9 ms·

Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

63 points by ArmandGrillet 3y ago

faeriechangling 3y ago
They want a stay so the courts have time to make a decision, but last I heard from Masimo's CEO they haven't even come to the table to make a deal outside of court. Why should good faith be extended to these thieves who are acting entitled to this technology even now and show no remorse or contrition? If they worked with Masimo they could develop an accurate FDA approved health sensor, but they want to sell their customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap.
- tw04 3y ago
  It shouldn’t. They’ve done this and similar multiple times now, got downvoted for pointing it out in another thread. Apple is not acting in good faith here. Some beancounter determined it would be cheaper to steal the tech than acquire the company so they decided to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument. "Apple thinks the patent is invalid" doesn't seem plausible to you? Masimo's lawsuit against Apple earlier this year was declared a mistrial, which doesn't rule out Apple as being innocent, but also suggests that the facts are not clearly favoring Masimo as you might think. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-declares-mistrial-apple-masimo-smartwatch-trade-secrets-fight-2023-05-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-declares-mistrial-app...
    - manquer 3y ago
      There are established processes to invalidate a patent ? It is more than 10 years since this started , patent office is slow but not that slow . Apple may believe they didn’t infringe masimo’s tech and theirs is novel enough, I doubt they have made indication that they believe it is invalid.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Apple may believe they didn’t infringe masimo’s tech and theirs is novel enough, I doubt they have made indication that they believe it is invalid. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/analyzing-itcs-impending-import-ban-apple-watches-2023-12-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/analyzing-itcs-i... "Apple countered that it did not infringe the asserted claims of Masimo's patents and attempted to distinguish the technology underlying its pulse-oximetry technology. Apple also argued that Masimo's asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the prior art." > There are established processes to invalidate a patent ? Is there? IANAL, but I thought the standard procedure was to make your product and then wait for the patent holder to sue. That has the advantage that you get to bring your product to market faster, and don't have to wait years for the inevitable lawsuits to settle.
        FireBeyond 3y ago
        (Bearing in mind there are multiple cases going on here...) > "Apple countered that it did not infringe the asserted claims of Masimo's patents and attempted to distinguish the technology underlying its pulse-oximetry technology. Apple also argued that Masimo's asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the prior art." It did. And then the court ruled that there was sufficient merit to Masimo's claims. Hence the court ruling, and action we are seeing today. Apple's appeal will / should have to show that the court erred in that decision, with more than "we reiterate our previous claims" (a la "we strenuously object" in *A Few Good Men).
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Actually, you are looking at the wrong part of this. The mistrial had nothing to do with the patents in play here (which in fact the court had preliminarily ruled in favor of Masimo's assertion that Apple violated its patent rights). This trial, that was a mistrial, was over Masimo's allegation of "theft of trade secrets", in that Apple had multiple meetings with Masimo over its technology and learning all about it, then hired the people running those meetings from Masimo to Apple. Masimo alleges that information was shared in furtherance of a licensing deal or agreement, but that as soon as Apple knew what/who it needed, it abandoned them, and since it has not attempted to enter into any discussion with Masimo since, that this was its plan all along, and it never entered those discussions in good faith. The mistrial was a result of lack of unanimity that Masimo demonstrated the theft of trade secrets - there was no patent component to this trial.
- stingrae 3y ago
  This is only the Masimo side of the story. Apple hasn't made a statement that I'm aware of. I doubt Masimo has patents on the only possible ways to measure Blood oxygen.
  - u32480932048 3y ago
    I wonder if their patent is something like "This is a patent for measuring blood oxygen by using measurement tools and methods to determine the amount of oxygen in the blood", not unlike the 1990's "uses computers to store and transmit [health] information" patents.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    I worked for a medical company in ‘97 that had an SPO2 meter they thought was pretty special. That would surely be out of patent now. Wikipedia has the first example as 1935, and Minolta making the first commercial model in 1977. Most of them have the sensor and emitter on opposing sides of an earlobe, or a finger. So maybe that’s the unique part?
    - kemayo 3y ago
      The patent I've seen referenced is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en It seems to be a combination of describing an arrangement of sensors, strapping those sensors onto someone, and having the strapped-thing be a touchscreen device with wireless comms. As a layperson it does sound like one of those patents which we like to make fun of -- the "X but with a computer" ones that're conceptually incredibly obvious. That said, I don't know if the sensor arrangement they describe is actually a novel thing that wasn't already out-of-patent elsewhere.
- NotYourLawyer 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - explaininjs 3y ago
    I've never seen HN more pro-patent than when it means being anti-Apple. I wonder how an embedding model would rank "What is the best Thing?" for HN commenters... my guess is patents would be near the bottom, but Apple would be even lower. Where would "proprietary software" fit int?
    - u32480932048 3y ago
      I think the ideal situation is that the judge fines both sides for wasting everyones' time. IANAL tho.
    - black_puppydog 3y ago
