AllThingsD » licensees

It's Hard to Cut the Charging Cords

Katherine Boehret — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 00:24:07 +0000

What if there was a product that made it easy to charge all your household mobile devices and it used just a single cord to do it?

Charging pads are designed to do just that. The WildCharge Pad from PureEnergy Solutions Inc., one of the first charging pads, seemed revolutionary when it came out three years ago. It’s a small, thin pad covered in panels that conduct electricity. It plugs into the wall, and devices can be casually dropped onto it so they can start juicing up.

[ See post to watch video ]

Yet, here we are still fumbling around to find the right charging cord to plug into our phones, iPads, digital cameras and portable music players. This week, I decided to investigate why charging pads haven’t caught on with consumers.

One reason is that people may not want to buy a charging accessory when gadgets come with their own cords. Also, for devices to work with these charging surfaces, they must have special backs or cases that correspond with the pad. These can change the look of a device, making them bulky.

However, manufacturers of smart phones and other gadgets are starting to incorporate the technology behind charging pads at the design level so they aren’t so obtuse. Palm Inc., now a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard, designed a $20 (after instant rebate) accessory called the Touchstone that works as a magnetic charging dock for its Pre smart phones. A special backing still must be swapped out for the Pre’s regular back, but this looks just like the phone’s regular backing. And last week, when H-P unveiled its TouchPad tablet, due out this summer, the company confirmed this device would also work with a Touchstone charger.

Energizer’s Inductive Charger

But why isn’t there one charging pad that works with several different gadgets and doesn’t require an unattractive sleeve? Of the different charging technologies, there isn’t one that has gained a toehold.

A group called the Wireless Power Consortium—which includes a host of different companies like smart-phone makers, wireless carriers and TV makers—created what it intends to be an international standard for interoperable wireless charging, called Qi (pronounced “chee”). The WPC hopes manufacturers will eventually make devices that are Qi compliant so they all work with the same charging pad and don’t require a sleeve, since the technology would be built in. Products using this charging standard would have a Qi logo on their packaging. Compared with the current situation of using different chargers for each device, Qi sounds heavenly.

Though the WPC includes members like Samsung, LG Electronics, Verizon Wireless and Motorola, none of the companies has introduced a Qi-compliant product. When I asked a Motorola spokeswoman if it had plans to use the Qi standard in its products, she would only say that the company is evaluating the technology for future devices. Likewise for BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion Ltd., a WPC member. A spokeswoman said she couldn’t comment on future product plans.

In September, another trade group, the Consumer Electronics Association, created a panel to sort through various opinions on wireless power technical standards. The sole aim of the group is to collect and share information with manufacturers. This group is examining five issues that include: nomenclature; safety; radio-frequency emissions and efficiency; and standby measurement. A CEA spokeswoman said the panel and the WPC share many of the same members and that the panel plans to share information on a charging standard.

Duracell’s myGrid charging pad, which uses the conductive charging technology.

There are two types of charging technology and it isn’t clear yet which one will become the standard. The Qi standard involves a technology called inductive charging, while other companies, like PureEnergy Solutions, use a conductive charging technology.

One big difference is that inductive chargers don’t require metal-on-metal connections to charge a device like conductive chargers do. This means inductive charging will work through lots of different materials, including wood, plastic or leather. This could allow pads to be built into different surfaces, such as airplane trays and office furniture. Late last year, the first Qi-enabled wireless charging station was installed at Windsor International Airport in Ontario.

One product that is Qi compliant is Energizer’s $89 Inductive Charger (http://energizer.com/inductive), but this still requires sleeves for devices. The sleeves cost $35 each and are available for BlackBerrys, the iPhone 3G or 3GS and iPhone 4. Late this summer, Energizer will introduce a universal adapter with micro- and mini-USB compatibility.

Powermat USA’s $60 Wireless Charging System for the iPhone 4 (powermat.com) uses a slightly different technology that requires devices to rest on charging pads in specific positions.

On the conductive front, PureEnergy Solutions has licensed its WildCharge Technology to other companies. All licensees feature a WildCharge Mark of Interoperability on their products so consumers know which products are compatible with the WildCharge charging pad.

Duracell uses this technology in its MyGrid line of products (http://3.ly/A7Yh), including the $85 iPhone Starter Kit and a $90 cellphone starter kit. RadioShack will use WildCharge Technology in its $50 Enercell Charging Pad (http://3.ly/6gcY), which will be available in June, and skins for devices that charge on these pads will cost about $30 each.

In the future, hopefully, one of these committees will figure out which technology is best to establish one standard that saves people from using a rat’s nest of power cords.

