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??
Typically the term "patent troll" is applied to persons or companies that have no intention of using the intellectual property (IP).
Thompson
That definition is correct, but too narrow. Here's the Wiki def:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
So often the term is used in the manner you identify, and the use may be "typical", but it is far from exclusive. According to Wiki, my usage was correct. I'll admit that Wikipedia is not authoritative.
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.
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.
Its great when you can smash down the strawman that you painstakingly built.
Not all PC's have the same battery life as your example. In fact, some have much longer battery lives. If I have an ASUS UL80, I could get over 8hrs of general usage out of one battery. Two batteries would get me through a long haul trip quite comfortably.
Actually, that was something I was thinking about. Fair enough. It is an advantage over Macs. But besides Hypermac, does anyone else know what other external battery packs there are for Macs?
Kind of like undercover law enforcement having to admit they're cops if challenged.
Why do you think undercover cops admit the truth if challenged? Are the rules designed to ensure that they get killed by the bad guys? "Oh yeah - I'm a cop. I'm alone, surrounded by all you guys and your guns. And yes, I am indeed a cop, trying to make sure that very bad things happen to all you murderers."
You may want to recheck some facts before you use them as a basis for your opinion.
Not all PC's have the same battery life as your example. In fact, some have much longer battery lives. If I have an ASUS UL80, I could get over 8hrs of general usage out of one battery. Two batteries would get me through a long haul trip quite comfortably.
My Dell gets many, many hours from its 9 cell battery. I've never timed it, as it has never been an issue.
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.
My Dell gets many, many hours from its 9 cell battery. I've never timed it, as it has never been an issue.
What model is it? Would help to have more information. You mention it has never been an issue... Is this daily use, or on flights, or something else? Which is what we are actually talking about with regard to external battery packs.
1. Apple doesn't license the MagSafe connector to third-parties
AND
2. Apple no longer sells any laptops with user-swappable batteries.
Imagine being on a trans-Pacific flight with your MacBook. Even with Apple's new battery technology you'd be lucky to get 4-5 hours of work time. So without a solution similar to HyperMac, you're out of luck. This is not consumer-friendly. In fact, it's Apple-centric and would 'seem' to be designed to protect Apple and not the users of their products.
On a side note, it's really sad how vitriolic some of the 'pro-Apple' posts on this list have become.
Does anyone know of any third-party battery packs besides Hypermac. It seems strange if they are the only ones doing it.
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.
Of all the things cloned and copied in technology you can't perceive of a simple 4 prong power plug with a magnetic end being built, that this could only mean it came from Apple and with their blessing for first sale?
Maybe in Texas, but in most states and countries, it's enforced by a judicial system which does not involve a gun.
And judges aren't armed like Judge Dredd.
Think it through completely. If someone doesn't comply with a verdict, eventually that verdict will be enforced with a gun. Or at least action will be taken against the non-compliance. And that action will be enforced with a gun unless you submit.
Don't believe me? Try it sometime, you'll have a gun pointed at you as you try to prevent being taken into custodial arrest.
People sometimes like to abstract away what it means to enact laws. It is good to occasionally pause and acknowledge what is actually going on.
With that said.... It is my opinion that people should be free to make a power cord for any product they want. I don't feel that it is beneficial to our society or economy to have government enforced power-plug monopolies. It simply isn't just to have the government come and stick a gun in your face because you dared to solder something onto a power plug.
I'll grant that this criticism could be levied against just about any law that someone disagrees with. But it is still important to occasionally puts laws in their true context. It motivates us to more carefully consider if each law is justified.
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.
Disagreeing with the current patent system does not make someone's morals any more or less "fuzzy".
One could choose to draw the line in a variety of different places. It is easy to blindly assume that the status-quo is the pinnacle of morality. But given how much the status-quo has changed over the decades or centuries, that would seem to be a fault assumption.
It is my opinion that the current level of government enforced idea-ownership is unjust. The balance of power has shifted such that rich and powerful people/organizations can leverage the legal system in an unjust manner. That's certainly a broader argument than what is being waged here.
Specifically, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from building product accessories. I don't think connectors for consumer product accessories should be patentable.
To some, this may seem like an extremist's position. I disagree, and this is why I pointed out how the status-quo, while taken for granted, isn't static. It is guaranteed to change. My bet is that eventually people will wake up to the power shift that has already happened, and start to scale back what qualifies as "intellectual property".
With that said.... It is my opinion that people should be free to make a power cord for any product they want. I don't feel that it is beneficial to our society or economy to have government enforced power-plug monopolies. It simply isn't just to have the government come and stick a gun in your face because you dared to solder something onto a power plug.
I'll grant that this criticism could be levied against just about any law that someone disagrees with. But it is still important to occasionally puts laws in their true context. It motivates us to more carefully consider if each law is justified.
