Apple Files Patent Infringement Suit Over 'Knock-Off' Power Adapters

[vant]

How does this...

not infringe on this?

That's the worst design copying I've seen in ages. Anyone defending this third party company is a complete douche bag.

It's already being discussed that this copy crap is confusing customers. They look identical minus the apple logo.

It really isn't that hard to change the design, maybe even the color to at least show some type of innovation.

 

[jmull]

I don't know.

OK. Maybe "idiots" is a bit harsh. But seriously - it takes a special person/group of people to think they can manufacture and sell something like that. And to do so online?

OK. I'm reverting back to my initial "idiots" label.

I don't know if you are being serious. I don't.

 

[Berio]

i am wondering: how many of you really care whether apple goes after the makers of power-unit copies?

i am presuming that most people here would rather buy the original apple unit, somebody above mentioned that the price difference is 20$. (i can't judge, don't live in the US), surely everybody who uses their computer a lot would prefer the original, right? (apart from those who manage to break theirs annually. for them there is no hope anyway)

so why do emotions run so high here about something which has no bearing on your lives? we use apple stuff, buy it, like, make a living with it, but does anybody really care whether their legal team pursue action or not .... all the negative outpourings of disappointment, and the positive shouts of encouragement.... are some people here really emotionally involved with a corporation the makes hardware and software? i find this hard to believe, but it seems it is so...
best
B

 

[zbasarab]

this is really bad news.

for any of you who don't understand basic economics, if apple doesn't have competition it can effectively charge whatever it sees fit for its products.

selling knock off power adapters actually keep apples adapters at a more reasonable price.

yet another disturbing move on apple's part

 

[bobertoq]

A Patent is a patent.

Patents are dumb, then.

Seriously, no 3rd-party adapters? What's next, no 3rd-party keyboards or mouses allowed for macs?

 

[Littlewizkid]

if it's no fun, you might try your hand at something else completely? maybe something involving wood, or earth?



you mean that apple's attempt to stop another company from producing and selling power-units is having a profound effect on you and your level of "fun"? how odd.
probably best to stay away from newspapers and tv if you're this sensitive, also stay away from the net. as i said above, you can always dedicate yourself to a life of gardening, and don't forget to stop the birds from eating bugs, being witness to that carnage could also unbalance your "fun" levels.

Looks like somebody is working for apple. This guy is no better than a M$ troll. Just ignore him. These knockoffs are why apple replaces my power adapter every time my dog chews them up.

 

[JAT]

You do know that almost every computer maker uses proprietary connections on their power supplies right?

No, they don't, that's why so many knockoffs exist. Proprietary does not mean "different".

 

[nwcs]

Wow, so much whining, wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth over something inconsequential. I think some people here need to get out of the house and experience the real world. Here are a few helpful hints for the real world. It may be better to only read one per day:

1. Life isn't fair.
2. It isn't all about you.
3. You're not entitled to everything free or lowest possible cost.
4. If you create something and give it away, it's your own business. If a company that has to pay their employees and owners money wants to stay in business, it's their responsibility to take action where appropriate.

 

[violaboy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Thanks tbrinkma

 

[ellsworth]

this is really bad news.

for any of you who don't understand basic economics, if apple doesn't have competition it can effectively charge whatever it sees fit for its products.

selling knock off power adapters actually keep apples adapters at a more reasonable price.

yet another disturbing move on apple's part

See, the thing is.. Apple makes a product. You, the consumer has the choice of buying that product or not. Simple!? No? Apple does have competition and we see it everyday... Microsoft, Verizon, Sony, Etc.

Consider it this way. As an independent inventor of a product that you spent all your time, all your money and effort into creating... how would you feel if someone took your same design... I mean literally making a mold of it and copying it inside and out, goes out and sells it? How would that make you feel? Now, attach that same feeling towards this entire situation. How do you think Apple (the inventor) feels about this?

