases. Just good old fashioned accountant enforced solutions. Something often far more powerful than a gun.
What is an accountant going to do, punch you in the jaw with a roll of nickels? The word "Enforce" root is "FORCE" as in cruise missile.
I despise these immoral lawsuits.
It should be legal for HyperMac, without paying licensing fees, to manufacture a product that can plug into an accessory port on an Apple product.
Allowing companies to make incompatible ports, and then to charge licensing fees to sell something that fits into those ports? That is not what I'd call fair or beneficial to our society or economy.
Remember, all laws are enforced at the end of a gun, by violence. I don't consider it moral to point a gun at somebody because they made something that can plug into an accessory port.
Idea ownership ("intellectual property") has gotten way out of hand.
Your morality must be pretty fuzzy. If I make a port system, anyone can use it to piggy back on the products that I market. Why can't they just clone my product that uses that port? What's the difference? I invented both of them. Port systems are just not important as a part of the way I want to make money from my invention. Really, Apple is not bound to license any of their inventions, they only do so because they believe it will increase their profits for the items that they are marketing. Most of what they do is amoral, profit motivated, not immoral. Unless you think that profit is bad, most people don't think it is.
If they ban these products, they are just harming the consumer by removing the ability to take a Mac laptop or iOS device on a long journey like a camping trip.
If you are camping hopefully using a laptop is way low on the priority list. As for iOS devices, solutions are plentiful since is uses the industry defacto standard iPod dock connector for which there are a plethora of devices. I can recharge my iPad with a $25 eneloop battery pack and a standard iPod cable.
I'll put in with you for laptops, esp. the new ones with non-removable batteries. However Apple does offer airline/car adaptors and you can alway use an inverter.
That will drive people to buy non-Apple devices that they can take with them.
Doubtful. I know of no friends or families who have car specific adapters -even third party/cheaper ones for standard PC's. They just use an inverter. And the number who have a second battery, let alone some sort of external charger is even more minuscule. Like it or not, these are extreme edge cases - which is probably why Apple feels little pressure to license MagSafe like they have the ipod dock
What is an accountant going to do, punch you in the jaw with a roll of nickels? The word "Enforce" root is "FORCE" as in cruise missile.
Worse, file a court approved form with a bank, provide a copy of the judgement, and seize your assets or garnish your wages. All without you even having to be present if you lose your case.
And by the time it gets to this the judge would be pretty pissed off because the loser has failed to pay the judgement willingly.
It is you that is injecting the words enforce and force here. I didn't, and can't be held liable for your lack of knowledge for how the civil system actually works. So take your high-hobby horse language parsing elsewhere, it broke.
I'm not quite sure how Apple loses profits from these products, they don't sell external batteries.
If they ban these products, they are just harming the consumer by removing the ability to take a Mac laptop or iOS device on a long journey like a camping trip. That will drive people to buy non-Apple devices that they can take with them.
Who says the products are banned? Why is everyone, including the moderator taking the unfounded word of a known BS artist like Newtron as gospel? He's factually incorrect on every point.
Further proof: http://www.quickertek.com/products/apple_juicz.php
QuickerTek is a well known accessory maker, they sell the solar charger you are errantly believing does not exist because Newtron want's you and others to think so. It is expensive as hell because 27 watts of on-the-go solar is expensive by definition, not because there is some problem with MagSafe connectors. That was the first non-forum link on the search [macbook pro solar], and third link overall. Hardly obscure.
So can we just let this whole damn fake problem die? The stores the OP cited that he went to (later in the thread) carry the stuff that would have done the trick, he just "missed" them and didn't want to ask a salesperson -- his problem, not Apples. Then the later MagSafe rant was pulled out as a red herring too. Quickertek proves that MagSafe licensing isn't an issue in providing mobile power for a MacBook/MacBookPro, the whole issue is just plain made up trolling-bait.
Looking at the MenLoveToys join date and other MenLoveToys posts, I suspects me a custom-cut faux-third-party duplicate account!
Their called sock puppets and we are practically choking on the lint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Most external chargers require electricity. It's true that there's no reason why a AA battery hookup couldn't be made legitimately by using the licensed dock connector, but it's also relatively difficult to find a AA battery backup for the iPhone out in the middle of Nowheresville.
I have an external AA charger. I don't know what Newtron's problem is.