Sometimes court cases result in the overturning of laws. Other than when laws are originally made, or in this case when patents are pending, what entity besides the courts typically considers the justification for specific laws?
So it seems to me that bringing the case forward is a perfectly acceptable thing for Apple to do, unless your contention is that the lawsuit itself is frivolous. (And I don't think you are going there.) If this even gets to court, HyperMac can call into question whether this invention was patentable in the first place. If they do, then the courts will perform the "careful consideration" that you seek.
Letting the case run its course may result in exactly what you want, i.e. the "power-plug monopoly" is rejected, and a precedent is set that allows people to "make a power cord for any product they want".
Disagreeing with the current patent system does not make someone's morals any more or less "fuzzy".
One could choose to draw the line in a variety of different places. It is easy to blindly assume that the status-quo is the pinnacle of morality. But given how much the status-quo has changed over the decades or centuries, that would seem to be a fault assumption.
It is my opinion that the current level of government enforced idea-ownership is unjust. The balance of power has shifted such that rich and powerful people/organizations can leverage the legal system in an unjust manner. That's certainly a broader argument than what is being waged here.
Specifically, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from building product accessories. I don't think connectors for consumer product accessories should be patentable.
To some, this may seem like an extremist's position. I disagree, and this is why I pointed out how the status-quo, while taken for granted, isn't static. It is guaranteed to change. My bet is that eventually people will wake up to the power shift that has already happened, and start to scale back what qualifies as "intellectual property".
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.
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.
This exercise has prompted me to seek information on patent laws, and I must confess that things are much more complex than either one of us have made them out to be. I believe now that we have staked our claims to opposite ends of a spectrum, and that we are each right under some specific circumstances, but we are both wrong in general.
This exercise has prompted me to seek information on patent laws, and I must confess that things are much more complex than either one of us have made them out to be. I believe now that we have staked our claims to opposite ends of a spectrum, and that we are each right under some specific circumstances, but we are both wrong in general.
Comments
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??
Other than the Trademark issue, why not?
What patent issues are raised by your example?
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
I believe that you are incorrect. Got any support for your statement?
I believe that I can take any car, modify it however I wish, and sell it. I believe I can take many other cars, combine them and sell the creation.
Hot Rod and Custom Shops do exactly that, every day. Carrol Shelby did exactly that. He still does.
Typically the term "patent troll" is applied to persons or companies that have no intention of using the intellectual property (IP).
Thompson
That definition is correct, but too narrow. Here's the Wiki def:
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
So often the term is used in the manner you identify, and the use may be "typical", but it is far from exclusive. According to Wiki, my usage was correct. I'll admit that Wikipedia is not authoritative.
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.
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?
Its great when you can smash down the strawman that you painstakingly built.
Not all PC's have the same battery life as your example. In fact, some have much longer battery lives. If I have an ASUS UL80, I could get over 8hrs of general usage out of one battery. Two batteries would get me through a long haul trip quite comfortably.
Actually, that was something I was thinking about. Fair enough. It is an advantage over Macs. But besides Hypermac, does anyone else know what other external battery packs there are for Macs?
Kind of like undercover law enforcement having to admit they're cops if challenged.
Why do you think undercover cops admit the truth if challenged? Are the rules designed to ensure that they get killed by the bad guys? "Oh yeah - I'm a cop. I'm alone, surrounded by all you guys and your guns. And yes, I am indeed a cop, trying to make sure that very bad things happen to all you murderers."
You may want to recheck some facts before you use them as a basis for your opinion.
Not all PC's have the same battery life as your example. In fact, some have much longer battery lives. If I have an ASUS UL80, I could get over 8hrs of general usage out of one battery. Two batteries would get me through a long haul trip quite comfortably.
My Dell gets many, many hours from its 9 cell battery. I've never timed it, as it has never been an issue.
Why do you think undercover cops admit the truth if challenged?
I saw it on TV.
Do you receive consideration or any other form of compensation for the posts you make on this forum?
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.
My Dell gets many, many hours from its 9 cell battery. I've never timed it, as it has never been an issue.
What model is it? Would help to have more information. You mention it has never been an issue... Is this daily use, or on flights, or something else? Which is what we are actually talking about with regard to external battery packs.
Two things are true...
1. Apple doesn't license the MagSafe connector to third-parties
AND
2. Apple no longer sells any laptops with user-swappable batteries.
Imagine being on a trans-Pacific flight with your MacBook. Even with Apple's new battery technology you'd be lucky to get 4-5 hours of work time. So without a solution similar to HyperMac, you're out of luck. This is not consumer-friendly. In fact, it's Apple-centric and would 'seem' to be designed to protect Apple and not the users of their products.
On a side note, it's really sad how vitriolic some of the 'pro-Apple' posts on this list have become.
Does anyone know of any third-party battery packs besides Hypermac. It seems strange if they are the only ones doing it.
I agree though Apple should license the Magsafe.