      What's the issue? Over-simplifying "slightly" the argument is: HN: patents are terrible and should be abolished also HN: while patents are terrible, it's a reality that they're not going anywhere right now. so in the meantime, it makes sense to apply their most annoying implications also and especially to a huge corporation that is one of the most powerful pro patent advocates and patent (ab)users. I don't see an inconsistency here. Edit: flipping this around, why should it be this? Also HN: let's give apple a pass here. sure, they can and do use patents as weapons, but we should show them lenience when they're on the receiving side.
      - raverbashing 3y ago
        I think it's more like "since Apple plays hard with regards to patents, looks like they made their bed and might as well lay on it now"
      - explaininjs 3y ago
        See my response in the follow up thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38784746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38784746
- insaneirish 3y ago
  > but they want to sell their customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap. Yup. When I think of Apple's engineering and design prowess, the first two phrases that come to mind are definitely "second rate" and "shoddily copied".
  - notwhereyouare 3y ago
    have we seen the butterfly keyboard
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      You’re citing one of several exceptions that proves the rule.
      - jemmyw 3y ago
        From the scientific meaning of "proves", as in it tests the rule. In this case it tests the rule and finds the rule to be false.
  - TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
    Just have a look here, where MacBook repairmen is going through Apple mistakes https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup
    - lancesells 3y ago
      Curious as to what he recommends instead of a Macbook?
      - cortb 3y ago
        Previously Lenovo, I think currently framework.
- odiroot 3y ago
  I totally expect someone to rush and explain to us how Apple is on the side of customers here.
  - callalex 3y ago
    I will. Customers benefit from features. In this case the feature is using light to measure blood oxygen, which has been done for close to a century, and was invented before the company trolling Apple was even formed. Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent for technology that already existed, but they claim it is novel because they are permanently affixing the device to a person and adding a touchscreen. None of that is inventing anything, and preventing others from doing it directly harms competition and end users.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      > Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent Masimo isn't exactly a patent troll. They've been around for decades making medical devices that are in almost every hospital. And as a healthcare provider, the devices they make are actually some of the nicer ones in that segment. The problem with your argument is it presupposes that Apple is this helpless company just trying to make our lives better. It completely ignores that Apple had dozens of meetings with Masimo, feigning interest in a partnership or agreement, getting into the weeds of the technology, and as soon as it had learned enough, it bailed out of that agreement, hired the people involved and started making things. I have no particular horse in the game (indeed I own an Apple Watch, though I am a paramedic - but not one who uses Masimo devices in my ambulance, but use them when getting a patient to hospital), but acting like Masimo is some PE-backed patent troll is very inaccurate. It has put devices on the market that have been absolutely genuine advances in the field of non-invasive monitoring.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        > It completely ignores that Apple had dozens of meetings with Masimo, feigning interest in a partnership or agreement, getting into the weeds of the technology, and as soon as it had learned enough, it bailed out of that agreement, hired the people involved and started making things. If this happened as you described then Masimo’s leadership would be at fault for not adequately protecting its IP until a deal was on the table.
- jquery 3y ago
  Why should they come to the table and make a deal out of court? Apple is denying they are infringing the patent at all. Looking at the patent, it seems like one of those "X but with a computer" patents...
cianigga 3y ago
[dead]
orenlindsey 3y ago
This isn't ending anytime soon.
yieldcrv 3y ago
USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Just another incentive Hey and we wont have to play geopolitical football with random conflicts around the world just so Taiwan feels safe, for now. We could ignore them all and let some other countries pick up the slack if anybody actually cares to misappropriate their resources like we do. All the chips are in our hands and its only a net benefit for us
- Racing0461 3y ago
  > USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Correct. Companies want to offshore their stuff then want protection from the US gov paid for via us citizens.
- gruez 3y ago
  > USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically >You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Sure, you might get USITC off your back if manufacturing was domestic, but surely there are other agencies tasked with patent enforcement once you're onshore?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Onshore patent enforcement is mostly just private litigation, there aren't domestic "patent police".
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all. maybe a judge could go that far, but thats not been the path and its a super high bar to get that far
Takennickname 3y ago
What! No way!
pxeboot 3y ago
Apple must license tens of thousands of patents for their products. What is so special about not paying for these? Is this dispute even about the patents at this point or just some kind of feud with Masimo?
- esskay 3y ago
  Could be a case of Masimo not bending to Apple's will and offering a low price given Apple also poached a bunch of their top staff.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    According to the CEO of Masimo, Apple hasn't even contacted them at all, and he would be willing to settle: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo-ceo-open-to-settling-apple-rift-but-they-havent-called https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- layer8 3y ago
  Apple disagrees that they violated any of Masimo’s patents (and most of them were indeed dismissed in court so far). If they can win that legal battle, that will be the better outcome for Apple long-term. So that’s the route they’re going. Masimo’s CEO claimed that they offered settling but that Apple didn’t even respond to that offer.
  - op00to 3y ago
    "I'm innocent. I did not shoot anyone. So far, the courts have found that I have shot no one that you said I shot." "The prosecutor offered you a plea deal, and you didn't entertain it at all. You must be guilty."
