3 ms·

> seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together That’s literally what Massimo wanted, before Apple bailed on the partnership and poached their employe

by yunohn 3y ago

> seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together That’s literally what Massimo wanted, before Apple bailed on the partnership and poached their employees instead…

junofan 3y ago
Where are you getting this information? The consumer business is ultimately a threat to Masimo. Did they have any intention of commercializing these patents? Why did so many employees leave?
- c0pium 3y ago
  Yes. By partnering with Apple. The employees left to go work at Apple. Which is fine, you can work wherever you want and companies are free to hire/poach whoever they want. The issue here is not that Apple hired them or that Apple didn’t go through with the deal. The issue is that Apple didn’t innovate but instead infringed on someone else’s IP. If you want to see an example of what Apple should have done, go check out the Garmin patents around pulseox. Edit: People like to dunk on Garmin for being slow to market, while ignoring the degree to which Garmin doesn’t just rip off patented ideas and instead actually innovates.
- Tiereven 3y ago
  Their existing product line is marketed on their patent background [^1]. The questions you're asking seem to resonate with a certain skepticism I have observed repeatedly in related situations. This is why I am wondering if anyone is seriously considering alternative models. It seems someone in this audience is likely to know of such a proposal if any exists. [^1] https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1
  - yunohn 3y ago
    > if anyone is seriously considering alternative models That’s for Apple to ponder and decide how to proceed. They seem to believe there’s no alternative yet.
Tiereven 3y ago
That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general public might be worth it.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  The banning of these Apple products _does_ promote cooperation. After all, it is actively punishing Apple's lack of cooperation.
  - tensor 3y ago
    Paying arbitrary fees to someone who filed paperwork first does not promote any sort of "cooperation", unless your idea of cooperation is one person paying money and one collecting it and giving nothing in return.
    - jocaal 3y ago
      > ...giving nothing in return Patent law is there, because creating original work is costly and can take years in engineering and scientific fields. The patents are there to give a time-window for the people who made the investments to make their money back and get some return on their investment.

by yunohn 3y ago

> seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together That’s literally what Massimo wanted, before Apple bailed on the partnership and poached their employees instead…

junofan 3y ago

Where are you getting this information? The consumer business is ultimately a threat to Masimo. Did they have any intention of commercializing these patents? Why did so many employees leave?

c0pium 3y ago
Yes. By partnering with Apple. The employees left to go work at Apple. Which is fine, you can work wherever you want and companies are free to hire/poach whoever they want. The issue here is not that Apple hired them or that Apple didn’t go through with the deal. The issue is that Apple didn’t innovate but instead infringed on someone else’s IP. If you want to see an example of what Apple should have done, go check out the Garmin patents around pulseox. Edit: People like to dunk on Garmin for being slow to market, while ignoring the degree to which Garmin doesn’t just rip off patented ideas and instead actually innovates.
Tiereven 3y ago
Their existing product line is marketed on their patent background [^1]. The questions you're asking seem to resonate with a certain skepticism I have observed repeatedly in related situations. This is why I am wondering if anyone is seriously considering alternative models. It seems someone in this audience is likely to know of such a proposal if any exists. [^1] https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1 https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1
- yunohn 3y ago
  > if anyone is seriously considering alternative models That’s for Apple to ponder and decide how to proceed. They seem to believe there’s no alternative yet.

Tiereven 3y ago

That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general public might be worth it.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
The banning of these Apple products _does_ promote cooperation. After all, it is actively punishing Apple's lack of cooperation.
- tensor 3y ago
  Paying arbitrary fees to someone who filed paperwork first does not promote any sort of "cooperation", unless your idea of cooperation is one person paying money and one collecting it and giving nothing in return.
  - jocaal 3y ago
    > ...giving nothing in return Patent law is there, because creating original work is costly and can take years in engineering and scientific fields. The patents are there to give a time-window for the people who made the investments to make their money back and get some return on their investment.