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.
Of all the things cloned and copied in technology you can't perceive of a simple 4 prong power plug with a magnetic end being built, that this could only mean it came from Apple and with their blessing for first sale?
I believe that you are incorrect. Got any support for your statement?
I believe that I can take any car, modify it however I wish, and sell it. I believe I can take many other cars, combine them and sell the creation.
Hot Rod and Custom Shops do exactly that, every day. Carrol Shelby did exactly that. He still does.
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
Maybe in Texas, but in most states and countries, it's enforced by a judicial system which does not involve a gun.
And judges aren't armed like Judge Dredd.
Think it through completely. If someone doesn't comply with a verdict, eventually that verdict will be enforced with a gun. Or at least action will be taken against the non-compliance. And that action will be enforced with a gun unless you submit.
Don't believe me? Try it sometime, you'll have a gun pointed at you as you try to prevent being taken into custodial arrest.
People sometimes like to abstract away what it means to enact laws. It is good to occasionally pause and acknowledge what is actually going on.
With that said.... It is my opinion that people should be free to make a power cord for any product they want. I don't feel that it is beneficial to our society or economy to have government enforced power-plug monopolies. It simply isn't just to have the government come and stick a gun in your face because you dared to solder something onto a power plug.
I'll grant that this criticism could be levied against just about any law that someone disagrees with. But it is still important to occasionally puts laws in their true context. It motivates us to more carefully consider if each law is justified.
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.
Disagreeing with the current patent system does not make someone's morals any more or less "fuzzy".
One could choose to draw the line in a variety of different places. It is easy to blindly assume that the status-quo is the pinnacle of morality. But given how much the status-quo has changed over the decades or centuries, that would seem to be a fault assumption.
It is my opinion that the current level of government enforced idea-ownership is unjust. The balance of power has shifted such that rich and powerful people/organizations can leverage the legal system in an unjust manner. That's certainly a broader argument than what is being waged here.
Specifically, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from building product accessories. I don't think connectors for consumer product accessories should be patentable.
To some, this may seem like an extremist's position. I disagree, and this is why I pointed out how the status-quo, while taken for granted, isn't static. It is guaranteed to change. My bet is that eventually people will wake up to the power shift that has already happened, and start to scale back what qualifies as "intellectual property".
With that said.... It is my opinion that people should be free to make a power cord for any product they want. I don't feel that it is beneficial to our society or economy to have government enforced power-plug monopolies. It simply isn't just to have the government come and stick a gun in your face because you dared to solder something onto a power plug.
I'll grant that this criticism could be levied against just about any law that someone disagrees with. But it is still important to occasionally puts laws in their true context. It motivates us to more carefully consider if each law is justified.
Sometimes court cases result in the overturning of laws. Other than when laws are originally made, or in this case when patents are pending, what entity besides the courts typically considers the justification for specific laws?
So it seems to me that bringing the case forward is a perfectly acceptable thing for Apple to do, unless your contention is that the lawsuit itself is frivolous. (And I don't think you are going there.) If this even gets to court, HyperMac can call into question whether this invention was patentable in the first place. If they do, then the courts will perform the "careful consideration" that you seek.
Letting the case run its course may result in exactly what you want, i.e. the "power-plug monopoly" is rejected, and a precedent is set that allows people to "make a power cord for any product they want".
It's all good.
Thompson
Ah, but when you modify said car, are you introducing components that are patented (and which you have not received a license for)?
Thompson
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.
Disagreeing with the current patent system does not make someone's morals any more or less "fuzzy".
One could choose to draw the line in a variety of different places. It is easy to blindly assume that the status-quo is the pinnacle of morality. But given how much the status-quo has changed over the decades or centuries, that would seem to be a fault assumption.
It is my opinion that the current level of government enforced idea-ownership is unjust. The balance of power has shifted such that rich and powerful people/organizations can leverage the legal system in an unjust manner. That's certainly a broader argument than what is being waged here.
Specifically, I think it is wrong for the government to prevent people from building product accessories. I don't think connectors for consumer product accessories should be patentable.
To some, this may seem like an extremist's position. I disagree, and this is why I pointed out how the status-quo, while taken for granted, isn't static. It is guaranteed to change. My bet is that eventually people will wake up to the power shift that has already happened, and start to scale back what qualifies as "intellectual property".
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
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.
This exercise has prompted me to seek information on patent laws, and I must confess that things are much more complex than either one of us have made them out to be. I believe now that we have staked our claims to opposite ends of a spectrum, and that we are each right under some specific circumstances, but we are both wrong in general.
Thompson
This exercise has prompted me to seek information on patent laws, and I must confess that things are much more complex than either one of us have made them out to be. I believe now that we have staked our claims to opposite ends of a spectrum, and that we are each right under some specific circumstances, but we are both wrong in general.
Thompson
Where am I wrong? I'd like to learn.