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    "Apple disagrees that they violated any of Masimo’s patents (and most of them were indeed dismissed in court so far). If they can win that legal battle, that will be the better outcome for Apple long-term. So that’s the route they’re going." It may surprise you to learn that it's totally common to have patent settlement agreements where you retain your right to appeal, and only owe money if the appeal fails. So they can in fact likely both get things back on the shelves, and still appeal.
whatever1 3y ago
Here [1] is the CEO of Masimo (a public company, making medical devices for decades) It seems that Apple deceived Masimo that they are interested in collaborating, and then proceeded to poach Masimo's technical people to basically steal their technology. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Is poaching talent illegal? I thought tech employees have successfully sued big tech companies for anti-poaching policies many years ago? Could they have spoken to Masimo, determined that their asking price for the technology is unreasonable, the patents are not very defensible, Apple could develop it internally for much cheaper, and finally decide to also pay Masimo's employees more to increase development speed?
  - whatever1 3y ago
    Poaching to re-implement patented technology, is.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      That would be IP theft and is completely unrelated to the patent system, and that hasn’t been proven in this case fwiw. While some patents were found to have been infringed, that is different than IP theft even if the same people are involved. It’s a poor extrapolation or idea anyway. Patents are public, and no sane entity would hire someone to reimplement a patent without a license. More likely, they thought they were far enough from the patents in their new implementation and either did not know of the specific patents (were the same employees named on those patents?) or had a different reading of the invention described.
      - whatever1 3y ago
        To establish IP theft wouldn't one have to establish the existence of physical evidence (aka Hard Discs, emails, or any other data/documents transfers)? Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.
sitzkrieg 3y ago
"In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings." lmaoo what a joke
- kemayo 3y ago
  It's literally true, in the sense that they'll suffer harm and it won't be fixed if the appeal goes in their favor. They'll lose sales, and those sales won't just back-up and all get made the instant the product is on the market again. It's not an amount of harm that's actually significant to Apple, I'm sure, but it is irreparable.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    Both yourself and the GP are technically correct depending on how you choose to interpret harm on the company. The problem is that the tone of that claim implies the kind of harm that is significant while being just vague enough to also be covered under your interpretation should they get challenged on that statement. Thus I would argue that Apple are still being disingenuous even if they are technically correct.
    - kemayo 3y ago
      I'd think they were being disingenuous if it was a PR statement, but this is just people quoting the legal filing by Apple's lawyers. My understanding is that "irreparable harm" is the core component of the legal requirement for getting a stay like this, so using the words when requesting it seems pretty unavoidable. (And a legal filing is precisely the place to be making technically-exact statements.)
      - hnlmorg 3y ago
        I don’t think our point are mutually inclusive. Legal filings with big corporations have seldom been about sincerity. So even if your point is correct (which I don’t doubt) that doesn’t also mean Apples argument is sincere too.
victor106 3y ago
OT: anyone here used the Masimo smartwatch? https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 Now that I know the SPO2 monitor on my Apple Watch is shit. I am looking for something more accurate. I am a big Apple fanboy and always thought I could trust Apple’s products but I am beginning to doubt that with this case. They could’ve easily licensed Masimo’s tech and provided their customers better technology.
- op00to 3y ago
  What's not to trust? The watch is not being peeled off your arm. This will be decided one way or another.
- kemayo 3y ago
  If Apple's in trouble for infringing on Masimo's patent, why would Masimo's watch have any better accuracy? The whole issue is that they're doing it the same way...
SirensOfTitan 3y ago
Could someone knowledgeable on the patent in question chime in on its defensibility? Masimo doesn’t seem like a patent troll here, they sell products, including a watch that take advantage of their patents presumably; however, I’m curious how broad the patent in question actually is.
- kemayo 3y ago
  I'm not knowledgeable on the patent, but the one I've seen referenced is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en It's basically "take this arrangement of sensors and put it on a smartwatch". So a lot of my opinion of it is going to rest on whether the arrangement of sensors is actually novel, or whether this is Masimo taking a long-existing setup and saying "but with a computer!" like all the most-mockable obvious patents.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  You are correct Masimo is not a patent troll. Having tested a bunch of of fingertip SpO2 sensors for $reasons, i will say they are the real deal. In particular, the most important thing they have accomplished (though i don't think apple uses it) is that they have fingertip SpO2 meters that work ~fine during exercise. Most fingertip SpO2 meters cannot handle movement at all, or a very small amount (apple's watch requires you remain completely still). Those that claim to work give mostly nonsense results. Meanwhile, Masimo has fingertip meters that work fine while, say, biking, for example. Staring at the particular patent, it looks like patent that covers a specific arrangement of sensors and processors, which i can believe is important to make something like a watch work properly.
infotainment 3y ago
This seems like more proof that patents are harmful and should be abolished. Patents at this point seem to be more about seeing which company’s lawyers can create the broadest-worded patents possible than about any sort of encouragement of innovation. Apple is also guilty of this, so I get that it’s satisfying to see them on the receiving end, but in the end the whole system is clearly broken.

