decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The PO strikes again then? | 483 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The PO strikes again then?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 05:43 PM EST
Obvious and prior art galore it would seem.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

There must be some secret sauce
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 06:30 PM EST
Because I don't yet see gray/aftermarket versions in my local market.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How long have we had rechargeable batteries?
Authored by: UncleVom on Saturday, December 22 2012 @ 07:08 PM EST
I think it is the magic materials that drives this patent.

Now if someone were to make a functional mating connector out of another
material, I don't think the patent has enough beef to fight it face to face
given the aforementioned prior art.

The problem being that Apple has a patent, a bullpen full of lawyers, a tame US
justice system and deeper pockets than most anyone.

The pertinent American game rules are as follows:

If AAPL calls "patent" on an opponent during the game, the opponent
will wither, die and be removed from the playing field.

An exception to the above rule is when the opponent has "Troll" status
and a two sided coin is flipped and the money wheel is spun.

Troll status cannot apply in this particular case with the connector as the
actual manufacture of an item is involved.


Now if the game is played under Chinese rules.

Almost everybody, but AAPL gets to laugh.

The offending item may or may not have to be renamed from "Lightning"
to "for iPhone 5" and will be sourced from dozens of companies.

The price for a single connecting cable or adapter shipped to the US will be so
cheap that the value of AAPL's patent will approach zero as nobody will buy the
genuine AAPL "made" part unless it comes bundled with the original
purchase.

Of course the Chinese game rules cannot apply to manufacture in the USA as this
would stifle AAPL and hence American innovation as a whole.

IANAL or an "iCompatible cable" importer.

UV

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )