And again someone posts a vapid response falling for Samsung's propaganda and demonstrating you don't have a clue about the difference between a utility patent and a design parent, which are two entirely different things and fall under completely differing rules and standards. The later has to do with trade dress, more akin to Trade Marks, and the appearance, look and feel, of a product, its design and ornamentation that distinguish it from other products that compete with it. Such design patents require describing their appearance, including "rounded corners," etc., that Samsung absurdly derided as Apple trying to patent. They did not tell you that their own Samsung design patents ALSO included the same wording when required, or that the judge threatened to sanction the Samsung attorneys for their using such derisive false claims in their arguments.
Yea, that didnt clear up anything for me. All i was saying was that the science behind battery charging has been known and develped by many different companies for decades now. So why should load varying be allowex to be so recently patented when its beem done by others long before the patent application? Its like patenting math. Maybe theres more, but my intuition says its bullshit.
When i was in college i thought of going lawyer and i know i would hve been good at it. But i was wise enough in my youth to realize that having a license to steal would be a bad thing for me to have.