Was there at least one time that Apple didn't take to court someone that made a product that resembled any of Apples's own? I do not think so. It will be interesting.
By the way, did Apple patent the magnets in general?
Yes Apple did patent magnets, thank you for asking. They also patented the square, the rectangle, the pushbutton, the colors black and white, the camera, the use of your fingers, Icons and rounded edges. It seems triangular tablets with olfactory controls are the only way to produce a tablet now. Fart to unlock your tablet...
Imagine if every other company was like Apple... Wait a minute!! Why are those rounded cereals like our Cheerios?! And the NERVES!!! They even added a hint of HONEY!! To arms my brethren, we shall defend our IP!! (Indigestible Pabulum - Alright, that was weak!)
The best strategy would be if Apple spent its time biting on my yonka-bone instead of filing moronic patents on general concepts and harassing other companies by abusing the overworked patent office's confused people.
[citation][nom]StormCharge[/nom]Yes, blackberry had it long ago, but did they patent it? It doesn't matter who invented it, it only matters who submitted the patent.[/citation]
That's how Edison got famous!
This is awesome. They can argue it's to be used with a dock. I want them to make a dock.
I don't know why Tom's didn't report it had these "pogo" pins before, but this could add the functionality I was looking for that was previously lacking in this device.
A dock with an HDMI out, and compatibility for such things as a keyboard, usb ports (possibly for use with an external camera or to transfer files/photos/music the old fashioned way, an sd card slot also for loading/offloading files.
I hate it when hardware specs that are NOT insignificant are left out of reviews...
Also I should add the expect F* Apple comment I suppose, but only because you shouldn't be able to patent a magnet. The design is essentially how the circuit breakers in your house work >.>
Shouldn't issue patents for minute product features or software anymore.
If you want to patent a device for all it's features, then sure, offer a slight umbrella protection for features under the device, but essentially safeguard the device from being ripped off. When they say "there's more than one way to skin a cat," it's true, but how many variations of "slide to unlock" can there be before everyone patents them and users begin to get annoyed with all the discontinuity between devices. The learning curves are going to get out of hand if everything always works different.
Rather, companies like Apple and Samsung should patent their devices based on aesthetic design, product name, and the complement of features.
We know they largely use similar internal components, sometimes from the same manufacturers, and pay licensing fees for that purpose.
In the interest of keeping the price low without consumers paying 80% of the cost for licensing fees someday, simple actions and hardware shouldn't be able to be patented in these devices.
It's hard for me to say this, because I understand the lone inventor who develops some magnet switch that turns off a screen and should be able to make money for the switch itself, but large companies shouldn't be able to block other companies from designing similar items.
Just because it's a novel idea doesn't mean you're owed millions of dollars.
Any of us could pry open a dvd drive to get a disc out, but if I patented a "disc hole manipulator/drive shooter-outer" and you buy it, great. But if you use a paperclip because it's easier I don't see how I could call Staples and get an injunction to have them stop selling Paperclips....
The patent system is broken in this new digital and microfeature age.
Google owns Motorola, and Moto has been using this since the good old Razr (not the Droid, the flip-phone). It, too, had a magnet next to the hinge that switched off the screen when closing the lid.
So, unless Google's lawyers are REALLY ill-prepared, this potential suit could not hold water.