51 ms·

Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• llm_nerd 3y ago
  Initially I presumed this was a patent troll sitting on something obvious and trying to extort a big player. Reading about the actual story reveals a very different situation, and it's one in which Apple needs to pay an extremely heavy toll for scumbag behaviour. 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... Apple did precisely the sorts of things that big companies are reviled for, and the only good outcome is that this costs them an enormous sum of money, and every scumbag manager involved in this behaviour lose their jobs.
  • vGPU 3y ago
    Masimo is a $billions dollar company. The description of a “David and Goliath” battle is a tad misleading. Sure, they acted scummy, but this is just typical BigCorp behavior where one huge corporation steals from another huge corporation.
    • llm_nerd 3y ago
      They aren't the "little guy", but at the same time Apple is a $trillionX3 dollar company, so David vs Goliath seems pretty fair. It is a tiny operation relative to Apple.
      • musictubes 3y ago
        What does the valuation of a company’s stock have to do with this? I keep hearing that Apple is a $3 trillion company but that is strictly a function of how investors value the company. Cash on hand is probably a better way to compare and here Apple is top dog I think.
        • llm_nerd 3y ago
          Investors give Apple 500x more value than their opponent in this battle. I mean market cap (or maybe the more accurate enterprise value) is a pretty ordinary way or comparing the size of companies. Apple could acquire Masimo in a stock swap and it would be barely a blip on their share dilution.
    • WXLCKNO 3y ago
      How much bigger than David was Goliath? 2x perhaps? Apple is over 500x bigger than Masimo. 6B vs 3000B+ The amount I rounded down on Apple's market cap (32B) is over 5x bigger itself. They're not even in the same ballpark to be just "two huge corporations"
    • freedomben 3y ago
      I disagree. > Apple, of course, is one of the largest and most powerful companies in history — it’s the first to hit a $3-trillion — that’s trillion, with a T — market cap. Apple is at least 100 times bigger than Masimo, 500x based on the numbers in the article. Sounds David and Goliath to me. Add in the despicable behavior and you've got a story where real life is more than fiction could do.
      • vGPU 3y ago
        This is literally standard corporate playbook behavior that has been utilized since the creation of corporations. In what possible way is it “more than fiction”?
      • SllX 3y ago
        It’s still a multi-billion dollar company. At that scale, you’re not facing any real disadvantages in the legal process even against Apple unless your company is actively losing money already and you won’t have enough cash on hand to continue operating. A quick looksie at their financials indicates that is not the case here. I don’t want to say Market Cap doesn’t matter, but man is it irrelevant to most discussions and mainly of use to PR agents that want to spin a David and Goliath story.
        • avidphantasm 3y ago
          Also, the issue at hand is a hobby for Apple, but it’s Massimo’s bread and butter, so they ought to be willing to spend accordingly on lawyers.
      • paxys 3y ago
        If both companies are able to afford tier A law firms then the relative size difference is meaningless. An extra trillion in market cap doesn't go any further in helping Apple's case.
  • crazygringo 3y ago
    This is not obvious at all. Even Maximo's case has been whittled down from 103 instances of infringement to just 5: > In its initial filing with the ITC, Masimo accused Apple of 103 instances of patent infringement across five different patents. However, the ITC found that Apple infringed on only two patents, covering five different instances of patent infringements This is a borderline case and a final decision has not been made. Patent decisions are often in a gray area. The article you link to is extremely opinionated and it's just as easy to argue the opposite. I.e. Masimo complains that Apple poached some of their employees by paying them more. Well, why wouldn't Masimo pay them what they're worth? Companies try to hire experts away from other companies all the time, and this is good because it pushes up salaries for those experts and fairly rewards them for their expertise. Masimo isn't some mom-and-pop shop. They have revenue of $1.24 billion. They know what they're doing.
    • llm_nerd 3y ago
      >Even Maximo's case has been whittled down from 103 instances of infringement to just 5 That's like every ITC complaint in the history of ITC complaints. You throw everything at them and your best stuff sticks. They literally need one single complaint to stick, and they have 5. That is incredibly, overwhelmingly strong. >Companies try to hire experts away from other companies all the time Apple didn't just hire employees away from them. There would be nothing wrong with that (well, outside of the era of non-competes, which notably Apple was a big fan of and was a legal enforcer of, making that a humorous justification). Apple engaged in a classic "brain rape" to extract value without cost. I'm a fan of Apple, but it is an extraordinarily greedy company. Maybe the greediest company in history. That is not a good trait, and it isn't beneficial to the industry as a whole.
      • crazygringo 3y ago
        > Apple engaged in a classic "brain rape" to extract value without cost. Hyperbolic, sexualized language isn't helpful here. Why didn't Masimo counter Apple's offers and pay their employees what they are worth? I don't see how this isn't Masimo's fault when they certainly had the money to do it. I know lots of cases where rival companies tried to hire engineers with highly domain-specific expertise away from rivals and failed, because those rivals would counter offers and provided a great, supportive work environment. If Masimo failed to do that, then that's their own fault. I side with the employees here. Good on them for knowing their worth.
  • vGPU 3y ago
    Nor is Apple copying their tech the “kiss of death” that the article mentions, as Masimo makes primarily medical/hospital equipment. The majority of their equipment is sold to other businesses or through medical suppliers. Seeing as how they claim to own 90% of the hospital O2 monitoring market, I think they’re doing just fine. Once again, this isn’t Apple stealing tech from Joe Shmoe. This is just standard legalistic BigCorp infighting, corporate backstabbing, brain drain/theft, etc. Side note - I love the infant sp02 tape monitors they have, as they work incredibly well for use on adults with poor extremity perfusion. Earlobe usually works great.
