BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info | Hacker News Reader

BatteryBox: Massive update – design changes, feature additions and shipping info

blog.getbatterybox.com

18 pointspcl24 comments

The link to the patent 7,517,222 is wrong; it's to an application with the same title. Here's the key claim:

1. A magnetic connector system comprising: a first connector having a first plurality of electrical contacts and a plurality of magnets; and a second connector having a second plurality of electrical contacts and a magnetic element, the second plurality of electrical contacts being adapted to mate with the first plurality of electrical contacts when the first connector couples to the second connector, wherein the plurality of magnets of the first connector are proximally located and are arranged in opposing polarities with respect to each other so that when the first connector is brought in close proximity to the second connector, magnetic field lines travel through the magnetic element of the second connector from one of the plurality of magnets in the first connector to another one of the plurality of magnets in the first connector, thereby increasing magnetic attraction between the first connector and the second connector.

All the magnets are in the laptop end of the connector pair, not the cable end. Selling only the non-magnet end might not be infringing, since that's just a metal plate around some contacts. You might be able to beat this. But it would be tough.

If you really wanted to pull Apple's chain, you could make a better connector than Apple makes. You could fix the problem with their smaller magnetic connector, which is known to fall off too easily. Here's how.

There's an exotic device called the Correlated Magnetics MagPrinter (http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com). This is a CNC machine which magnetizes magnets. Not just ordinary uniform magnets, but single pieces of material with custom-designed magnetic patterns. With this, you can make one piece of magnetic material behave as if it is multiple magnets. You can create magnets with various self-aligning properties. You could probably make a plug for Apple's socket which didn't look like Apple's, didn't have a "plurality of magnets", mated with their connector, and worked better.

TechShop in San Francisco has a MagPrinter, and any member can use it. They also have the software you need to design the magnetic fields and create the files for the MagPrinter.

So get busy and out-invent Apple.

Animats, your idea is great and it's something we considered a lot when we were thinking about the connector. We almost went and did it. However there were a couple of problems with that patents (as a side note - my co-founder is actually a former patent troll, so we dug quite deeply into the patents). Our priority was to not infringe on any of Apple's patents, so we were as thorough as possible with our research.

Here are the main patents around the MagSafe: http://www.google.com/patents/US7645143 http://www.google.com/patents/US7901216 http://www.google.com/patents/US8087939 http://www.google.com/patents/US8177560 http://www.google.com/patents/US7311526 (the key patent)

Here are the main claims (apart from the one you mentioned): (a) A first connector comprising: a first plurality of electrical contacts, the first plurality of electrical contacts to mate with a second plurality of electrical contacts when the first connector couples to a second connector, wherein the first plurality of electrical contacts consisting of a central contact to convey a signal, two contacts to convey a power supply, one contact on each side of the central contact, and two contacts to provide a return path, one contact on each side of the central contact, wherein when the first connector couples to the second connector, the first and second plurality of electrical contacts define a corresponding plurality of electrical paths; and a magnetic element, the magnetic element to mate with a plurality of magnets in the second connector that are proximally located and arranged in opposing polarities with respect to each other so that when the first connector is brought in close proximity to the second connector, magnetic field lines travel through the magnetic element of the first connector from one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector to another one of the plurality of magnets in the second connector.

(b - part of it) a plurality of movable first contacts to make electrically conductive paths with a plurality of second contacts in a second connector when the first connector is mated with the second connector, each of the movable first contacts biased by one of a plurality of first springs;

The biggest problem is with the claim that speaks about a magnetic field from multiple magnets (4 are present on computer side) traveling through a magnetic element (ie. metal) on the connector side, which the patent states creates a stronger attraction. We thought it would be possible to place metal bits on the connector side in such a way that the magnetic field would only be passing through one element - thus creating less of a magnetic attraction but being a different invention. Unfortunately, at this point it becomes a matter of proving wether or not that's what's actually happening (this was our biggest worry as burden of proof would be on us).

There were another 2 - 4 other claims that also made it hard to improve upon (also not infringe on any of their patents) and create our own connector - not to mention the design patents.

