4 ms·

It should be noted that we're taking Masimo at their word here -- scummy as described, yes, but for all we know things may have actually gone another way: they

It should be noted that we're taking Masimo at their word here -- scummy as described, yes, but for all we know things may have actually gone another way: they may have tried to hold Apple over a barrel, may not have actually revealed all that much, etc.

rickdeckard 3y ago
Not really. All of this is confirmed: - It's agreed by both sides that meetings took place in 2013 and subsequently a confidentiality agreement was made. - Within the same year Apple hired Masimo's Chief Medical Officer and EVP for Medical Affairs, along with additional staff. - They developed and integrated the IP of Masimo into a commercial product. - A judge ruled that Apple infringed patents of Masimo [1]. There's not so much room for things to have gone another way. They were aware of the company and its tech, they met with them, they hired the people away from this company, they built the tech, ultimately violating their IP. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-apple-watches-infringed-masimo-patent-medical-device-maker-2023-01-11/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-apple-watches-i...
- pests 3y ago
  Besides the patent infringement, I see no issue with them hiring key employees and trying to recreate the technology. If Apple, or some other company, approached you to rebuild what you built at your current company, for a lot more money - are you really telling me you're going to say no and that's the moral thing to do? Why are you trying to protect a company, a fictional entity, over the employees that make it up?
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    > Besides the patent infringement (..) You exclude the only topic in discussion here. Noone is framing this as an issue of individual employees. It's an issue between two companies, and one of them has a very thin argument to claim that it didn't systematically extract the other one's IP without paying for it. As mentioned elsewhere: This strategy surely works most of the time, especially on smaller companies unable to survive 10 (!!) years after their IP has been extracted to await justice. But this time it didn't work because the other company is successful in another industry and has patented the technology.
    - dwaite 3y ago
      > You exclude the only topic in discussion here. Then why are we (as a group) talking about prior meetings, or employees getting hired?
      - rickdeckard 3y ago
        Because those actions demonstrate that the company Apple didn't rebuild the IP of the company Masimo by accident, they had close contact with each other beforehand.

rickdeckard 3y ago

Not really. All of this is confirmed: - It's agreed by both sides that meetings took place in 2013 and subsequently a confidentiality agreement was made. - Within the same year Apple hired Masimo's Chief Medical Officer and EVP for Medical Affairs, along with additional staff. - They developed and integrated the IP of Masimo into a commercial product. - A judge ruled that Apple infringed patents of Masimo [1]. There's not so much room for things to have gone another way. They were aware of the company and its tech, they met with them, they hired the people away from this company, they built the tech, ultimately violating their IP. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-apple-watches-infringed-masimo-patent-medical-device-maker-2023-01-11/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-apple-watches-i...

pests 3y ago
Besides the patent infringement, I see no issue with them hiring key employees and trying to recreate the technology. If Apple, or some other company, approached you to rebuild what you built at your current company, for a lot more money - are you really telling me you're going to say no and that's the moral thing to do? Why are you trying to protect a company, a fictional entity, over the employees that make it up?
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  > Besides the patent infringement (..) You exclude the only topic in discussion here. Noone is framing this as an issue of individual employees. It's an issue between two companies, and one of them has a very thin argument to claim that it didn't systematically extract the other one's IP without paying for it. As mentioned elsewhere: This strategy surely works most of the time, especially on smaller companies unable to survive 10 (!!) years after their IP has been extracted to await justice. But this time it didn't work because the other company is successful in another industry and has patented the technology.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    > You exclude the only topic in discussion here. Then why are we (as a group) talking about prior meetings, or employees getting hired?
    - rickdeckard 3y ago
      Because those actions demonstrate that the company Apple didn't rebuild the IP of the company Masimo by accident, they had close contact with each other beforehand.