    • lamontcg 3y ago
      > Once again, this isn’t Apple stealing tech from Joe Shmoe. This is just standard legalistic BigCorp infighting, corporate backstabbing, brain drain/theft, etc. Conversely, if Apple feels comfortable stealing from BigCorp, they will absolutely feel comfortable stealing from Joe Shmoe, which is why this issue should be treated seriously. Apple needs to be incentivized so that if they're sitting down with a startup and considering if they should acquire and make the founder a VP or just go about stealing the technology that they should pick the former path because they've gotten burned in the past by doing the latter.
  • chrisfinazzo 3y ago
    Disclaimer: Not a lawyer It isn't clear to me if Apple's internal team working on this was the original plan - think "embrace, extend, extinguish", or "we'll do the basics, everything else is a 'third-party opportunity'" - or if they were formed as a backstop in the event an acquisition or licensing deal didn't happen. See also the current situation with AliveCor over ECG tech in the Apple Watch. Bottom line, Masimo wants to be paid - which I get - but I think the case will also try to settle whether or not Apple (or anyone) can integrate these features in something that (legally speaking) isn't a medical device without paying licensing fees of some kind.
    • vGPU 3y ago
      They will almost certainly settle, and very quickly in my opinion (also just a layman opinion however) because if Masimo is successful in forcing them to stop sales the next logical step would be to force them to disable the feature until a ruling is made otherwise.
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    Alternatively, someone at Apple thought "we should add one of those pulse ox thingies like they've used in the doctor's office for the last 50 years into our next watch", saw that Masimo was a player in the space, met with them, and then decided they'd rather do it themselves. This is not something Masimo invented themselves. The class of devices existed for decades before Masimo even existed. I'm not saying that Apple's in the right here -- I have no inside information giving me more perspective than anyone else reading this -- but it's far from clear that they did anything wrong.
    • tadfisher 3y ago
      > met with them, and then decided they'd rather do it themselves ..., headhunted Masimo engineers, and hired them to reimplement a pulse-ox device. > Masimo and Apple began their relationship in 2013, when Apple discussed potentially integrating Masimo’s sensing technology into future Apple products. Internally, Apple executives debated the idea of buying Masimo and making its chief executive a vice president, according to documents made public at a later trial. But Apple ultimately decided against it because “acquisitions of this size aren’t our style,” an email reads. > Instead of buying Masimo, Apple ended up hiring Masimo engineers and began working on the technology itself, Masimo later said. https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-to-halt-watch-sales-as-it-prepares-to-comply-with-u-s-import-ban-432a018c https://www.wsj.com/tech/apple-to-halt-watch-sales-as-it-pre...
      • rvnx 3y ago
        Basically what 100% of the AI companies are doing right now.
      • kstrauser 3y ago
        From an employee's point of view, I'm 100% OK with that. If Apple wants to throw money at an engineer to do the same thing they were already doing, but for Apple, then by all means do so. I don't think it's at all unethical to hire away employees. If it were, that'd lead to bad outcomes for those people (i.e. artificially suppressed wages).
• treesciencebot 3y ago
  Masimo, the company who is suing apple, has a market cap around ~$6B. Apple's wearable business (which might include the audio products as well, I guess), at least according to the article, "generated $13.48 billion in revenue". Don't think this is as big of a threat as someone like Samsung suing iPhone.
  • darig 3y ago
    [dead]
  • throwup238 3y ago
    > Don't think this is as big of a threat as someone like Samsung suing iPhone. Samsung makes most of the displays Apple uses in iPhones and it's probably the most profitable deal Samsung has. They have a messy relationship but neither of them is going to rock the boat too much because no one else can meet Apple's demand and Samsung can't afford to lose that much revenue.
    • ethbr1 3y ago
      Sad, because this is the way B2B relationships should work. But you only get "normal" competitive-cooperative behavior because both companies happen to be giants.
  • ryukoposting 3y ago
    Masimo is a well-known and regularly discussed name in med tech (ask me how I know). I can't comment on how Apple perceives them, but Masimo is much, much more than a no-name patent troll.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• theamk 3y ago
  Patents in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en They look identical to me btw? both files on 2020-02 and have title of "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user". From summary: > light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm. In an embodiment, the detector comprises a plurality of photodetectors arranged in a special geometry comprising... there are 30 claims and some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art ("a storage device configured to at least temporarily store at least the measurement").. I wonder what's the real innovation is there?
  • arthurcolle 3y ago
    One has a typo, one doesn't "The light source emits light at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." vs "The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • bdowling 3y ago
    > some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art The standard is to consider ALL of the elements together in the specific configuration. If this were not the case, then any invention that incorporated any conventional element (e.g., a lever) would be invalid.
    • theamk 3y ago
      It cannot be that simple, can it? Otherwise changing a single element (say "concave surface" to "sine-shaped surface", or "strap" to "clamp") would invalidate the patent.
      • gojomo 3y ago
        Expert patent language typically covers every foreseeable usable variant, and any subset of features likely to provide the core benefits, as 'claims'.