 

[cmaier]

this is really bad news.

for any of you who don't understand basic economics, if apple doesn't have competition it can effectively charge whatever it sees fit for its products.

Yeah. It's called a monopoly. And that's actually the point of the patent system. To grant a 20'ish year monopoly in exchange for public disclosure.

Seems fair to me.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Oh my god...are you KIDDING ME?

Are they going to sue Belkin for making those iPod touch cables/charge units next?

Real low, Apple.

No, because Belkin are an Apple Licensee.

 

[wattsin]

I think people are missing a minor point... This could be a safety concern, who knows to what standards these are built. I understand Apple isn't always the best and have issues with power adapters in the past. But at least they can recall it. These are from who knows where... And could f-up your laptop...

 

[cliveren13]

apple

there seems to be a bunch of apple idiots on this site i hope nokia wins and apple realizes what it is to be microsoft and get sued by everyone but wait that will never happen cause just like before apple wil sink once again

 

[cmaier]

there seems to be a bunch of apple idiots on this site i hope nokia wins and apple realizes what it is to be microsoft and get sued by everyone but wait that will never happen cause just like before apple wil sink once again

Your grasp of punctuation is surpassed only by your grasp of how intellectual property works.

 

[farmboy]

There are countless examples of the patent office granting patents that should be deemed as knowledge in the public domain. One that I shake my head at is the fact that Motorola got a patent on clamshell phones hanging up when the clamshell is closed. Every cell phone for decades that had this behavior had to be licensed from Moto. (I mean, seriously, didn't any of the patent officers at the time ever watch Star Trek? They had communication devices that ended the "call" by closing the cover 10 years prior to the Moto patent application.)

In any event, this seems to me to be one more thing pointing to the broken-ness of our patent system...

I have had enough now.

First, you know nothing about patents, including the Motorola patent, so your comments (and others) regarding "knowledge in the public domain" don't carry much weight. If you knew anything, you would know that each application has to present the prior art and provide evidence that your device represents a design or technology that is NEW (not known or used by others, or published in a printed publication anywhere, or been in public use on or before one year before the application date). Thus, if anyone was using the patented Motorola technology in a public way prior to the patent application, the patent cannot be issued (or would be revoked as soon as evidence was presented). Period. And, patents only have a limited lifespan, so no one after the patent has to pay royalties to Motorola after the expiration of the patent (so NO "every cell phone for decades..." BS.

It must also be NON-OBVIOUS, which means that it has not been EXACTLY shown by prior art, and the non-obvious differences must be substantially different than what has been used or described before (and that means non-obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the technical field of the device).

And also, the examiners do their own research (this is why it takes a long time to get patents), and don't just depend on the thorough history of prior art submitted by the applicant. Further, if you lie, or do not include all the relevant prior art, your application can be rejected.

Finally,

Good god, people...please stop with the TV references as "prior art"---surprise, TV is not REAL (some of you will be stunned, but true nonetheless). The communicator in Star Trek was not real. You have to reduce it to practice--make it work--to get a patent. Showing a fictional character using a fictional device working with fictional technology (on a fictional planet to boot) means absolutely nothing.

 

[sanity]

That's not a patent. It's a patent application.

No. It is issued patent # 6368227.

 

[*LTD*]

When it comes to something as critical as a power adapter for my MBP, it's original manufacturer or nothing for me.

In any case, I believe the issue here is about the fold-out prongs, is it not?

Good god, people...please stop with the TV references as "prior art"---surprise, TV is not REAL (some of you will be stunned, but true nonetheless). The communicator in Star Trek was not real. You have to reduce it to practice--make it work--to get a patent. Showing a fictional character using a fictional device working with fictional technology (on a fictional planet to boot) means absolutely nothing.

LOL! I haven't been following the whole thread. Is that what people were ACTUALLY thinking??

 

[840quadra]

When it comes to something as critical as a power adapter for my MBP, it's original manufacturer or nothing for me.

