5 ms·

> 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 sayin

> 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! :-)

mort96 3y ago
The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a legal monopoly. I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly. If the idea was that the company which employed the people who invented something cool should "deserve" to get filthy rich (why do we want that again?), you'd think that could be achieved by forcing other companies who want to be in the same space to pay money to the company which employed the inventors. But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". Why?
- caminante 3y ago
  > I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly... You're asking philosophical questions about the patent system. I'm not defending the patent system and IANAL. I recommend the wiki article to get an overview [0]. Your phrasing doesn't align with my understanding of patent law or the article's characterization of the situation. > The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house... > But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
- vel0city 3y ago
  Apple didn't need to use this design to make a pulse oximeter. There are other ways to make them. It's just most of the commonly known other ways aren't as good or accurate as the one Masimo researched and designed.
taeric 3y ago
I think it is fair to argue against it, to a large extent. However, patents are techniques and methods to do something. This would almost be akin to a sport team getting exclusive use of a play because they registered their playbook first. Which, yes, sounds "wild." I, sadly, don't know all of the details in this case. But with patents, remember that you don't even have to show that "Bob" even knew of the existence of "Bernie." They could have come to the same general techniques completely independently, but because they were not "first to file," they cannot use them. (Obviously, if I am wrong on the above, please correct me.)
- caminante 3y ago
  My point was simpler: negotiations don't have to end in agreement, let alone trying to get a patent license. This discussion has devolved into abstract swipes at the patent law system with characterizations that don't even apply if you take the article at face value.
  - taeric 3y ago
    But that plays into the "wild" part. It is wild that you can refuse to let someone do something that you know how to do. In the "compulsive licensing" world, it would be "wild" to not allow someone to perform a song that you played first. Which is why we don't allow that. In fashion, it would be wild for you to have certain button schemes that nobody else can use. We don't allow that. In math, it would be wild to have equations nobody could use. We... sorta do not allow that.
    - caminante 3y ago
      I understand your point (patents are quirky in that they give unilateral blocking rights). That's not what I'm taking issue with. Remember, the entire premise of this subthread isn't even grounded in the facts of this case!

mort96 3y ago

The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a legal monopoly. I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly. If the idea was that the company which employed the people who invented something cool should "deserve" to get filthy rich (why do we want that again?), you'd think that could be achieved by forcing other companies who want to be in the same space to pay money to the company which employed the inventors. But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". Why?

caminante 3y ago
> I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly... You're asking philosophical questions about the patent system. I'm not defending the patent system and IANAL. I recommend the wiki article to get an overview [0]. Your phrasing doesn't align with my understanding of patent law or the article's characterization of the situation. > The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house... > But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
vel0city 3y ago
Apple didn't need to use this design to make a pulse oximeter. There are other ways to make them. It's just most of the commonly known other ways aren't as good or accurate as the one Masimo researched and designed.

taeric 3y ago

I think it is fair to argue against it, to a large extent. However, patents are techniques and methods to do something. This would almost be akin to a sport team getting exclusive use of a play because they registered their playbook first. Which, yes, sounds "wild." I, sadly, don't know all of the details in this case. But with patents, remember that you don't even have to show that "Bob" even knew of the existence of "Bernie." They could have come to the same general techniques completely independently, but because they were not "first to file," they cannot use them. (Obviously, if I am wrong on the above, please correct me.)

caminante 3y ago
My point was simpler: negotiations don't have to end in agreement, let alone trying to get a patent license. This discussion has devolved into abstract swipes at the patent law system with characterizations that don't even apply if you take the article at face value.
- taeric 3y ago
  But that plays into the "wild" part. It is wild that you can refuse to let someone do something that you know how to do. In the "compulsive licensing" world, it would be "wild" to not allow someone to perform a song that you played first. Which is why we don't allow that. In fashion, it would be wild for you to have certain button schemes that nobody else can use. We don't allow that. In math, it would be wild to have equations nobody could use. We... sorta do not allow that.
  - caminante 3y ago
    I understand your point (patents are quirky in that they give unilateral blocking rights). That's not what I'm taking issue with. Remember, the entire premise of this subthread isn't even grounded in the facts of this case!