4 ms·

These threads keep seeing the use of the word "steal" without any concrete evidence of actual IP theft. Violating a poorly conceived patent (measuring SOX with

These threads keep seeing the use of the word "steal" without any concrete evidence of actual IP theft. Violating a poorly conceived patent (measuring SOX with three or more lights on a watch) is not anything at all like industrial espionage.

thejazzman 3y ago
espionage != stealing the existence of a patent that another company copied is by definition stealing. until further litigation occurs and changes this decision, it is a fact Apple stole this technology why they can't ever show a little humility and pay up in royalties is just ridiculous. remember, they didn't even want to pay artists for the music they gave away when launching Apple Music until a Very Big Deal named Taylor Swift told them to GTFO.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  > the existence of a patent that another company copied is by definition stealing It literally and figuratively is not.
- prepend 3y ago
  First, IP infringement is not stealing. It’s different and equating them cheapens theft. We should speak accurately. Second, many patents are stupid. One click checkout was stupid and companies that implemented one click purchasing weren’t infringing anything. And certainly weren’t stealing. Was this patent stupid? I don’t know, maybe. But assuming stealing is not a very good idea as I expect there are many more BS patents than valid.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Having actually read the patent, as well as the sordid history behind Apple's dealings with Masimo, I'm not sure how someone could reasonably assert the patent was poorly conceived, or how they could poorly summarize the patent or the situation in the way you did. Nevertheless, the patent was granted, and naked assertions and poor summarizations are not convincing enough to conclude that it should not have been. The contents of that patent, for anyone who is interested in examining it, make this seem like a pretty cut and dry case of patent infringement.
- gruez 3y ago
  >make this seem like a pretty cut and dry case of patent infringement. ...assuming the patent is valid, which apple disputes.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    There are a greater number who dispute that the earth is roundish. Their dispute, while not imaginary, doesn't mean they're right. In this case, the patent is visible for all to see its apparent validity, and it was judged valid by people who judge such things, so we can indeed assume the patent is valid, instead of the opposite, until equal or greater evidence surfaces to the contrary.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >and it was judged valid by people who judge such things Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner?
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner? Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? And is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid?
        gruez 3y ago
        >Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. It's not any different than a cop giving you a ticket for speeding. You're not guilty until convicted by a judge/jury.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid? I'd like to move beyond your purely semantic meta-argument and back towards substance.

thejazzman 3y ago

espionage != stealing the existence of a patent that another company copied is by definition stealing. until further litigation occurs and changes this decision, it is a fact Apple stole this technology why they can't ever show a little humility and pay up in royalties is just ridiculous. remember, they didn't even want to pay artists for the music they gave away when launching Apple Music until a Very Big Deal named Taylor Swift told them to GTFO.

giantrobot 3y ago
> the existence of a patent that another company copied is by definition stealing It literally and figuratively is not.
prepend 3y ago
First, IP infringement is not stealing. It’s different and equating them cheapens theft. We should speak accurately. Second, many patents are stupid. One click checkout was stupid and companies that implemented one click purchasing weren’t infringing anything. And certainly weren’t stealing. Was this patent stupid? I don’t know, maybe. But assuming stealing is not a very good idea as I expect there are many more BS patents than valid.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Having actually read the patent, as well as the sordid history behind Apple's dealings with Masimo, I'm not sure how someone could reasonably assert the patent was poorly conceived, or how they could poorly summarize the patent or the situation in the way you did. Nevertheless, the patent was granted, and naked assertions and poor summarizations are not convincing enough to conclude that it should not have been. The contents of that patent, for anyone who is interested in examining it, make this seem like a pretty cut and dry case of patent infringement.

gruez 3y ago
>make this seem like a pretty cut and dry case of patent infringement. ...assuming the patent is valid, which apple disputes.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  There are a greater number who dispute that the earth is roundish. Their dispute, while not imaginary, doesn't mean they're right. In this case, the patent is visible for all to see its apparent validity, and it was judged valid by people who judge such things, so we can indeed assume the patent is valid, instead of the opposite, until equal or greater evidence surfaces to the contrary.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >and it was judged valid by people who judge such things Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner?
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner? Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? And is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid?
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments? They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. It's not any different than a cop giving you a ticket for speeding. You're not guilty until convicted by a judge/jury.
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone. And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid? I'd like to move beyond your purely semantic meta-argument and back towards substance.