4 ms·

> 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 The patent system is really outdated, it's good for lazy people who want to live off royalties, but for end-customers and innovation, this is really bad.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?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - zitterbewegung 3y ago
    I think it is more like people on HN dislike the idea of Software / Hardware patents in general that are similar to these but I agree that people can be biased especially the company being attacked. Apple vs Epic and Google vs Epic comes to mind.
  - tensor 3y ago
    I suspect many people question the value of the patent system at all, so the size of any company doesn't come into it. The patent system was designed to stimulate innovation by allowing inventors to be open with their ideas without risk of "losing out on their idea." When it was conceived, it may have been a worthy system solving a real problem. But today, it's hard to argue that without the patent system we'd lose out on any innovation. Given the population size and the ease at which it takes to come up with and validate an idea, twenty five years now is an eternity. Do you seriously think that no one would have come up with this particular idea if there were no patent system? I'd argue, that even without copying any idea, this sort of thing would be independently "discovered" many many times within 25 years. Why should we reward the first person with the money to get the patent? Why should we not instead reward the first to market? Is not being the first to market already a reward? I'm firmly in the camp that ideas are dime a dozen, and the value is in the implementation/verification of them not in simply writing down a vague notion. The patent system rewards the latter and doesn't even require demonstrating a working prototype, let alone a viable product! It's rewarding the wrong thing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
mikestew 3y ago
I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of "infinite", as I'm sure you are familiar with the difference between "market capitalization" and "cash on hand". Assuming those two statements to be true, what's your point? EDIT: and I see parent pulled a ninja edit. Stay classy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  One point: many here have made comments like "Masimo is a $4B company, screw `em, they can fend for themselves". I think commentary on Masimo's value/available resources should be in context to their competitor.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

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?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- zitterbewegung 3y ago
  I think it is more like people on HN dislike the idea of Software / Hardware patents in general that are similar to these but I agree that people can be biased especially the company being attacked. Apple vs Epic and Google vs Epic comes to mind.
- tensor 3y ago
  I suspect many people question the value of the patent system at all, so the size of any company doesn't come into it. The patent system was designed to stimulate innovation by allowing inventors to be open with their ideas without risk of "losing out on their idea." When it was conceived, it may have been a worthy system solving a real problem. But today, it's hard to argue that without the patent system we'd lose out on any innovation. Given the population size and the ease at which it takes to come up with and validate an idea, twenty five years now is an eternity. Do you seriously think that no one would have come up with this particular idea if there were no patent system? I'd argue, that even without copying any idea, this sort of thing would be independently "discovered" many many times within 25 years. Why should we reward the first person with the money to get the patent? Why should we not instead reward the first to market? Is not being the first to market already a reward? I'm firmly in the camp that ideas are dime a dozen, and the value is in the implementation/verification of them not in simply writing down a vague notion. The patent system rewards the latter and doesn't even require demonstrating a working prototype, let alone a viable product! It's rewarding the wrong thing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

mikestew 3y ago

I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of "infinite", as I'm sure you are familiar with the difference between "market capitalization" and "cash on hand". Assuming those two statements to be true, what's your point? EDIT: and I see parent pulled a ninja edit. Stay classy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
FireBeyond 3y ago
One point: many here have made comments like "Masimo is a $4B company, screw `em, they can fend for themselves". I think commentary on Masimo's value/available resources should be in context to their competitor.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]