5 ms·

Huh? That doesn't apply here at all. > To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could

Huh? That doesn't apply here at all. > To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could appeal to the Biden administration to reverse the ruling. But Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations

mort96 3y ago
> “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.” Doesn’t this quite plainly mean that they aren’t willing to just license the patent?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- caminante 3y ago
  Nothing of the sort. How does this statement reject a willingness to license?
  - doix 3y ago
    Because the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate. I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit. Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      Why do you think it should be illegal to refuse to license your patented technology to another company?
      - mort96 3y ago
        What is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        It is legal to refuse to license. I want to know why you think it shouldn't be.
        mort96 3y ago
        I obviously know it is legal to refuse to license, that's the problem. If your whole argument is "it should be legal to refuse to license a patent", I don't know why you went down the whole "They aren't refusing to license the patent" route.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't made any arguments. I asked you a question.
        mort96 3y ago
        Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to usernames. caminante argued that the company is willing to license the patent ("How does this statement reject a willingness to license" etc) and I didn't notice that you're not caminante. My bad.
  - chillfox 3y ago
    That statement very much reads like they aren't willing to license unless they get final say on products using the tech. Which sounds quite unreasonable as a condition for patent licensing.
    - caminante 3y ago
      "If the horse doesn't want to drink my water" I'm not depriving the horse of water because the horse doesn't want to drink!
taeric 3y ago
Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.
- bumby 3y ago
  I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.
  - pests 3y ago
    I beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.
- unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
  Practically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#
- caminante 3y ago
  > But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)
  - 3y ago

mort96 3y ago

> “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.” Doesn’t this quite plainly mean that they aren’t willing to just license the patent?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
caminante 3y ago
Nothing of the sort. How does this statement reject a willingness to license?
- doix 3y ago
  Because the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate. I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit. Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Why do you think it should be illegal to refuse to license your patented technology to another company?
    - mort96 3y ago
      What is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        It is legal to refuse to license. I want to know why you think it shouldn't be.
        mort96 3y ago
        I obviously know it is legal to refuse to license, that's the problem. If your whole argument is "it should be legal to refuse to license a patent", I don't know why you went down the whole "They aren't refusing to license the patent" route.
        Eisenstein 3y ago
        I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't made any arguments. I asked you a question.
        mort96 3y ago
        Sorry, I didn't pay enough attention to usernames. caminante argued that the company is willing to license the patent ("How does this statement reject a willingness to license" etc) and I didn't notice that you're not caminante. My bad.
- chillfox 3y ago
  That statement very much reads like they aren't willing to license unless they get final say on products using the tech. Which sounds quite unreasonable as a condition for patent licensing.
  - caminante 3y ago
    "If the horse doesn't want to drink my water" I'm not depriving the horse of water because the horse doesn't want to drink!

taeric 3y ago

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

bumby 3y ago
I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.
- pests 3y ago
  I beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.
unyttigfjelltol 3y ago
Practically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284# https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#
caminante 3y ago
> But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license. Why is that revelation "wild?" Imagine saying, > It’s so wild that [Bernie] is allowed to refuse to [allow Bob] to [rent Bernie's spare bedroom]. putting aside the fact that [Bob] doesn't even want to rent from [Bernie] as applied to the situation here with the watches! :-)
- 3y ago