63 points by ArmandGrillet 3y ago

They want a stay so the courts have time to make a decision, but last I heard from Masimo's CEO they haven't even come to the table to make a deal outside of court. Why should good faith be extended to these thieves who are acting entitled to this technology even now and show no remorse or contrition? If they worked with Masimo they could develop an accurate FDA approved health sensor, but they want to sell their customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap.

tw04 3y ago
It shouldn’t. They’ve done this and similar multiple times now, got downvoted for pointing it out in another thread. Apple is not acting in good faith here. Some beancounter determined it would be cheaper to steal the tech than acquire the company so they decided to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument.
- gruez 3y ago
  >I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument. "Apple thinks the patent is invalid" doesn't seem plausible to you? Masimo's lawsuit against Apple earlier this year was declared a mistrial, which doesn't rule out Apple as being innocent, but also suggests that the facts are not clearly favoring Masimo as you might think. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-declares-mistrial-apple-masimo-smartwatch-trade-secrets-fight-2023-05-01/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-declares-mistrial-app...
  - manquer 3y ago
    There are established processes to invalidate a patent ? It is more than 10 years since this started , patent office is slow but not that slow . Apple may believe they didn’t infringe masimo’s tech and theirs is novel enough, I doubt they have made indication that they believe it is invalid.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Apple may believe they didn’t infringe masimo’s tech and theirs is novel enough, I doubt they have made indication that they believe it is invalid. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/analyzing-itcs-impending-import-ban-apple-watches-2023-12-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/analyzing-itcs-i... "Apple countered that it did not infringe the asserted claims of Masimo's patents and attempted to distinguish the technology underlying its pulse-oximetry technology. Apple also argued that Masimo's asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the prior art." > There are established processes to invalidate a patent ? Is there? IANAL, but I thought the standard procedure was to make your product and then wait for the patent holder to sue. That has the advantage that you get to bring your product to market faster, and don't have to wait years for the inevitable lawsuits to settle.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        (Bearing in mind there are multiple cases going on here...) > "Apple countered that it did not infringe the asserted claims of Masimo's patents and attempted to distinguish the technology underlying its pulse-oximetry technology. Apple also argued that Masimo's asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the prior art." It did. And then the court ruled that there was sufficient merit to Masimo's claims. Hence the court ruling, and action we are seeing today. Apple's appeal will / should have to show that the court erred in that decision, with more than "we reiterate our previous claims" (a la "we strenuously object" in *A Few Good Men).
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Actually, you are looking at the wrong part of this. The mistrial had nothing to do with the patents in play here (which in fact the court had preliminarily ruled in favor of Masimo's assertion that Apple violated its patent rights). This trial, that was a mistrial, was over Masimo's allegation of "theft of trade secrets", in that Apple had multiple meetings with Masimo over its technology and learning all about it, then hired the people running those meetings from Masimo to Apple. Masimo alleges that information was shared in furtherance of a licensing deal or agreement, but that as soon as Apple knew what/who it needed, it abandoned them, and since it has not attempted to enter into any discussion with Masimo since, that this was its plan all along, and it never entered those discussions in good faith. The mistrial was a result of lack of unanimity that Masimo demonstrated the theft of trade secrets - there was no patent component to this trial.
stingrae 3y ago
This is only the Masimo side of the story. Apple hasn't made a statement that I'm aware of. I doubt Masimo has patents on the only possible ways to measure Blood oxygen.
- u32480932048 3y ago
  I wonder if their patent is something like "This is a patent for measuring blood oxygen by using measurement tools and methods to determine the amount of oxygen in the blood", not unlike the 1990's "uses computers to store and transmit [health] information" patents.
- hinkley 3y ago
  I worked for a medical company in ‘97 that had an SPO2 meter they thought was pretty special. That would surely be out of patent now. Wikipedia has the first example as 1935, and Minolta making the first commercial model in 1977. Most of them have the sensor and emitter on opposing sides of an earlobe, or a finger. So maybe that’s the unique part?
  - kemayo 3y ago