Write to Katherine Boehret at mossbergsolution@wsj.com

Another Kodak Moment: ITC Agrees to Investigate Apple, RIM

John Paczkowski — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:02:37 +0000

The U.S. International Trade Commission has agreed to investigate claims that Apple’s iPhone and Research in Motion’s BlackBerry infringe on Kodak’s intellectual property. At issue here: Two patents generally covering image preview and processing, which Kodak claims have been used illegitimately in the iPhone and BlackBerry. At stake for Apple (AAPL) and RIM (RIMM): A ban on imports of both devices.

In announcing the investigation, the ITC made it clear that it has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. But the fact that it has agreed to pursue it at all must be worrisome to both companies, particularly since the agency ruled in Kodak’s (EK) favor last year in another case against Samsung involving the same patents. Ultimately, that squabble resulted in a settlement and cross-licensing deal. My guess is that things will play out in a similar manner here.

A Priceless Kodak Moment for Apple and RIM

John Paczkowski — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:30:22 +0000

Emboldened by the settlement it won from Samsung in a recent digital camera patent dispute, Kodak is seeking similar arrangements from Apple and Research in Motion. In a handful of lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Kodak accuses both companies of illegally leveraging its digital imaging patents in the iPhone and BlackBerry.

Specifically at issue here is Kodak’s technology for previewing photos and processing images of different resolutions. A separate action brought against Apple alone claims the company has infringed on patents that allow a computer to “ask for help” from another application to complete certain functions.

In a statement, Kodak (EK) said it tries to avoid lawsuits “whenever possible,” but had no other choice but to pursue legal action after years of failed attempts at negotiating agreements with both Apple (AAPL) and RIM (RIMM).

“Kodak has a long history of digital imaging innovation and we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars creating our industry-leading patent portfolio,” Kodak chief intellectual property officer Laura Quatela explained.

“In the case of Apple and RIM, we’ve had discussions for years with both companies in an attempt to resolve this issue amicably, and we have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement,” Quatela added. “In light of that, we are taking this action to ensure that we protect the interests of our shareholders and the existing licensees of our technology.”

The company is dead serious about this; not only has Kodak filed suit against Apple and RIM, it has filed complaints with the U.S International Trade Commission that, if successful, would ban the two companies from shipping iPhones and BlackBerries to the U.S.

Just When Microsoft Thought It Was Out, the Justice Department Pulls It Back In!

Kara Swisher — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:36:39 +0000

The Microsoft antitrust trial seems like a distant memory, doesn’t it?

Not quite yet to the Justice Department, it seems, which asked the federal judge overseeing the 2002 settlement with federal and state regulators yesterday to extend her oversight of some of the judgment another 18 months.

The Justice Department said it wants that extended to make sure Microsoft fully complies with the requirement that technical documentation to licensees is crackerjack.

And Microsoft (MSFT) has agreed to be under the watch until May, 2011.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s oversight of the software giant was supposed to run out this November. She must approve the extension.

Here’s the U.S. Department of Justice’s press release on the issue:

Justice Department Requests Extension of Microsoft Final Judgment

Microsoft Agrees to 18-Month Extension, Subject to Court Approval

WASHINGTON, April 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/–The Department of Justice told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today that it is necessary to extend the term of certain portions of the Microsoft final judgment by at least 18 months. The Department said that an extension is necessary to ensure the quality of the technical documentation Microsoft provides to licensees.

The Department’s Antitrust Division made its views known today as part of its Joint Status Report to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Antitrust Division enforces the final judgment in conjunction with antitrust enforcers from 17 states and the District of Columbia, which along with Microsoft joined in today’s filing with the court.

In 2006, Microsoft agreed to a two-year extension of the communications protocol licensing program contained in Section III.E of the final judgment, along with all of the final judgment’s enforcement provisions. Microsoft also agreed that the Department and state antitrust enforcement agencies may, at their discretion, apply to the court for an additional extension of all or part of the extended provisions of the final judgment for a period of up to three additional years, through November 2012. The United States is exercising its right under this provision to seek an extension of Section III.E and its supporting provisions through May 12, 2011. Without this action, the final judgment would have expired on Nov. 12, 2009.

Section III.E of the final judgment requires that Microsoft make available to competing server software developers, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, certain technology used by Microsoft to make its server operating systems interoperate with client PCs running the Windows operating system. Microsoft must provide licensees with technical documentation that is designed to enable them to use this technology in their own server products so that those products work better with Windows.

In past status reports, the Department reported to the court its concerns with the quality of the technical documentation Microsoft provides to licensees under this program and with the length of time it is taking Microsoft to improve that documentation.

The Department today also submitted the necessary papers to the court for its consideration.