Nexus 7 Magnetic Sensor Could Be Trouble for Google, Asus

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]demarest[/nom]I made a patent on using electricity. Everybody owes me money![/citation]

There's a man in Australia who has a patent on the "Circular Transportation Device".

Here's a hint:

It's a damn wheel. Talk about reinventing the wheel.

 

[sykozis]

[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]
Wrong. Blackberry presents a case of prior art, which voids Apple's patent.

 

[festerovic]

Magnets, how do they work?

 

[razor512]

Magnets have been used in laptops for like 18 years now, they are simply adding that same feature to a tablet.

no point in keeping the screen on when the lid is closed.

 

[Guest]

Apple would patent toilet paper made out of um.... paper. Ridiculous.

 

[Vladislaus]

[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]
Supposedly prior art invalidates a patent.

 

[eddieroolz]

Google shows its ways again. For the people that are crying out at Apple patenting yet another function, consider this: Before the iPad smart cover, did anyone at Google think of a way to use magnets to turn the screen off? Obviously not! Otherwise, they would have the patent instead, and many on this site will be gloating that "Google is the bestest company in the world!!1!".

I cringe at the hypocrisy.

 

[Guest]

Eddieroolz:

Yeah, I'm sure this amazing technology had never been done before Apple, right.... I'm pretty sure Apple discovered magnets too, while we're at it, and gravity, and electricity, and most of the planets in our solar system...

Maybe you ought to take off the fanboy-tinted glasses for a moment and realize what a stupid, obvious patent this is. This is about protecting the trillions of dollars Apple spent on R&D for this "magnetic sensor", it's about sabotaging your competitors be fraudulently creating a condition for which you can sue them and try to derail their business. I'm sure this is pretty much 1980's tech, or maybe even 1970's..

 

[Guest]

Been around for years, remember spending hours troubleshooting a users laptop about 12 years ago because the screen kept on switching off at random. Turned out they were wearing one of those magnetic bracelets that are supposed to balance your Chi / harmonise your energy field / stop the goverenment reading your thoughts with their mind-control satellites and it kept tripping the lid closed sensor. If memory serves it was even a Dell laptop so there must be tens of millions of devices out there using this as prior art.

 

[face-plants]

Hall Effect sensors (magnetic field sensing transducers) are used in many many devices. Although when I first read this article it seemed Apple was surely going to go after google again, their argument would not be very compelling. Computer equipment has used magnetic sensors for a long time before the iPad came out. Many laptops have a magnet in the upper portion of the screen and a hall effect sensor in the bottom to determine when the laptop is closed for sleep mode etc. Also, brushless DC motors, ABS brakes, tachometers and many common devices use magnetic sensors for determining proximity, speed, and location of components. It truly is the only reasonable tech to use in such applications. Other systems would require active components on both ends of the sensing system instead of 'dumb' magnets on one part and a magnetic sensor in an easy to protect area.

 

[Solandri]

The fact that this article was even written is an indication of how insane these patent battles have become. There are only 4 fundamental forces in the universe, one of which (electromagnetism) is responsible for most of the interactions we see in the world - electrical, optical, magnetic, acoustic, contact, taste, and smell. (The other forces would cover gravity, radioactive decay, and attraction of subatomic particles.)

You cannot (or should not be able to) get a patent on using one of these fundamental forces in a sensor. Period. If you develop a new sensor which can detect one of these forces in some different or innovative way, then you can get a patent on it. But nobody can patent the concept of using one of these forces to sense things. That's just stupid, like saying the light bulb patent covers the concept emitting light; and thus all other forms of light emission (fluorescent, LED, laser, chemo or bio-luminescence, etc) violate Edison's light bulb patent.

 

[quotas47]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Google shows its ways again. For the people that are crying out at Apple patenting yet another function, consider this: Before the iPad smart cover, did anyone at Google think of a way to use magnets to turn the screen off? Obviously not! Otherwise, they would have the patent instead, and many on this site will be gloating that "Google is the bestest company in the world!!1!".I cringe at the hypocrisy.[/citation]

No no, it's just about lame patents. I don't care which company is doing it.

 

[timbob13]

I've disassembled enough LCD bezels to know that magnets serving as the back-light on/off switch isn't new. F*%* Apple and their patent lawsuits. Since they aren't making the $$$ they think they should be making on hardware, they clearly have someone stealing their intellectual property! Apple is just stifling the hardware community, setting everything back 3 years.

"The patent system is broken"

 

[watcha]

Almost every comment on this article, bar a few, is so idiotic it's untrue.

Let me make 1 fact abundantly clear since it means we can ignore 90% of the other comments on this article:

APPLE HAS NOT SUED GOOGLE OR ANYONE OVER THIS.

Try reading that a few times before you write endless drivel on how the patent is 'obvious' and how much you hate Apple. Apple has done precisely nothing other than patent, as even the article points out, a SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION of smart cover design.

Not a magnet, as some ridiculous people have suggested.
Not a rectangle, as some ridiculous people have suggested.
Not anything, as lots of ridiculous people have suggested, other than their own specific design implementation of the smart cover.

Sensationalist article doesn't help but seriously try to apply a bit of your own intelligence before commenting guys...

And lets remember that Kevin Parrish is the most idiotic Apple trolling journalist there is, so he has to take some of the blame for somehow trying to make out like Apple did something wrong when it hasn't actually done anything in this case.

 

[kaggy]

I doubt so, laptops have already been using magnets for lid sensing long ago.
If it happens, patents system is reaching a new low.

 

[Guest]

My motorola Droid X has a magnetic sensor in it for dock detection. This seems to be no different.

 

[jkflipflop98]

[citation][nom]festerovic[/nom]Magnets, how do they work?[/citation]

Subatomic particles all spinning in the same direction, of course!

 

[semperfidelis316]

Apple sucks.

I hope Steve Jobs is rotting in iHell sucking a bag of iDicks.

 

[Guest]

Does it cover refrigerator magnets?

 

[swamprat]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]...APPLE HAS NOT SUED GOOGLE OR ANYONE OVER THIS.Try reading that a few times before you write endless drivel on how the patent is 'obvious' and how much you hate Apple. Apple has done precisely nothing other than patent, as even the article points out, a SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION of smart cover design. Not a magnet,...[/citation]
Generally sensible, although I'd be interested to see the patent and whether there sounds like there's a difference with other instances of what I'd expect to be a similar specific implementation (e.g. BBs). Whether a patent shouldn't have been granted doesn't really make Apple a bad company for applying for it - it just reflects on the system / IP agents.
Does anyone have a link to the relevant filing?

There also seem to be several US IP protection types that include the word 'patent' but are more akin to registered design rights rather than 'patents' as generally thought of. That's probably not relevant here but in some daft cases it could be.