    The patent I've seen referenced is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en It seems to be a combination of describing an arrangement of sensors, strapping those sensors onto someone, and having the strapped-thing be a touchscreen device with wireless comms. As a layperson it does sound like one of those patents which we like to make fun of -- the "X but with a computer" ones that're conceptually incredibly obvious. That said, I don't know if the sensor arrangement they describe is actually a novel thing that wasn't already out-of-patent elsewhere.
NotYourLawyer 3y ago
[flagged]
- explaininjs 3y ago
  I've never seen HN more pro-patent than when it means being anti-Apple. I wonder how an embedding model would rank "What is the best Thing?" for HN commenters... my guess is patents would be near the bottom, but Apple would be even lower. Where would "proprietary software" fit int?
  - u32480932048 3y ago
    I think the ideal situation is that the judge fines both sides for wasting everyones' time. IANAL tho.
  - black_puppydog 3y ago
    What's the issue? Over-simplifying "slightly" the argument is: HN: patents are terrible and should be abolished also HN: while patents are terrible, it's a reality that they're not going anywhere right now. so in the meantime, it makes sense to apply their most annoying implications also and especially to a huge corporation that is one of the most powerful pro patent advocates and patent (ab)users. I don't see an inconsistency here. Edit: flipping this around, why should it be this? Also HN: let's give apple a pass here. sure, they can and do use patents as weapons, but we should show them lenience when they're on the receiving side.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      I think it's more like "since Apple plays hard with regards to patents, looks like they made their bed and might as well lay on it now"
    - explaininjs 3y ago
      See my response in the follow up thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38784746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38784746
insaneirish 3y ago
> but they want to sell their customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap. Yup. When I think of Apple's engineering and design prowess, the first two phrases that come to mind are definitely "second rate" and "shoddily copied".
- notwhereyouare 3y ago
  have we seen the butterfly keyboard
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    You’re citing one of several exceptions that proves the rule.
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      From the scientific meaning of "proves", as in it tests the rule. In this case it tests the rule and finds the rule to be false.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  Just have a look here, where MacBook repairmen is going through Apple mistakes https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup
  - lancesells 3y ago
    Curious as to what he recommends instead of a Macbook?
    - cortb 3y ago
      Previously Lenovo, I think currently framework.
odiroot 3y ago
I totally expect someone to rush and explain to us how Apple is on the side of customers here.
- callalex 3y ago
  I will. Customers benefit from features. In this case the feature is using light to measure blood oxygen, which has been done for close to a century, and was invented before the company trolling Apple was even formed. Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent for technology that already existed, but they claim it is novel because they are permanently affixing the device to a person and adding a touchscreen. None of that is inventing anything, and preventing others from doing it directly harms competition and end users.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent Masimo isn't exactly a patent troll. They've been around for decades making medical devices that are in almost every hospital. And as a healthcare provider, the devices they make are actually some of the nicer ones in that segment. The problem with your argument is it presupposes that Apple is this helpless company just trying to make our lives better. It completely ignores that Apple had dozens of meetings with Masimo, feigning interest in a partnership or agreement, getting into the weeds of the technology, and as soon as it had learned enough, it bailed out of that agreement, hired the people involved and started making things. I have no particular horse in the game (indeed I own an Apple Watch, though I am a paramedic - but not one who uses Masimo devices in my ambulance, but use them when getting a patient to hospital), but acting like Masimo is some PE-backed patent troll is very inaccurate. It has put devices on the market that have been absolutely genuine advances in the field of non-invasive monitoring.
    - kcplate 3y ago
      > It completely ignores that Apple had dozens of meetings with Masimo, feigning interest in a partnership or agreement, getting into the weeds of the technology, and as soon as it had learned enough, it bailed out of that agreement, hired the people involved and started making things. If this happened as you described then Masimo’s leadership would be at fault for not adequately protecting its IP until a deal was on the table.
jquery 3y ago
Why should they come to the table and make a deal out of court? Apple is denying they are infringing the patent at all. Looking at the patent, it seems like one of those "X but with a computer" patents...