• vaxman 3y ago
  Anyway, there are reports from Bloomberg’s Apple reporter that Apple will ship all new models of watches with a different form factor and new features like BP monitoring in 2024. PS: Was all set with an app design for the Samsung devices a few years ago, but Tizen turned out to be not worthy of any mindshare and I don’t support Google’s surveillance capitalism business model (so no WearOS for me). Meanwhile, Apple doesn’t have a well known procedure for vetting app developers enough to trust some with full access to their crypto-locked devices. With no other similar platforms, there is no real opportunity to advance mankind in this regard at this time anyway…but dang, love those Activity reminders /not
  • hnburnsy 3y ago
    Garmin?
• whycome 3y ago
  Samsung phones (Note 8?) had a pulse oximeter that was downgraded via software updates (you could still access if installing an older APK). I wonder if it was in response to something similar. And, could Apple have similarly complied with a simple software change?
  • nomel 3y ago
    > could Apple have similarly complied with a simple software change From a user perspective, disabling a widely advertised/used feature after a user has bought something is probably worse than having new customers think it’s out of stock.
    • willis936 3y ago
      Might even result in some unopened presents returned.
• canucker2016 3y ago
  from a couple of months ago, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/apple-watch-facing-potential-ban-after-losing-masimo-patent-case/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/apple-watch-faci...: "The ITC's ruling upholds a January ruling that found that the Apple Watch infringed on a Masimo patent. The exclusion period recommended on Thursday is supposed to go into effect after 60 days, during which time President Joe Biden can overturn the ruling. Biden previously declined to veto an ITC ruling that found the Apple Watch violated patents of a different company, AliveCor." "Masimo has accused Apple of entering discussions with it for a potential partnership, including a potential acquisition, in 2013, only to steal Masimo's idea and poach some of Masimo's engineers to implement it." "As noted by Reuters, Apple and Masimo's legal battles are ongoing. In May, Masimo's lawsuit against Apple in California federal court ended in a mistrial, and Apple has also sued Masimo in Delaware. Flipping the script, Apple has accused [PDF] Masimo's W1 smartwatches of violating Apple Watch patents." "Meanwhile, Apple is also in an Apple Watch patent battle with California-based AliveCor. AliveCor is currently appealing the revocation of three patents that it claims the Apple Watch infringes upon. Before then, the ITC ruled that the Apple Watch infringes [PDF] on electrocardiogram sensor-related patents. But there's no import ban in effect because the US Patent and Trademark Office revoked the patents in question. Like Masimo, AliveCor has accused Apple of initiating a potential partnership but ultimately poaching AliveCor workers and infringing on its patents instead." Looks like the patent lawyers are going to do well...
• dijit 3y ago
  https://archive.is/P2GeG https://archive.is/P2GeG TL;DR: the blood oxygen sensor is patent encumbered somehow.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• jimbob45 3y ago
  https://archive.is/P2GeG https://archive.is/P2GeG
• neilv 3y ago
  This seems to be great marketing. https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/apple-halting-apple-watch-series-9-and-apple-watch-ultra-2-sales/ https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/apple-halting-apple-watch-ser... > In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple has announced that it will soon halt sales of its flagship Apple Watch models in the United States. > The Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 will no longer be available to purchase from Apple starting later this week. And https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/tech/apple-halt-sales-apple-watches/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/tech/apple-halt-sales-apple-w... cleverly paired the story with a file photo of people lining up outside an Apple Store. > The company confirmed to CNN it will no longer be selling its Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, starting Thursday on Apple.com and from retail locations after December 24. Get more people captive shoppers in their brick&morder stores during the shopping frenzy. > In October, the International Trade Commission ruled that Apple was in violation of Masimo’s pulse oximeter patent, which uses light-based technology to read blood-oxygen levels. President Biden has 60 days to review the ruling before a ban could go into effect. > “While the review period will not end until December 25, Apple is preemptively taking steps to comply should the ruling stand,” the company said in a statement. It's nice for review of the ruling to drag its feet until after the Christmas shopping period. With the news hype, Apple might even come out ahead?
  • master_crab 3y ago
    This was my thought exactly. “Oh it’s a shame we have to shut sales off. But don’t worry, it’ll still be available until we can’t guarantee before-Christmas shipping.” They’ll have a solution worked out by the beginning of Jan.
  • eveningsteps 3y ago
    nit: it's "brick and mortar"
    • neilv 3y ago
      Thanks; weird typo. (I guess that's how I pronounce it in my accent, but I always visualize the word with the correct spelling.)
• lukev 3y ago
  Why would Apple take their devices off the market or disable the feature instead of parting with a minuscule fraction of the pile of gold they're sitting on for a patent license? I mean obviously for now it makes more sense for them to wait and hope they win on appeal or get the import ban veto'd, but if it actually comes down to not being able to sell the device, surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost?
  • mikestew 3y ago
    surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost? Assuming a spherical cow, and that Apple's decision-makers aren't completely incapable of basic math, the logical conclusion would be...? (Spoiler: I assume the patent-holder is asking some outrageous sum. Or there's a piece of the story we're missing. Or maybe some kind of game of chicken.)
    • SoftTalker 3y ago
      If you can't agree on licensing terms, then you sell the watch without the infringing technology. Nobody (relatively speaking) is making a buy/not buy decision on the Apple Watch due to its blood oxygen monitor functionality. It's a feature that isn't important or necessary for the vast majority of people.
      • imoverclocked 3y ago
        > It's a feature that isn't important or necessary for the vast majority of people. Do you have data on this? I think it's a pretty big deal.
