7 ms·

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

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.
        gruez 3y ago
        >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. The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"? Of course not, which is precisely why your analogy fails. You seem to be confusing presumption of innocence in a crime, a thing which exists, with some sort of presumption of patent invalidity, a thing which doesn't exist. Thus, contrary to your latest claim, the same can't, in fact, be said of one and the other. In the US, in the case of prosecution for a crime, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whereas the patent, having been judged valid and subsequently granted, continues to be valid until proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent, currently judged valid, is actually invalid? I asked you this already, and you responded with nothing, so if you respond again with nothing, it will look like you're just trying to argue, rather than discuss.
giantrobot 3y ago
Even if Apple infringes on Masimo's patent, it's not "stealing" as is being constantly asserted in these threads. Just because anyone infringes on a patent doesn't mean any IP was misappropriated or anything was physically stolen. I take issue with the conflating infringing on a patent and "stealing" IP. The two are not the same. My reading of Masimo's patent is far less charitable than yours. To me it reads like one of those "but on a computer" type patents. It's not really all that novel but overworked USPTO reviewers grant them anyways. Supposed sordid dealings by Apple are yet to be demonstrated by anything but unsubstantiated claims by Masimo. Not that Apple is above any wrongdoing but Masimo's executives are incentivized to act like overly aggrieved victims to extract sympathy from third parties.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  My and the patent examiner's reading of the patent is far less charitable to Apple than yours, and I'm still at a loss as to how one can poorly summarize the patent to exclude the relevant and obvious details showing apparent infringement, but here we are. Is there any evidence you feel would convince people that the patent examiner was wrong in awarding the patent which, at the moment, is valid? Any evidence you feel convincingly disputes the record we have of Apple's interactions with Masimo? Empty denials would be pretty unconvincing, and I'm not sure we even have that.

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.
        gruez 3y ago
        >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. The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"?
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"? Of course not, which is precisely why your analogy fails. You seem to be confusing presumption of innocence in a crime, a thing which exists, with some sort of presumption of patent invalidity, a thing which doesn't exist. Thus, contrary to your latest claim, the same can't, in fact, be said of one and the other. In the US, in the case of prosecution for a crime, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whereas the patent, having been judged valid and subsequently granted, continues to be valid until proven otherwise. Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent, currently judged valid, is actually invalid? I asked you this already, and you responded with nothing, so if you respond again with nothing, it will look like you're just trying to argue, rather than discuss.

giantrobot 3y ago

Even if Apple infringes on Masimo's patent, it's not "stealing" as is being constantly asserted in these threads. Just because anyone infringes on a patent doesn't mean any IP was misappropriated or anything was physically stolen. I take issue with the conflating infringing on a patent and "stealing" IP. The two are not the same. My reading of Masimo's patent is far less charitable than yours. To me it reads like one of those "but on a computer" type patents. It's not really all that novel but overworked USPTO reviewers grant them anyways. Supposed sordid dealings by Apple are yet to be demonstrated by anything but unsubstantiated claims by Masimo. Not that Apple is above any wrongdoing but Masimo's executives are incentivized to act like overly aggrieved victims to extract sympathy from third parties.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
My and the patent examiner's reading of the patent is far less charitable to Apple than yours, and I'm still at a loss as to how one can poorly summarize the patent to exclude the relevant and obvious details showing apparent infringement, but here we are. Is there any evidence you feel would convince people that the patent examiner was wrong in awarding the patent which, at the moment, is valid? Any evidence you feel convincingly disputes the record we have of Apple's interactions with Masimo? Empty denials would be pretty unconvincing, and I'm not sure we even have that.