14 ms·
Apple is officially no longer selling the newest Apple Watch in America
- nickpp 3y agoPatents. The classical government-granted monopoly. Incidentally the only type of undefeatable monopoly. Created with the best intentions, of course: to “encourage innovation”.
- eganist 3y agoAnd they often do. Apple of all companies certainly could've afforded to pay.
- ceejayoz 3y agoNot necessarily. Their “we won’t pay, and will go scorched earth on your patent portfolio” may prevent a flood of others with BS patents showing up.
- eganist 3y agoOr legitimate claims, which is likely the deciding factor behind apple doubling down. Apple should lose this, if only to minimize the deterrent effect so that others know they can prevail with legitimate claims.
- snarf21 3y agoThere are many problems with software patents and patents that are "_____ but on a phone/watch" but I'm curious of what your solution is? What is a better system?
- nickpp 3y agoUnencumbered free markets. Same system that got us the unimaginable (just a few generations ago) wealth we live in right now.
- hiatus 3y agoPatents have been a thing in the US since 1790 (even earlier, technically, as they are specifically called out in the constitution). What period of unencumbered free markets are you referring to?
- nickpp 3y agoUSA was quite the “intellectual pirate” before that though: https://www.history.com/news/industrial-revolution-spies-europe https://www.history.com/news/industrial-revolution-spies-eur...
- Kbelicius 3y ago> Unencumbered free markets. Same system that got us the unimaginable (just a few generations ago) wealth we live in right now. When and where did we have these unencubered markets?
- hnbad 3y ago> us Who's that? Last I checked the US has a sizeable homeless population, a vast amount of people in precarious working conditions and most Americans would be financially ruined by a single major accident or health issue. I don't think people "just a few generations ago" would consider them to have unimaginable wealth unless you want to focus on the reduced costs of consumer goods rather than access to food, shelter and social spaces. Also patents already existed "a few generations ago". If you want to cut down on IP protections be my guest but framing that in the same language as cutting back on labor protections or social welfare seems a bit questionable. Especially if you're implying we had unencumbered free markets before and no longer do now but our supposed present wealth is owed to those free markets of the distant past not the "encumbrance" of the more recent past - sorry, you'll have to give a bit more of a timeline and explanation of cause and effect than just a snappy one-liner.
- nickpp 3y ago> Who's that? The great majority of people living today. We currently have the historically lowest percentage of people living in poverty ever. Check out the statistics. Of course it’s not 100% but it’s never been better.
- aik 3y agoAnd encourage innovation it does. Most initiatives are not purely good without any downsides. A principle to consider is: Just because there are some negative aspects sometimes, do those outweigh the good? In this case, how many negatives actually come from patent law? (Btw, a monopoly most often is not the result - there are often many solutions to a similar problem/need.). And consider the side of the creator (which I’ve been finding is surprisingly rare in hn) - creating a company and product is already incredibly hard, how much harder do we want to make that? What and who are we sacrificing? Maybe we just adjust the patent law some. Decrease the number of years? I’m sure it could be better.
- sandworm101 3y agoAbsolutely no sympathy. Those who live by the patent shall die by the patent.
- borgunit2 3y agoI’m holding judgement until the case is investigated further. It’s my understanding that so far everyone has basically said, “there’s enough evidence to proceed in court.” Patent reform is something that is sorely needed (and more funding for the USPTO). Take for example this patent on an anti gravity device: https://www.nature.com/articles/438139a#:~:text=The%20US%20patent%20office%20has,defy%20the%20laws%20of%20physics https://www.nature.com/articles/438139a#:~:text=The%20US%20p.... And then there’s the patent troll problem. As a small shop, I am particularly afraid of trolls shutting us down overnight with basically no recourse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- borgunit2 3y agoMy point was that anti-gravity clearly isn’t possible yet, but a patent was granted. By that logic, I could generate an AI application to patent all possible things. IMO something is wrong if this is allowed. It presents needless legal hurtles to people actually trying to innovate and produce tangible things.
- mc32 3y agoAs an outsider, it certainly looks like they “re-engineered” the other companies tech and introd into their devices.
- theturtletalks 3y agoDon’t they have to reverse engineer it in a clean room? Also, Masimo said they poached a lot of their talent who understood the patent and its uses.
- fragmede 3y agoI trust Apple's commitment to privacy as much as I do Google's, but when they both remove a product over a stupid patent rather than pay the patent holder (Sonos' sued Google with their multiroom audio patent), we can see that it's possible for corporations to hold principled views about things.
- rogerkirkness 3y agoGoogle doesn't do business in China because they won't agree to the privacy violating terms of doing so, that is at least a $1T principle if you compare it to the amount of hardware and services that Apple sells there.
