3 ms·

Apparently most of the fault here is not Apple's, according to you. Hell, even though they were found guilty of patent infringement, you're still, "It's not be

Apparently most of the fault here is not Apple's, according to you. Hell, even though they were found guilty of patent infringement, you're still, "It's not been shown that they actually did... we have to wait for the appeals!"

crazygringo 3y ago
There's nothing hilarious, please don't be insulting. Everybody knows that major patent trials often get reversed on appeal, and sometimes reversed yet again. Precisely because they're not clear-cut, because clear-cut cases often just get settled before going to court at all. And yes, the jury trial already couldn't decide against Apple in terms of trade secrets. So the idea that Apple is obviously the bad guys here simply doesn't hold water. And they certainly aren't in terms of hiring employees from a competitor, because that's just what corporations do to do each other. Maybe this jury decided correctly on patent infringment, maybe they didn't. Patent infringement cases can be notoriously difficult to determine. If this one gets upheld after a couple of appeals, then it's a lot easier to say Apple was in the wrong.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  That goes both ways though. It could be easily framed as "the jury wasn't compelled to agree with some of the poaching claims" but "did find the patent claims compelling, so there was evidently something more there". And, like it or not, it is common and accepted to note that there was conviction/guilt upon that verdict. When someone is convicted of a crime (I'm not saying this is) the common phrasing is "they were convicted of a crime" not "maybe, we'll have to see, maybe they decided correctly, maybe they didn't, let's wait for all the appeals first". So I'm unsure why there's this caveat for Apple. Yes, patent claims are difficult, and there's a few areas where it is even more ripe for reform. But even then, the phrasing would still be "found to infringe on patent, overturned on appeal" - because the fact that at some point there was significant enough impetus to believe it happened is notable. You make a big deal about Masimo "not being a mom and pop company - they have $1.24B in revenue", but that ignores the fact that Apple is there with $393B. I could equally say "Well, if Apple, with the legal resources it could afford, couldn't convince a jury that they didn't infringe two supposedly simple patents, then maybe, just maybe, they did infringe..." (I did remove the 'hilarity' comment - it sincerely wasn't intended as insulting. But I did feel that the contortions that some people are doing in order to say "Well, I know they were found guilty, but woah, let's not be hasty, we don't reallllly know they are!" amusing.)
renewiltord 3y ago
You can count on online tech bros to jump in front of any criticism of billion-dollar companies. Masimo is a $4 b company dude. It can't exist without exploiting people so it's better it is destroyed.
mardifoufs 3y ago
So if a court decides something, you have to agree with it? Does that apply to some recent SCOTUS decisions too then?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  No, you don't have to agree with it. But don't expect people to be all sympathetic when you're trying to downplay a guilty verdict for your favorite company and saying "we don't know, how could we know, if that's actually accurate". It just sounds overly defensive.

crazygringo 3y ago

There's nothing hilarious, please don't be insulting. Everybody knows that major patent trials often get reversed on appeal, and sometimes reversed yet again. Precisely because they're not clear-cut, because clear-cut cases often just get settled before going to court at all. And yes, the jury trial already couldn't decide against Apple in terms of trade secrets. So the idea that Apple is obviously the bad guys here simply doesn't hold water. And they certainly aren't in terms of hiring employees from a competitor, because that's just what corporations do to do each other. Maybe this jury decided correctly on patent infringment, maybe they didn't. Patent infringement cases can be notoriously difficult to determine. If this one gets upheld after a couple of appeals, then it's a lot easier to say Apple was in the wrong.

FireBeyond 3y ago
That goes both ways though. It could be easily framed as "the jury wasn't compelled to agree with some of the poaching claims" but "did find the patent claims compelling, so there was evidently something more there". And, like it or not, it is common and accepted to note that there was conviction/guilt upon that verdict. When someone is convicted of a crime (I'm not saying this is) the common phrasing is "they were convicted of a crime" not "maybe, we'll have to see, maybe they decided correctly, maybe they didn't, let's wait for all the appeals first". So I'm unsure why there's this caveat for Apple. Yes, patent claims are difficult, and there's a few areas where it is even more ripe for reform. But even then, the phrasing would still be "found to infringe on patent, overturned on appeal" - because the fact that at some point there was significant enough impetus to believe it happened is notable. You make a big deal about Masimo "not being a mom and pop company - they have $1.24B in revenue", but that ignores the fact that Apple is there with $393B. I could equally say "Well, if Apple, with the legal resources it could afford, couldn't convince a jury that they didn't infringe two supposedly simple patents, then maybe, just maybe, they did infringe..." (I did remove the 'hilarity' comment - it sincerely wasn't intended as insulting. But I did feel that the contortions that some people are doing in order to say "Well, I know they were found guilty, but woah, let's not be hasty, we don't reallllly know they are!" amusing.)

renewiltord 3y ago

You can count on online tech bros to jump in front of any criticism of billion-dollar companies. Masimo is a $4 b company dude. It can't exist without exploiting people so it's better it is destroyed.

mardifoufs 3y ago

So if a court decides something, you have to agree with it? Does that apply to some recent SCOTUS decisions too then?

FireBeyond 3y ago
No, you don't have to agree with it. But don't expect people to be all sympathetic when you're trying to downplay a guilty verdict for your favorite company and saying "we don't know, how could we know, if that's actually accurate". It just sounds overly defensive.