        • BenFranklin100 3y ago
          If one has a serious health condition that affects blood oxygen levels, pulse oximetry can be useful. For the average healthy person, the medical value is very little to nil. Uses of pulse oximetry: https://www.healthline.com/health/pulse-oximetry#purpose-and-uses https://www.healthline.com/health/pulse-oximetry#purpose-and... Most of the above conditions listed above occur in very sick people already under close medical supervision, with the exception of asthma. But even in asthma, pulse oximetry has limitations: https://asthma.net/living/lets-talk-pulse-oximetry https://asthma.net/living/lets-talk-pulse-oximetry I think it’s cool the Apple Watch has this, but it’s mostly a gimmick as far as I can tell.
• tyleo 3y ago
  Arbitrage opportunity on Ultra 2? I’d love to have one of these and thought about running out today to get one before I’m locked out. Will others be willing to pay more next month when that lock is in effect?
  • kstrauser 3y ago
    If so, yes, you could probably make money scalping them. Of course, if the scarcity falls through, you might take a huge financial hit (eg “why should I buy from a scalper when I could get one straight from Apple?”), which is an excellent outcome for everyone but the scalper.
  • Affric 3y ago
    I read in the other thread that non Apple sellers (e.g. Amazon) will still be permitted but you might be right.
• mikestew 3y ago
  If Biden sides with Masimo and Apple’s appeals are unsuccessful, it may have to modify the Watch’s software to remove the blood oxygen feature in order to resume sales. Not that I use the feature all that often, but if I did, I guess it would be time to turn off automatic updates until it gets sorted. TFA is extremely light on details, given that Apple is effectively ordering a stop-ship on their hardware. Was there an attempt at negotiation? If so, that failed because...? If not, why didn't that happen? Apple has a bit of cash, but their pockets aren't infinitely deep; was Masimo asking too much?
  • madeofpalk 3y ago
    Apple's always taken me as a very stubburn/'righteous' company. I presume for something like this they wouldn't give $1.
  • gunapologist99 3y ago
    > their pockets aren't infinitely deep Interesting take
    • rvnx 3y ago
      Is there any way to implement a portable oximeter without infringing on any patents ? Furthermore, is there any way to do anything without infringing on any patent ? The patent system is really outdated, it's good for lazy people who want to live off royalties, but for end-customers and innovation, this is really bad. (and it does a bad job at preventing foreign companies to launch clones)
      • gunapologist99 3y ago
        Apple has the best engineers and can probably figure out a way
        • whynotminot 3y ago
          > If there's a way to do it, you'd think Apple would probably have enough money to pull it off if having an oximeter was going to make them money. Why should they get a pass or shortcut to a successful product just because they're Apple? So it’s your position that there is a way to do this without violating the patent, and Apple has chosen to be lazy and not pursue it?
• simion314 3y ago
  Interesting that the president of the USA has the duty to also review this kind of disputes. If he can pardon people and in USA corporations are people could in theory the president pardon a company for some crime they did ?
  • happytiger 3y ago
    It is in fact quite broad and the only explicit exception is impeachment. The exact execution of “pardoning a corporation” is something that would require legal parsing, but it’s within presidential authority. > The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.1 The power, which has historical roots in early English law,2 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as quite broad. In the 1886 case Ex parte Garland, the Court referred to the President’s authority to pardon as unlimited except in cases of impeachment, extending to every offence known to the law and able to be exercised either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.3 Much later, the Court wrote that the broad power conferred in the Constitution gives the President plenary authority to 'forgive’ [a] convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with certain conditions.4 Despite the breadth of the President’s authority under the Pardon Clause, the Constitution’s text provides for at least two limits on the power: first, clemency may only be granted for Offenses against the United States,5 meaning that state criminal offenses and federal or state civil claims are not covered.6 Second, the President’s clemency authority cannot be used in Cases of impeachment.7 Beyond textual limits, certain external constitutional and legal considerations may act as constraints on the power. For instance, the Court has indicated that the power may be exercised at any time after [an offense’s] commission,8 reflecting that the President may not preemptively immunize future criminal conduct. In Schick v. Reed, the Court recognized that an exercise of clemency may include any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution,9 suggesting that the President may not make clemency subject to a condition that is prohibited by another constitutional provision.10 Other apparent limitations include not affecting vested rights of third parties, such as where forfeited property is sold,11 or proceeds paid into the treasury, which can only be secured to the former owner . . . through an act of [C]ongress.12 The Court in The Laura also alluded to an exception for fines . . . imposed by a co-ordinate department of the government for contempt of its authority,13 though a later case recognized that the President may pardon one who is subject to criminal punishment for contempt of court.14 Assuming the recognized limitations are not transgressed, a full pardon granted by the President and accepted by its subject15 prevents or removes any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction . . . .16 In several nineteenth-century cases, the Supreme Court suggested that a pardon broadly obviates all legal guilt of the offender, effectively erasing the crime from existence.17 Subsequent cases appear to have backed away from this understanding,18 suggesting instead that, although a full pardon precludes punishment for the offense in question, a prior and pardoned offense may still be considered in subsequent proceedings.19 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3... Do bear in mind that I am not an attorney and this is my personal opinion.
• msie 3y ago
  So is there some little guy working out of his/her garage here losing out because Apple wouldn't honour a patent? Or is it all just big corporations now? I just hate patents in general.