- mulmen 3y agoIs that a fair comparison? Apple sells devices, Google sells targeted advertising. Their business and constraints are different.
- patentatt 3y agoI find this dubious. Google is not known for respecting privacy, and large corporations in general are not known for voluntarily passing on trillion dollar markets on moral grounds. Is there perhaps an alternative explanation that isn't as far fetched?
- dlenski 3y agoBS patents are bad, and patents lasting 20+ years are bad, but if someone's gonna get maimed by them… I can hardly think of a more deserving victim than Apple.
- JulianWasTaken 3y agoAre you intimating Apple has been litigious with patents? Or just saying you have no sympathy for companies with lots of money? (This isn't a leading question, I have no informed opinion about Apple specifically.)
- karaterobot 3y agoI can't answer about the intent of the person you responded to, but my reading was that they were commenting on Apple's history of patent lawsuits, both as a defendant and a plaintiff. Particularly the prolonged IP slapfights between Apple and pretty much every other mobile device company, aka the Smartphone Patent Wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> Are you intimating Apple has been litigious with patents? Or just saying you have no sympathy for companies with lots of money? This is a false dichotomy. Apple can be evil, and deserve to have bad things happen to it, without performing its evil through the medium of patent lawsuits.
- beacon294 3y agoTwo words: "rounded corners"
- Simulacra 3y agoThat and patenting the finger swipe are two of the most egregious hypocrisies of Apple's patent lawsuits. However it's really the USPTO that is to blame. IIRC if you're big enough you can just bully the patent office until they acquiesce. USPTO needs to learn how to say no, even to big corporations. Which makes me wonder: Imagine if USPTO published statistics that enumerated patents that a company applied for and were turned down. My guess is Apple has never been told no.
- hasty_pudding 3y agoWhy doesn't Apple enter into a deal with Masimo for a small percentage of the watch? Unless I missed it, the news article didn't go into more detail on why a deal couldn't be made.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 3y agoMaybe Masimo isn’t offering a deal for an acceptably small amount.
- Uehreka 3y agoProbably because, since Masimo has Apple over a barrel, they want a large percentage of the watch.
- jimbobthrowawy 3y agoProbably would cost them more than waiting them out in court, or would encourage or make it easier for other patent holders, however legitimate, to go after them.
- doix 3y agoThere was another article with this quote[0]: > “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.” It sounds like they didn't just want some money. They wanted them to use their chip or partner with them. I am no Apple fan, but telling them to politely fuck off seems reasonable to me. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/technology/apple-ban-watch-sales-patent-dispute.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/technology/apple-ban-watc...
- themaninthedark 3y agoThe way I read this is, Masimo does not have confidence in the way Apple has implemented the technology and they don't want their name attached to a bad implementation. So they are giving Apple the choice of either buying a turnkey solution or partner with them to fix Apple's flawed implementation.
- jimbobthrowawy 3y agohttps://archive.is/bNfYw https://archive.is/bNfYw
- ramshanker 3y agoI have been doing the thought experiment about fair pricing of patents. My current values are like: A patent holder declares the value he is willing to license the patent to any entity. Inventor can consider their EXPANSES while declaring the value, but not the approach “my idea cost me 0$ but is worth a billion “. Society should be willing to compensate for monetary investment, not just imagination. You deposit 1% of the declared value annually to maintain the patent. This one to discourage arbitrary value declaration. Any company wishing to license, pays you the declared amount. If 10 companies pay you declared value, I.e You have earned 10x return on your actual expense of innovation, patent becomes public domain. Society doesn’t need per product patent pricing sh*. The numbers , 1% and 10x can always be debated. Overall seems good enough to encourage innovation and discourage trolling.
- riley_dog 3y agoI can't decide if I'd be a fool to buy an Apple Watch right now. I'm ready for an upgrade, but I fear what happens long term if hardware changes are necessary.
- Simulacra 3y agoApple has increasingly moved towards a disposable tech paradigm. They seem to want, expect, and maybe even contrive a reason for you to throw away your device and buy a new one every year.
- unsupp0rted 3y agoThey tend to support their old devices for 5-10 years
- chuckhendo 3y agoExactly. I don't know where people get this about Apple. There are so many things that one could criticize Apple about, but older hardware support is not one of them
- evandale 3y agoMy custom built desktop that runs Linux/Windows is going on 24 years old. I don't think 10 year old electronics are anything worth writing home about. Apple also writes horrible software and breaks perfectly fine APIs with every OS release to eventually force you into hardware upgrades.
- MikeKusold 3y agoSomehow I don’t believe your Pentium 3 (1999) or your Pentium 4 (2000) processor is still your main computer. Windows and Ubuntu have dropped support for 32 bit processors.
- 3y ago