5 ms·
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 oxi
by 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 agoPulse oxymeters exist for at least 30 years. What kind of patent does Masimo hold?
- dharmab 3y agohttps://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-10945648-B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-1094... It's fairly specific about an arrangement of sensors with specific capabilities.
- fuzzbazz 3y agoIf they make a version with only three photodiodes this patent will not apply.
- ceejayoz 3y agoDoes anyone know what specifically Masimo invented that Apple infringed upon? Pulse oximetry was in standard practice before the company existed, and Masimo's Wikipedia article doesn't mention Apple anywhere.
- 13of40 3y agoThis lists 10,912,502 and 10,945,648 as the patents, but if you get into the details the original complaint lists several more: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1276_notice10262023sgl.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_no...
- freejazz 3y agoIf only there was a patent that explained specifically what Masimo invented, otherwise no one would ever know!
- ceejayoz 3y agoGiven there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.
- freejazz 3y agoMy snark is mostly directed at people who lament the patent system as precluding innovation wherein it actually does the opposite by forcing public disclosure and precluding the use of trade secrets to protect such information indefinitely.
- stefan_ 3y agoIs it useful to challenge you to look at one of these patents and actually try to build the thing? They don't even specify the wavelength of LEDs you should use, instead preferring to claim all imaginable wavelengths. They describe (and claim) what are very complicated digital signal processing algorithms in a few highly opaque paragraphs. Sorry, nothing was forcibly publicly disclosed here. These guys got patent protection, the public got nothing.
- freejazz 3y ago>Is it useful to challenge you to look at one of these patents and actually try to build the thing? I don't particularly think so. Patents are meant for a person of "ordinary skill" in the art. I don't make these devices. I'm not a person equipped to offer an opinion on whether the patent discloses sufficient information. >Sorry, nothing was forcibly publicly disclosed here. These guys got patent protection, the public got nothing. The way the invention works is what is disclosed. Patents aren't blueprints. It's even more ridiculous that you are making this comment when Apple seems to have infringed.
- varispeed 3y ago> Apple poached its top executives What is this? Are they some form of slaves? If company doesn't want its employees "poached" they should pay them enough money so they don't think of "switching sides". This notion that corporations can own people and their brains should stop.
- epistasis 3y agoThe notion is not that Masimo owned those executives or employees, the notion is that Apple needed the particular skills and expertise of those employees in order to build what they built.
- throwaway894345 3y agoExecutives aren't usually the ones with specific technical skills about the arrangement of sensors and so on. If you were looking to infringe like this, it would be better just to poach engineers.
- epistasis 3y agoBut how does Apple get access to those employees, when they have been dealing with the executives? Through the executives bringing a team over.
- simondotau 3y agoHas that been alleged?
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoLinkedIn sells to data brokers. You can get a list of past and present employees and cherry pick the ones of value.
- varispeed 3y agoStill, you don't own people. People should be free to switch employers if they don't like their current ones. If we going that route, we might be bringing back slavery by the backdoor. The Masimo case should have been thrown out. Just imagine you are an engineer with amazing and unique skillset but you were unfortunate enough to pick wrong employer. You get a new offer from someone who sees your potential and could give you tools you need to help you do what you love. With this kind of precedent, companies won't touch you with a barge pole even if you ticked all the boxes and you really don't want to work where you are. It's bad for workers and for progress in general.
- cyanydeez 3y agoSounds like they were reviewing patents and VP bios.
- simondotau 3y agoEither the patent system is catastrophically broken or it isn't. I have always contended that it is, and I don't get to ignore that right now because Apple appears to have engaged in shenanigans. (I don't think patents need to be entirely eliminated, but they need drastic reform. The patent system should be an incentive to small inventors, not a pay-to-play shield for big corporations. Obviously eliminating software/algorithm patents, eliminating "thing but with a computer" patents, shortening the entitlement period, mandating FRAND with full transparency around licensing fees, possibly even capping lifetime license fee revenue at $100m or so.)
- freejazz 3y agoHow is exactly is FRAND pro-small time inventor and not pro-efficiently infringing big businesses?
- simondotau 3y agoIt makes compliance more straightforward with less opportunity for strategic manipulation. It makes damages easier to quantify.
- freejazz 3y agoNone of those are pro small time inventor, those are all benefits to big business and lower the friction of infringing, i.e. making it efficient. It turns patents into an after-the-fact licensing scheme, where businesses can infringe all they want until a small time inventor can muster the capital to actually enforce their own patents. Your response seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic dynamics that influence behavior on both sides of patent litigation.
- simondotau 3y agoYour line of argumentation seems specious. If you have evidence to show that making compliance more efficient encourages non-compliance, I'd like to see it. It seems to me that if a corporation is inclined to knowingly abuse a small inventor's patent, they'll do so regardless of how efficient the compliance process is. Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten me?