• its_ethan 3y ago
  The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-10945648-B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-1094...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • teleforce 3y ago
    Patents normally granted after several years, this patent only took about year, kind of looked fishy to me. Then after closer look, this patent is just continuation of a series of patents by Masimo. How Apple eluded some of the original patents by Masimo is very intriguing. Other comments mentioned that Masimo had been meeting with Apple since 2012 and the fact that the first version of Apple Smartwatch was introduced back in 2015, Apple kind of expecting the lawsuit by not paying the royalty.
• speedylight 3y ago
  Since Masimo is a publicly traded company, can’t Apple just buy enough shares to have a controlling interest in the company and just force them to back out?
  • TheSoftwareGuy 3y ago
    Hostile takeovers aren't usually that fast, but yes apple can probably afford to buy the company, one way or another
    • rvnx 3y ago
      Even more hostile scenario (if this is even legal, probably not, though I'm not sure): Apple could borrow a large amount of shares of Masimo and short the company. They have enough cash for that, and the borrow fee might be less than the settlement costs, plus they could profit from the operation.
      • kasey_junk 3y ago
        Wait. How does that help them sell Apple Watches? Like actually do the whole trade here for me so I can understand.
      • xoranth 3y ago
        If you mean shorting Masimo purely to drive down the price, that's market manipulation and is definitely illegal. E.g. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/market-manipulation https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
        • ceejayoz 3y ago
          Your link doesn't support that assertion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research would be out of business if that business model was illegal. You can short all you like; you can't be deceptive/fraudulent about it.
• xyst 3y ago
  IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
  • jalino23 3y ago
    coughs in codec patents
    • krzys 3y ago
      internal raw rolling eyes
  • llamaInSouth 3y ago
    At least, unlike copyright, patents don't last forever...
    • tjfjr 3y ago
      Copyright protection does not last forever, though in my opinion it still lasts far too long.
      • llamaInSouth 3y ago
        > Copyright protection does not last forever, if they finally stop extending it...
  • eweise 3y ago
    From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.
    • drno123 3y ago
• renewiltord 3y ago
  This stuff is ancient technology. It's a pulse oximeter. We've had those for decades. And then this is a pulse oximeter with computer storage attached. That's a nonsense patent. If Apple is fighting it, perhaps there's a chance it will invalidate. That's a good thing for us.
  • epistasis 3y ago
    Have we had a wrist based pulse oximeter for decades? If this were so trivial, Apple may not have needed to hire so many people that worked on the patented technology
    • renewiltord 3y ago
      Surprisingly, yes actually. Wrist-based pulse oximeters are almost a decade and a half old and pulse oximeters are a century old maybe at this point.
    • mort96 3y ago
      "Oximeter, but on the wrist" doesn't sound like something which ought to be patentable, even if it was novel. Sounds a lot like those "this old thing, but on a computer" patents.
• bagels 3y ago
  What's new in this patent? Cheap ($10) pulse ox sensors operating on similar principles have been available since well before this patent has been filed.
  • dr_kiszonka 3y ago
    This patent is about a wearable ox sensor.
    • ryukoposting 3y ago
      There are hundreds of companies making wearable SpO2 monitors. Hell, I worked for one. Ours were transmissive, whereas I'm pretty sure most wearables are reflective. Maybe that's the key, who knows.
      • teleforce 3y ago
        What do you meant by transmissive wearable, for fingers normally it is fine that you have in-situ measurement settings, for wearable like smart watch it will be clunky to have transmitter and receiver at the opposite of sides of (relatively massive) hand?
        • namibj 3y ago
          I could imagine transmissive at the belly button to work out with decent design effort, or maybe around the ear. Nostrils seem unlikely to be comfortable, but would probably work fine.
        • ryukoposting 3y ago
          It might just be easier to show you: https://sibelhealth.com/anne-limb/ https://sibelhealth.com/anne-limb/ Earlier iterations of the design weren't as chunky as what they're doing now. PPG readers are tiny, they could easily fit in a watch wrist strap with a little cable connecting back to the main assembly. The hard part would be making sure the sensor is aligned with the LED.
• RadixDLT 3y ago
  [flagged]
• gxyt6gfy5t 3y ago
  All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation
  • lotsoweiners 3y ago
    Sure but on the other hand as someone with a pretty recent Apple Watch on my wrist I am very happy whenever Apple suffers a loss and loses money.
    • stingrae 3y ago
      "I am very happy whenever Apple suffers a loss and loses money" That is a bizarre take.
      • Jtsummers 3y ago
        It is a bizarre take, see also the train wreck of a discussion about Beeper and Apple.
      • slily 3y ago
        [flagged]
      • smoldesu 3y ago
        You can't pretend that Apple doesn't set themselves up for the criticism. They're the largest company globally, completely control all major facets of their devices and struggle to admit to adamant and obvious design failure (eg. Butterfly Keyboard, anti-repair DRM, single-vendor App Store, browser lockdown, etc.). When Apple is wrong, fixing the problem yourself isn't always an option. Reactions like this shouldn't surprise you if you've seen what HN has to say about Meta, Microsoft and Google.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • pb7 3y ago
      Apple products are so much better than the competition that even their haters buy them.
• neom 3y ago
  "Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo" "Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations. Instead, he said that Apple had appealed to President Biden to veto the I.T.C. ruling, which Mr. Kiani knows because the administration contacted Masimo about Apple’s request." “If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.” Super interesting case, thought Apple would be less sloppy than this.
  • diebeforei485 3y ago
    Apple has an aggressive legal strategy because they can afford to bend/break the law first and let things play out in court (this case was first filed in early 2020 before the pandemic) while their competitors generally cannot.