I was actually thinking of writing a blog post about this issue, it was extremely interesting to look into all of this.

The problem isn't defeating the patent technically - it's defeating it legally, while still remaining profitable. And nobody has more money to throw at lawyers than Apple, Inc.

> "Recently however, we became aware of an Apple prohibition on re-using their products - even when their devices are not altered. Because of this, we decided it wouldn’t be appropriate to continue forward with our original plan."

...What? Can someone comment on the legality of such restrictions and the pros/cons of following/ignoring them? (To me it seems like first sale doctrine would be applicable, though that certainly wouldn't prohibit Apple from trying to constrain their ability to purchase...)

Hey - I'm one of the founders, maybe I can comment on this. You're completely right, first sale doctrine is something that would be applicable in a case like this (at least to my knowledge), but a users rights can be restricted by the EULA (End-user license agreement) and Terms of Use and Conditions when purchasing from a store.

The actual adaptor we planned to use didn't have any EULA restrictions that would have prevented us from going forward, however we at the last minute found out that the places we were purchasing these from did have Terms of Use restrictions that weren't favourable to us.

Though our situation was more of a grey area than a black and white one, we decided that the cons outweighed the pros. After all, our legal budget is a little lower than that of Apple :)

Apple has in the past sued other accessory makers that reused recycled Apple parts for patent infringement.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/21/apple_sues_hyperma...

Didn't pg specifically call them lawsuit-proof?

Edit: s/lawsuit/apple/: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7460204

Also, I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors rather than they current business model that involves severing an existing charger.

> I believe that your link was specifically related to them building their own MagSafe connectors

From his link:

> Instead of mimicking Apple's patented MagSafe connectors, Sanho's products actually rely on recycled official MagSafe products made by Apple. "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility," the company's website reads

The issue is that even if they're right, nobody can afford to defend themselves in the face of the financial might of Apple's lawyers. And Apple can just refuse to sell to them/their suppliers - that's fully in their right.

I'd love to know this as well. That was one of my reasons for backing this project.

How do you patent clipping a connector to a device?

I loved that part. "We're going to complain because Apple won't let us use their design, so we came up with our own design that we also won't let people use".

Patenting it doesn't necessarily mean they won't let other people use it. It could, for example, be for protection against Apple patenting it themselves and not letting anyone use it.

Our intention is definitely defensive rather than offensive.

So I assume you're offering licenses royalty free to anyone who wants one?

Ya, there's this thing called prior art. Apple can't patent someone else's idea just because that person chose not to.

They should make it clear if its a defensive patent.

upon filing a provisional patent i believe you can then use 'patent pending' wordage - so thats how. esp. given that no patent has been awarded at that time, you can effectively call anything patent pending but the operative word is pending which could be replaced by 'maybe', 'possibly', 'attempted' etc.

I have always wondered why 'patent pending' or 'patented technology' is used to market to consumers, you see it on a lot of commercials. Sure it suggests to the consumers thinking deeply that perhaps they won't be able to get that design anywhere else, but anyone thinking about it that deeply in 2014 might also say to themselves 'screw that, its a plastic clip'.

Patents are for businesses, not consumers, companies shouldn't advertise patents for a device/solution, they should advertise the solution or device.

You can patent anything these days. Patents aren't really tested until you have to defend them in court. The PTO can't afford to figure out if patents are valid so they lay that burden on the courts and whoever has to dispute/defend the patent.

Seems like the course of action here would be to pay Apple the licensing fee rather than building your own, very odd, clip on connector.

I didn't see anything about it in the article, but it also looks like it will either be impossible or highly discouraged to close the laptop lid with this plugged in.

AFAIK Apple does not license MagSafe for any amount of money.

Gotcha. I didn't notice that. That is a real shame.

How come there's no test for the 15 inch Macbook Pro?

That would be my oversight - we tested it but didn't post it. Will update today!

With the test the 15" MacBook lasted for around 4 hours, BatteryBox on its own did about 2 hour 20min.

It's the equivalent of 58% of the battery, or 55Wh (the 15" MacBook has a 95Wh battery).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com