28 ms·
Apple Watch violates patents held by Orange Co. tech company, ITC finds
- throwaway1777 3y ago[flagged]
- bdcravens 3y agoI'm confused? Apple didn't win.
- jasonjmcghee 3y agoThis isn’t a patent troll. > Apple first approached Masimo more than a decade ago, floating the idea of a partnership, and potentially an acquisition. Instead, he says, the tech giant began a campaign to hire away his top talent and to plunder his company’s intellectual property.
- ragestorm 3y agoHe obviously didnt read the article. Apple definitely is in the wrong here as the ITC found.
- kstrauser 3y agoWe’ve had pulse oximeters for decades. What’s specific to this company’s implementation?
- bdcravens 3y agoHere's the patent: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10945648-B2 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-10945648...
- yftsui 3y agoRead this pattern through Google (they have PDFs provided), isn’t it describing the finger sensor pretty much every health care provider uses? Especially the figures they put in, non of them looks like a consumer daily device. Not a typical pattern troll but an innovative one. Now they can pretty much go after any companies in this area! I feel they are after Apple just because Apple Watch succeeded.
- blincoln 3y agoYeah, I'd really love to see some commentary from someone with experience in the medical device industry about whether there's anything novel in the patent. It was originally filed in 2008, but that was thirty years after Minolta made the first fingertip pulse oximetry sensor. They might be using different wavelengths of light, but Apple could be as well.
- AlbertCory 3y agoEveryone saying "there's nothing new here" : there's a whole body of law governing how this is decided. You can be 100% certain that Apple's lawyers are exploiting it to the max. But simply asserting that is not going to change the outcome any. > I feel they are after Apple just because Apple Watch succeeded. Exactly. Why would they sue an unsuccessful company with no money?
- kken 3y ago>The present disclosure relates to noninvasive methods, devices, and systems for measuring various blood constituents or analytes, such as glucose. In an embodiment, a light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm. Since when is the Apple watch measureing glucose? It appears they are not fighting about something the was in the original scope of the patent but something that was added/emphasized later. Difficult to pick sides here. Massimo was/is the incumbent in their medical space and they are now, to some extend, being disrupted by a consumer-market focused company. Of course they need to defend their territory. On the other hand, this is also not the first instance where Apple is accused of predatory behavior towards potential suppliers.
- bdcravens 3y agoThere's a lot more to this story than just pulse oximeters. Years ago Apple approached the company about an acquisition, but presumably this was in bad faith; they ended up looting the company for information gained during those talks, as well as hiring away 20 of their employees. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-10-05/column-joe-kiani-masimo-apple-watch-pulse-oximeter-lawsuit https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-10-05...
- bigmattystyles 3y agoWhy is hiring from a company an issue. The company may have a point about their IP being looted but they don’t own these employees. Assuming the employees only brought their know how and not actual technology and software, I don’t see the issue here. Would they not be allowed to use their expertise to develop a like system without violating the existing patent?
- bdcravens 3y agoThose employees can totally create a cleanroom implementation, true. That's very difficult in any domain. I could totally create software that does what my employer does, but could I do it without using any of the solutions I specifically created for them? It would be a challenge.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bdowling 3y agoThe restrictions are only against using protectable trade secrets or patented technology. Protectable trade secrets don't include things that are generally known within an industry or that the prior employer didn't treat as a trade secret (e.g., didn't take steps to prevent from becoming generally known).
- bdcravens 3y ago
- OrvalWintermute 3y agoRelevant: The history of Pulse Oximeters https://www.cablesandsensors.com/pages/history-of-pulse-oximetry https://www.cablesandsensors.com/pages/history-of-pulse-oxim...
- AlbertCory 3y agoHere are the two patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c912%2c502 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en?oq=us10%2c... https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=us10%2c945%2c648 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=us10%2c... these don't seem to be typical patent troll stuff. Here's Claim 1 of the '648 patent: 1. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively measure a physiological parameter of a user, the user-worn device comprising: a first set of light emitting diodes (LEDs), the first set of LEDs comprising at least an LED configured to emit light at a first wavelength and an LED configured to emit light at a second wavelength; a second set of LEDs spaced apart from the first set of LEDs, the second set of LEDs comprising at least an LED configured to emit light at the first wavelength and an LED configured to emit light at the second wavelength; four photodiodes arranged on an interior surface of the user-worn device and configured to receive light after attenuation by tissue of the user; a protrusion comprising: a convex surface extending over the interior surface, a plurality of openings in the convex surface extending through the protrusion and aligned with the four photodiodes, each opening defined by an opaque surface, and a plurality of windows, each of the windows extending across a different one of the openings; and one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the photodiodes and calculate a measurement of the physiological parameter of the user.
- stefan_ 3y agoHow is it not patent troll stuff? It's a meaningless tweak on something that existed some 10 years before 2020 when this garbage was filed.
- AlbertCory 3y agoTell me what was published 20 years ago, and I'll see if it was raised in prosecution. Edit: after more looking, it appears the date you have to beat is 2006-04-21. I think that's their priority date.
- FireBeyond 3y agoIf only you'd been able to tell Apple's IP lawyers and outside counsel that a year ago, they'd not have been found guilty!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- znpy 3y agoAnother case of a large tech company abusing its dominant position. I wonder what are the people at the antitrust bodies doing all day…
- pciexpgpu 3y agoFor once, it’s a legit apples to oranges comparison.
- gamesbrainiac 3y agoYou couldn't help yourself, could you? :)
- cat_plus_plus 3y agoNonsense! That's like comparing apples and oranges!
- type0 3y agoOh shit, they're brain raping us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlwwVuSUUfc
- exabrial 3y ago>The ITC ruling will now undergo a 60-day presidential review period in which President Biden has the power to veto the ruling Election year coming up, what do you think is going to happen? (oh and before you accuse me of being a troll, this is how it works on both sides) I'm surprised none of the actual patents in question were mentioned?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago"By looking at this David vs. Goliath story, we can learn a lot - about how a tech company becomes all-powerful in the modern age, and how it works to protect its position at all costs." According to Wikipedia, Goliath was defeated by David.
- snvzz 3y agoIt doesn't matter. Patents are a method by which huge companies can bully startups. Companies the size of Apple get away with any and everything.