cianigga 3y ago

[dead]

orenlindsey 3y ago

This isn't ending anytime soon.

yieldcrv 3y ago

USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Just another incentive Hey and we wont have to play geopolitical football with random conflicts around the world just so Taiwan feels safe, for now. We could ignore them all and let some other countries pick up the slack if anybody actually cares to misappropriate their resources like we do. All the chips are in our hands and its only a net benefit for us

Racing0461 3y ago
> USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Correct. Companies want to offshore their stuff then want protection from the US gov paid for via us citizens.
gruez 3y ago
> USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically >You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Sure, you might get USITC off your back if manufacturing was domestic, but surely there are other agencies tasked with patent enforcement once you're onshore?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Onshore patent enforcement is mostly just private litigation, there aren't domestic "patent police".
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all. maybe a judge could go that far, but thats not been the path and its a super high bar to get that far

Takennickname 3y ago

What! No way!

pxeboot 3y ago

Apple must license tens of thousands of patents for their products. What is so special about not paying for these? Is this dispute even about the patents at this point or just some kind of feud with Masimo?

esskay 3y ago
Could be a case of Masimo not bending to Apple's will and offering a low price given Apple also poached a bunch of their top staff.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  According to the CEO of Masimo, Apple hasn't even contacted them at all, and he would be willing to settle: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo-ceo-open-to-settling-apple-rift-but-they-havent-called https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
layer8 3y ago
Apple disagrees that they violated any of Masimo’s patents (and most of them were indeed dismissed in court so far). If they can win that legal battle, that will be the better outcome for Apple long-term. So that’s the route they’re going. Masimo’s CEO claimed that they offered settling but that Apple didn’t even respond to that offer.
- op00to 3y ago
  "I'm innocent. I did not shoot anyone. So far, the courts have found that I have shot no one that you said I shot." "The prosecutor offered you a plea deal, and you didn't entertain it at all. You must be guilty."
- DannyBee 3y ago
  "Apple disagrees that they violated any of Masimo’s patents (and most of them were indeed dismissed in court so far). If they can win that legal battle, that will be the better outcome for Apple long-term. So that’s the route they’re going." It may surprise you to learn that it's totally common to have patent settlement agreements where you retain your right to appeal, and only owe money if the appeal fails. So they can in fact likely both get things back on the shelves, and still appeal.