    • CharlieDigital 3y ago
      Case in point: reaching out to the President of the United States to intervene. Crazy.
      • KennyBlanken 3y ago
        Or leasing a new Mercedes every few months so that you never have to have a license plate and register your car like the rest of us plebians...and can illegally park in handicapped parking spaces because cops can't issue a ticket to a vehicle with no plate.
        • oblio 3y ago
          Who does that?
          • 3y ago
• dutchbrit 3y ago
  Sans paywall: https://archive.is/xJL66 https://archive.is/xJL66
• huslage 3y ago
  Why doesn't Apple just buy this company instead of fighting with them?
  • FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    It was probably much cheaper to just gut their consumer engineering team instead. The whole company is focused a lot on medical devices Apple wants no part of, they just want the consumer part. Though it feels like an oversight to me. In this field, like in telecom modems, patents mean a lot, so I also wonder why didn't Apple seek to buy out the consumer part of Masimo along with their patent portfolio. Maybe they did the math and saw that fighting Masimo later in court over their patents is still cheaper.
    • willio58 3y ago
      Yeah it seems like it was cheaper in the short run but will likely be extremely expensive in the long-run. - loss of sales of watches - either battling in court for who knows how long or settling out of court for god knows how much money. The real move would have been to just.. Grow a team internally. I mean come on, ox sensors? They couldn't have figured that out without poaching a well established med-tech company?
      • pertymcpert 3y ago
        The issue is the patent. If they infringe the patent by coming up with the same thing then the situation is the same.
      • ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > mean come on, ox sensors Yes and they would still be protected by those silly patents no matter who Apple hired
  • iAMkenough 3y ago
    Same reason you don't see too many "Connects to Apple Watch" pieces of gym equipment floating around. Apple doesn't want to get into the gym equipment or medical device manufacturing business.
• frereubu 3y ago
  I was curious about Apple appealing to the Biden administration to veto the ruling because it sounded quite arbitrary from the last paragraph "Apple has had success persuading presidents in the past to veto I.T.C. rulings. In 2013, the Obama administration overturned a ban on the sale of some iPhones and iPads, after the court determined that Apple had violated a patent that Samsung owned." However, turns out the veto was just on blocking the sales rather than stopping the patent litigation, so even if Apple do get the Biden administration to veto the block and they can start selling phones again, that doesn't solve the dispute. As far as I understand it, this is the judge getting fed up with one or both of Apple and Masimo (presumably Apple given that they're the one being told to stop selling products) dicking about rather than coming to a settlement.
• mort96 3y ago
  Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work when governments grant arbitrary legal monopolies on ideas like this.
  • Zambyte 3y ago
    This is true of all "intellectual" "property"
    • mort96 3y ago
      There is some nuance here. I like trademarks which disallow other companies than Apple from selling products called “Apple Watch” or other companies than Samsung from selling “Samsung Galaxy S” series phones. And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. But intellectual property goes way too far.
      • lijok 3y ago
        > And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. You’re describing intellectual property..
        • mort96 3y ago
          I know, that was the point.
      • Zambyte 3y ago
        I carefully and intentionally included trademark. And copyright. > I like trademarks which disallow other companies than Apple from selling products called “Apple Watch” or other companies than Samsung from selling “Samsung Galaxy S” series phones. Why? It only serves companies to help them become larger companies. If you think it helps customers understand what they're buying, consider: customers are basically oblivious to what they are buying when it comes to technology. If that's actually the problem you want to solve, the solutiom to that is "technology nutrition facts" and spec sheets by law, not trademark. > And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. What're you going to do about it if they do? Sue Disney? Doesn't seem like you'll get a lot out of that. Bonus points for additionally eliminating propriety software at the same time.
• keeptrying 3y ago
  Damn need to go get one. Still have the series 3.
  • thisisonthetest 3y ago
    I’ve been waiting for a killer feature that will make it more than just an expensive fitbit for me. Every generation I say “surely the next gen will be it” but it never was (I guess I’m a laggard in ‘Crossing the Chasm’ parlance). Personally I expect a Siri overhaul / replacement with an LLM. To me that would be a total game changer and I’d be first in line!
  • roflchoppa 3y ago
    They have been heavily discounted since “Black Friday” sales. I wonder if they knew this was going to happen… I went from a series 0 (OG watch), to this series 9 it’s a pretty nice upgrade!
• apurva_a 3y ago
  Well patents are kinda bad and only signify that someone got there first instead of signifying that they were the only ones ever to do so. However, seeing this happen to Apple is a bit of schadenfreude, this is the company that filed lawsuits for smartphones having rounded corners.
• Uptrenda 3y ago
  I wish there was a functional alternative to patents. It seems like if you have a good idea there should be some protections afforded to you to use it. At the very least attribution. But who can afford the cost of registering patents and then defending them? The system is not setup in a way that fosters innovation. It would be really cool if you truly could own an idea for some (sane) period. It would be cool to build up an intellectual portfolio of stuff that you've thought of uniquely apart from everyone else. To me this would be like (1) a unique challenge of designing novel processes, systems, concepts (2) the reward of having a new IP which would be useful for your portfolio (and may lead to future business opportunities) (3) incentivising people to think more since intellectual work could be 'owned' and the result monetized (either directly or indirectly.) But IMO - it would have to be cheap so that ideas could easily be registered; efficient - so that authorship could be managed fast (or revoked if 'prior art' is found); and those falsely claiming authorship could be pursed without the patent owners having to act as police for their IP. Ideally, registration fees would cover attorney costs, patent research, and policing the patents (am I being naïve.) Maybe a revenue sharing agreement between patent-owners back into the system could even make patent registrations free which would be massive? Governments could also help back this if it made more jobs (which seems possible to me.)
