Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HyperMac to Halt Sales of MagSafe Charging Cables
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The company doesn't have a license and people are surprised Apple is suing them for using their technology? It's irrelevant if they paid Apple to buy them, they did not pay Apple to resell them. Any fifth grader would know this is clearly infringing on Apple's patent... open and shut.
Mattie Num Nums
macrumors 68030
Apple doesn't license it. Its been stated many times already. This is just a bum move by Apple. Either way Apple is getting paid.
If we buy the cable now, can we get the battery later on at a discounted price as the cable is all i can get since i'm saving for the apple care warranty.
HLdan
macrumors 603
I didn't see anywhere in the article that stated that Apple didn't want the company to sell the plug. The article stated that HyperMac didn't license the technology.
I was waiting for a post like yours. The usual "It's Apple's fault" and anyone who doesn't agree with you is drinking the kool aid. 🙄
...possible reason for the suit
If Apple allowed HyperMac to use the power cords it could open the door for Dell / HP to use them as well.
If Apple allowed HyperMac to use the power cords it could open the door for Dell / HP to use them as well.
It's not licensable technology. Apple should make an exception in this case, though, since they don't sell external batteries. They're screwing their own customers. It's not like HyperMac is putting the connector into a competing laptop. There should be a way to find an agreement between the two companies.
Indeed. If Apple really wanted to make people happy they would make the lead that contains the magsafe adaptor removable as they do with the lead that goes to the power mains. That way if the end broke/wire wore you would be able to just change the lead. Instead when (and I do mean when because it is just a matter of time) the connector breaks you need to buy a whole new power supply.
No one else does it that way either I realise, but Apple is not supposed to do things like everyone else.
Oh and if that were the case - then you would be able to use that lead cable to hook up to the HyperMac unit....
longofest
Editor emeritus
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
It's sad that apple comes in and kills off companies innovative products like this without offering up a path to license their technology. This was a cool use of MagSafe, and apple should encourage it with proper licensing. The problem is, apple doesn't offer a MagSafe licensing option, so companies have to innovate around apple, and then get slapped by legal. Come on apple! Play nice!
It's sad that apple comes in and kills off companies innovative products like this without offering up a path to license their technology. This was a cool use of MagSafe, and apple should encourage it with proper licensing. The problem is, apple doesn't offer a MagSafe licensing option, so companies have to innovate around apple, and then get slapped by legal. Come on apple! Play nice!
See below for the info. The specs are at their site (see the article for the link).
Bum move? Whose device is being sold as though it's their own?
The Sanho ad states:
If you wish to get the world's ONLY external battery and car charger solution that works with ALL MacBook, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro (supports dual voltage) as well as the iPad, iPhone 3/3GS/4, iPod and all other USB devices, NOW is the time.
Look up the ad, and see what these devices cost. For that you could buy a WIN laptop.
Attachments
thejadedmonkey
macrumors G3
Never in a million years would that happen. The chargers cost $80 from Apple apiece, Dell's profit margins are ~15% on a $500 computer, or $75. Dell would have to take a $5 loss on each computer sold, just to offer the magsafe adapter, nevermind any R&D costs.
Hypermac sells their batteries for between $200-$500, $80 of which ends up going to Apple.
But the first sale doctrine prevents any companies from controlling how their physical product is used, after it is purchased. This is why used bookstores exist, and it is why HyperMac should be allowed to keep doing what they're doing.
Apple knows people don't need external batteries for their MacBooks. If they did, Apple would have provided these. 😛
kironin
macrumors 6502a
exactly!
and worse Apple is blocking recycling of parts here that would otherwise end up in a landfill as trash.
Well, I did my part for them...
Since I work from home in Albuquerque and I do like to go outside and work a bit, I just went ahead and bought one. I'd been thinking about it for a while and since Apple is being a dork about it, I figure I would patronize a company making a good product before they go away.
I figure with this and my MiFi, as long as there is a cell tower in the boonies, I can work in peace.
I just bought the largest power brick they have and have a MBP, so if it runs it for 6 to 8 hours, I'll be ecstatic.
Since I work from home in Albuquerque and I do like to go outside and work a bit, I just went ahead and bought one. I'd been thinking about it for a while and since Apple is being a dork about it, I figure I would patronize a company making a good product before they go away.
I figure with this and my MiFi, as long as there is a cell tower in the boonies, I can work in peace.
I just bought the largest power brick they have and have a MBP, so if it runs it for 6 to 8 hours, I'll be ecstatic.
The first sale doctrine applies to copyright, and it only applies to reselling the original, unmodified physical object, and not to distributing "derivative works".
Here, we're talking about patents. Does the same doctrine really apply? (I don't think so, but I'd love to be shown otherwise.)
nsayer
macrumors 65816
Apple may own the idea for this product and would be right to block would-be imitations, but Apple (or anyone else) does not physically sell a given cable and then a previous owner expects to have some say over what happens with the given cable. Sorry, that is not reality. Imagine the outrage if a company pulled this power-grabbing stunt with a commonly used interface cable.
There is a difference when it comes to software because software is licensed rather than sold. However, Apple still seems like they want to control your Mac after you buy it. Now, I could see taking a T6 or T8 to a hard disk as a good reason to void it, but modifying your system should not void the warranty if you return it to factory specifications before bringing it in for service.
There is a difference when it comes to software because software is licensed rather than sold. However, Apple still seems like they want to control your Mac after you buy it. Now, I could see taking a T6 or T8 to a hard disk as a good reason to void it, but modifying your system should not void the warranty if you return it to factory specifications before bringing it in for service.
If Apple doesn't change how it handles these types of small issues, it is going to earn a reputation as a big corporate bully. I find the whole matter rather ironic since Apple has always insisted on thinking differently from the rest of corporate America when it comes to their products and how they do business. Yet, it seems that these exact kinds of tactics are exactly what a power hungry corporation with a dried up bin of marketable ideas would resort to to stay afloat.
Commonly used interface cables generally aren't controlled by any one company, but rather are overseen by an industry-wide consortium, with clearly published requirements to file an application for permission to use them, and an unbiased review process to grant such permission regardless of any individual companies' competitive interests.
Woah there! Apple's present action is against the manufacturer of the cable, not against the individual end-users of the cable. Accusations of warranty violations against end users haven't been brought up at all in this news article.
Apple owns the intellectual property (patent) surrounding the physical implementation of the MagSafe connector, and so far, they have never sold or licensed permission to use this technology to anybody else. Therefore, Apple is the only manufacturer which has permission to manufacture and sell cables based upon this technology.
There is an argument to be made (of debatable quality) that this company's policy of recycling existing cables instead of manufacturing them brand new might be a loophole which could exempt them from being accused of infringing on Apple's patented technology.
But, provided Apple is willing to sit down and actually negotiate, it would probably be easier and cheaper for the manufacturer to arrive at a negotiated settlement rather than try to fight it out in court.