whatever1 3y ago

Here [1] is the CEO of Masimo (a public company, making medical devices for decades) It seems that Apple deceived Masimo that they are interested in collaborating, and then proceeded to poach Masimo's technical people to basically steal their technology. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg

aurareturn 3y ago
Is poaching talent illegal? I thought tech employees have successfully sued big tech companies for anti-poaching policies many years ago? Could they have spoken to Masimo, determined that their asking price for the technology is unreasonable, the patents are not very defensible, Apple could develop it internally for much cheaper, and finally decide to also pay Masimo's employees more to increase development speed?
- whatever1 3y ago
  Poaching to re-implement patented technology, is.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    That would be IP theft and is completely unrelated to the patent system, and that hasn’t been proven in this case fwiw. While some patents were found to have been infringed, that is different than IP theft even if the same people are involved. It’s a poor extrapolation or idea anyway. Patents are public, and no sane entity would hire someone to reimplement a patent without a license. More likely, they thought they were far enough from the patents in their new implementation and either did not know of the specific patents (were the same employees named on those patents?) or had a different reading of the invention described.
    - whatever1 3y ago
      To establish IP theft wouldn't one have to establish the existence of physical evidence (aka Hard Discs, emails, or any other data/documents transfers)? Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.

sitzkrieg 3y ago

"In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings." lmaoo what a joke

kemayo 3y ago
It's literally true, in the sense that they'll suffer harm and it won't be fixed if the appeal goes in their favor. They'll lose sales, and those sales won't just back-up and all get made the instant the product is on the market again. It's not an amount of harm that's actually significant to Apple, I'm sure, but it is irreparable.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  Both yourself and the GP are technically correct depending on how you choose to interpret harm on the company. The problem is that the tone of that claim implies the kind of harm that is significant while being just vague enough to also be covered under your interpretation should they get challenged on that statement. Thus I would argue that Apple are still being disingenuous even if they are technically correct.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    I'd think they were being disingenuous if it was a PR statement, but this is just people quoting the legal filing by Apple's lawyers. My understanding is that "irreparable harm" is the core component of the legal requirement for getting a stay like this, so using the words when requesting it seems pretty unavoidable. (And a legal filing is precisely the place to be making technically-exact statements.)
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      I don’t think our point are mutually inclusive. Legal filings with big corporations have seldom been about sincerity. So even if your point is correct (which I don’t doubt) that doesn’t also mean Apples argument is sincere too.

victor106 3y ago

OT: anyone here used the Masimo smartwatch? https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 Now that I know the SPO2 monitor on my Apple Watch is shit. I am looking for something more accurate. I am a big Apple fanboy and always thought I could trust Apple’s products but I am beginning to doubt that with this case. They could’ve easily licensed Masimo’s tech and provided their customers better technology.

op00to 3y ago
What's not to trust? The watch is not being peeled off your arm. This will be decided one way or another.
kemayo 3y ago
If Apple's in trouble for infringing on Masimo's patent, why would Masimo's watch have any better accuracy? The whole issue is that they're doing it the same way...

SirensOfTitan 3y ago

Could someone knowledgeable on the patent in question chime in on its defensibility? Masimo doesn’t seem like a patent troll here, they sell products, including a watch that take advantage of their patents presumably; however, I’m curious how broad the patent in question actually is.

kemayo 3y ago
I'm not knowledgeable on the patent, but the one I've seen referenced is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en It's basically "take this arrangement of sensors and put it on a smartwatch". So a lot of my opinion of it is going to rest on whether the arrangement of sensors is actually novel, or whether this is Masimo taking a long-existing setup and saying "but with a computer!" like all the most-mockable obvious patents.
DannyBee 3y ago
You are correct Masimo is not a patent troll. Having tested a bunch of of fingertip SpO2 sensors for $reasons, i will say they are the real deal. In particular, the most important thing they have accomplished (though i don't think apple uses it) is that they have fingertip SpO2 meters that work ~fine during exercise. Most fingertip SpO2 meters cannot handle movement at all, or a very small amount (apple's watch requires you remain completely still). Those that claim to work give mostly nonsense results. Meanwhile, Masimo has fingertip meters that work fine while, say, biking, for example. Staring at the particular patent, it looks like patent that covers a specific arrangement of sensors and processors, which i can believe is important to make something like a watch work properly.

infotainment 3y ago

This seems like more proof that patents are harmful and should be abolished. Patents at this point seem to be more about seeing which company’s lawyers can create the broadest-worded patents possible than about any sort of encouragement of innovation. Apple is also guilty of this, so I get that it’s satisfying to see them on the receiving end, but in the end the whole system is clearly broken.