• areoform 3y ago
  a plurality of emitters configured to emit light, each of the emitters comprising at least two light emitting diodes (LEDs); four photodiodes arranged within the user-worn device and configured to receive light after at least a portion of the light has been attenuated by tissue of the user; a protrusion comprising a convex surface including separate openings extending through the protrusion and lined with opaque material, each opening positioned over a different one associated with each of the four photodiodes, the opaque material configured to reduce an amount of light reaching the photodiodes without being attenuated by the tissue; optically transparent material within each of the openings; and one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals, the measurements indicative of the oxygen saturation of the user. How was this granted a patent? With some fudging, we can stretch this to describe every single pulseoximeter made in the past 50 years. I would like to assume good faith on behalf of the plaintiffs, but this seems like patent trolling by an otherwise legitimate company.
  • behnamoh 3y ago
    the same way that Apple's "rounded corners for smartphones" was a patent.
    • areoform 3y ago
      A design patent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent, is different from a patent granted for an invention.
      • nox100 3y ago
        Seems similar to me. Lots of rounded rect products existed before iPhone. Like say, cassette tapes, vhs tapes, 8track tapes, bars of soap, cans of spam, license plates, sardine cans, etc...
        • andsoitis 3y ago
• imoverclocked 3y ago
  I think we need a different form of patent. Current patents attempt to claim: this thing I figured out is novel and nobody else should copy me. Many times, they claim this so someone else can't claim it and thus avoid arbitration. It would be nice if we could also file: this thing I figured out is not novel and is a natural progression to the current state-of-the-art. I guess the only means of doing this currently is to attempt to invalidate a patent? Or maybe, a whole swath of patents? There is nothing truly-novel here (IMHO.) This is like a toothbrush patent with a slightly different number of bristles than every other toothbrush patent in order to sell a toothbrush legally.
  • notatoad 3y ago
    >It would be nice if we could also file: this thing I figured out is not novel and is a natural progression to the current state-of-the-art. isn't this just publishing? no formal procedure required, no government, no patent office, no filing fees, put your a record of your work somewhere that people can find it and then it can be used as prior art in a dispute.
    • schneems 3y ago
      I think they were asking for something like Creative Commons for patents. Prior to CC anyone could write a note that says “free to use” but then you would need a lawyer to do due diligence and scan each with a fine toothed comb. The value of CC is it normalized all of that so the economy around using the free thing got easier. Yes publishing work will allow you to bring it up as a defendant. But by the time you’re called to a law office in west Texas you’re already out millions in legal fees and still run the risk of getting a judgement against you. What I think they were asking for is something more formal.
      • bdowling 3y ago
        If you are actually sued for patent infringement, then it means you've got deep pockets to pay a judgment or settlement. In other words, you're probably making a ton of money. It's a good position to be in.
• zmmmmm 3y ago
  Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess. Apple has been busy patenting obvious VR/AR features and I have no doubt we will see them attempting to aggressively exercise these in future years to shut down alternatives to Vision Pro in the future.
  • nmjohn 3y ago
    > I have no doubt we will see them attempting to aggressively exercise these in future years to shut down alternatives to Vision Pro in the future. Do you have examples where apple has aggressively used patents offensively like this?
    • zmmmmm 3y ago
      the classic quote from Jobs comes to mind: > "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this" And they did (try), although by proxy through Samsung.
      • artdigital 3y ago
        This does not answers OPs question about examples where Apple has aggressively exercised patents
    • 5350-uiop-1130 3y ago
      https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Litigation_involving_Apple_Inc > March 2010 Apple vs HTC: Apple's suit alleged 20 separate patent infringements relating to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. Steve Jobs exclaimed "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it" The ITC rejected all but one of Apple's claims > July 2008 Apple Inc. vs Psystar Corporation Apple Inc. filed suit against Psystar Corporation alleging Psystar sold Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed and that, in so doing, violated Apple's copyright and trademark rights and the software licensing terms of Apple's shrink wrap license. >2019, Apple v. Corellium Apple sued security start-up Corellium for creating the first virtual iPhone-simulating software. The product was created with the intent of helping users research security issues in iOS. Apple's lawsuit argued that Corellium's product would be dangerous in the wrong hands as it would let hackers learn exploits easier, as well as claiming that Corellium was selling their product indiscriminately, even to potential competitors of Apple. > Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were engaged in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents; by October, the fight expanded to 10 countries.
• musicale 3y ago
  Perfect timing for the holidays.
• jl2718 3y ago
  This seems like a problematic patent based on two of the doctrines, both of which the courts have largely abandoned. Firstly, it’s patently obvious. The pulse ox technology in a transmissive mode is very old, and so is HRM in a reflective mode, and the only difference is in the subtleties of the engineering, none of which is reflected in the patent nor the claims. The second reason, relatedly, is the requirement for “replicability by a person of ordinary skill”. The patent reveals nothing that would enable someone to do that, and certainly doesn’t add anything to the ability of a skilled person to do so. The whole thing is just an idea, not an original one, and ideas are not supposed to be patentable.