In any case, I believe the issue here is about the fold-out prongs, is it not?

The entire design was a copy, sans the apple logo on the side of the plastic case. You make a good point on the Apple products for power supplies. I guess I never considered that. If there were many aftermarket options available, I think I still would only use the Apple brand Power adapter. I just hate that it costs ~$80 for how little money is actually required to build the item.

™

 

[SPUY767]

Apple patents good, everybody else patents bad.
I rest my case your honor.
And boy do I need a rest.

http://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/groucho_marx.jpg

You can't make **** that looks exactly like someone else's ****. If they had made a ho-hum power adapter that just had an end designed to interface with Apple's power connector, I doubt this would have happened, but when they ape every detail of an apple power adapter, they're asking for it.

 

[Berio]

Looks like somebody is working for apple. This guy is no better than a M$ troll. Just ignore him. These knockoffs are why apple replaces my power adapter every time my dog chews them up.

haha! why would i be working for apple? because i choose to ridicule somebody who claims he is having less fun due to apples legal dept? by your reasoning you must be working for the makers of the knockoffs, silly boy

i don't give a hoot what apple's legal people do, i'll buy the original anyway, and i do enjoy poking fun at whiners who pathetically proclaim that they and "many others" will take their business elsewhere. or that the magsafe sucks because it comes unstuck when they are in a john-lennon-esque sitting postion.

 

[sanity]

Patents are dumb, then.

Seriously, no 3rd-party adapters? What's next, no 3rd-party keyboards or mouses allowed for macs?

This has been said several times before. The design patent Apple has is very narrow to someone who makes a power adapter that looks like the one Apple makes. Take the same insides and make the power block look like a Thanksgiving turkey and you are golden. This company was clearly trying to pass its adapters off as an official Apple product by copying the industrial design.

Even assuming that you don't have an issue with someone stealing another's "idea" can't you see the benefit in having knock offs off the market so that consumers know they are getting an actual Apple product?

 

[bobertoq]

This has been said several times before. The design patent Apple has is very narrow to someone who makes a power adapter that looks like the one Apple makes. Take the same insides and make the power block look like a Thanksgiving turkey and you are golden. This company was clearly trying to pass its adapters off as an official Apple product by copying the industrial design.

Even assuming that you don't have an issue with someone stealing another's "idea" can't you see the benefit in having knock offs off the market so that consumers know they are getting an actual Apple product?

Really? It's a power adapter for God's sake... Pretty soon people are going to start suing Dixon Ticonderoga for making pencils that look "too similar"...

 

[*LTD*]

The entire design was a copy, sans the apple logo on the side of the plastic case. You make a good point on the Apple products for power supplies. I guess I never considered that. If there were many aftermarket options available, I think I still would only use the Apple brand Power adapter. I just hate that it costs ~$80 for how little money is actually required to build the item.

™

If something were to go wrong with the Apple adapter, which in turn somehow affcted the MBP, you could go right to Apple. It's your safest bet. It's a critical component, after all, not some 3rd party keyboard or mouse. Nor are we talking about any old power cord, either.

 

[cmaier]

I have had enough now.

First, you know nothing about patents, including the Motorola patent, so your comments (and others) regarding "knowledge in the public domain" don't carry much weight. If you knew anything, you would know that each application has to present the prior art and provide evidence that your device represents a design or technology that is NEW (not known or used by others, or published in a printed publication anywhere, or been in public use on or before one year before the application date). Thus, if anyone was using the patented Motorola technology in a public way prior to the patent application, the patent cannot be issued (or would be revoked as soon as evidence was presented). P

Actually, in most cases, the applicant need not present prior art other than any material art he/she already knows about (i.e.: they don't have to do a prior art search). There are exceptions for certain types of applications, but these are rarely done.

Also, the patent wouldn't be revoked "as evidence was presented"; the patent could be ruled invalid by a federal district court, or could be invalidated in a re-examination proceeding, however.