  • kurthr 3y ago
    I think the key here (similar to what happened to Blackberry-RIM which was sued by NTP) is that the ITC has stepped in before other courts or the Patent Office have had their final say. The argument being that Masimo would be harmed by the importation, while the ban will cost Apple $Billions. Rocket-dockets and the ITC are useful tools if you're the plaintiff in getting a big settlement. NTP had it's patents invalidated shortly after RIM settled for most of a $B, but it didn't matter since BB couldn't afford to have their email servers turned off. Apple probably can afford this. I'm not sure if the patents are in reexam or not, but I'd expect them to be. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2562540/update--rim-settles-ntp-patent-fight-with--612-5m-payment.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2562540/update--rim-se...
• phendrenad2 3y ago
  I wonder if it's sometimes advantageous to lose a patent case. Maybe an unscrupulous company (not Apple) could intentionally lose a patent case, to help widen the moat between them and any would-be clones, because they can afford to pay the patent troll and clones cannot.
• fortran77 3y ago
  Apple has a history of stealing timepiece technology: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-accused-of-ripping-off-famous-swiss-clock-design/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-accused-of-rip...
  • KennyBlanken 3y ago
    They also have a decades long history of copying successful shareware apps, integrating the functionality into the OS.
• wellthisisgreat 3y ago
  Is it a good idea to buy Ultra 2 now or will Apple nuke this functionality ?
• sooheon 3y ago
  Intellectual property purports to foster innovation and reward idea-havers. It does the opposite, stifling innovation and rewarding rent seekers over tinkerers. See case study of a notable IP monopoly, Watt's steam engine: https://fee.org/media/5345/122008freeman-boldrin.pdf https://fee.org/media/5345/122008freeman-boldrin.pdf
• gnicholas 3y ago
  Apparently third-party resellers can still sell Apple Watches that have already been imported to the US (but Apple cannot import anymore, nor can it sell any first-party). I wonder if Apple has been importing like crazy, and selling to big retailers like Amazon and Walmart. That way customers can continue to purchase (albeit not from Apple) for the next several months. Then Apple can perhaps release a new version in May, using different technology that either doesn't infringe, or at least would require a new trial to establish infringement. If this is the case, I think Apple could even continue to have AW showcases in their stores, where people could try them on, see how the features work, and see which size fits best. After all, this wouldn't violate the ban on importation (assuming the store models were already in the US), nor would it violate the ban on first-party sales (since Apple wouldn't be selling the store models).
• rickdeckard 3y ago
  Not the most neutral article. Worth to note that is not just some obscure small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple. Masimo is a decades-old medical equipment company, with several developments and patents for non-invasive PPG. Apple is obviously well-aware of their developments, and was in touch with them already in 2013, more than a year before the launch of the Apple Watch. From the actual lawsuit filed by Masimo in 2020 [1]: "In 2013, Apple contacted Masimo and asked to meet regarding a potential collaboration. Apple told Masimo that Apple would like to understand more about Masimo’s technology to potentially integrate that technology into Apple’s products. Apple and Masimo later entered into a confidentiality agreement, and Masimo’s management met with Apple. The meetings included confidential discussions of Masimo’s technology. After what seemed to Masimo to have been productive meetings, Apple quickly began trying to hire Masimo employees, including engineers and key management." [1] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrlojrdve/ https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrlojrdve/...
  • oblio 3y ago
    Incredibly scummy.
    • caslon 3y ago
      Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire value pitch of capitalism, and it's unlikely anyone would have moved over to Apple if the compensation wasn't more worthwhile to them.
      • consp 3y ago
        Ah late stage capitalism. Don't innovate, poach. I don't mean the people shouldn't chose to be compensated well but if you are up against practically infinite funds there is no realistic option for a counter offer.
        • pharmakom 3y ago
• dwayne_dibley 3y ago
  The cynic in me, believes that Apple pulling them now is a marketing ploy ahead of Christmas. Waiting until actually needing to pull them would have not really impacted sales, but this way they get to generate demand right before the big giving day.
• piyushpr134 3y ago
  Good to see usa justice system rediscovering their spine against large behemoths (granted that that 60mil would have helped to grease palms of judges & others). would have been better to see a criminal like jobs behind bars. Sadly they never found the courage Hope cook goes
• atVelocet 3y ago
  There are many works on this topic which are of academic nature? Oura (as in Oura Ring) is referring to some of those and is also holding patents on the subject. I wonder how Oura is dealing with this as their ring also has an SpO2 sensor.
• porcoda 3y ago
  This kind of case is why I hate patents. As many other commenters pointed out, the fact that light through the skin can be used to measure biometrics is arguably "obvious" given that many people noticed it around the same time. The patent simply measures which group had the $, time, and motivation to submit a patent before any of their peers did. In this situation, the basic measurement method appears all over the place, like in cheap pulseoximeters. Sticking the same device in a wearable or other device isn't a giant leap that deserves being defended via patent law to protect an "inventor". I'm sure patents have a place in the modern world, but I rarely see a case where they are being used as intended - more often than not, it's as I said above : a measure of who from a bunch of peers who "invented" the same thing at the same time made their submission to a patent office first with the goal of squelching competition or building revenue streams via licensing. Basically, scummy practices abusing the system. Apple certainly is not innocent in this regard - I hate it when they play this game just as much as I hate it when others do too.
• greatjack613 3y ago
  Why can’t Apple just disable the oxymeter feature in the interim and continue selling Apple Watches?
• MagicMoonlight 3y ago
  Why are you able to halt someone else’s product when you don’t even have a product? It’s supposed to protect first movers, not randos who show up 10 years later and demand cash.