6 ms·

Big win for the little guy. Apple needs to pay the people what they're owed.

EA-3167 3y ago
I mean... anything is smaller than Apple, but Masimo pulled in well over a billion revenue last year. They are not the little guy. Their patents for the O2 sensor are also incredibly general. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Who cares what the size of the "little guys" is? The size is not the point. The point is Apple stole(again) from someone, now they have to pay. Breaking the law isn't when the offended party is only children, grandmas and puppies instead of other corporations. Next time they should try the legal way of doing business, like paying to license IP like everyone else. Stealing is bad m'kay.
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    I'm not accusing you personally of hypocrisy, but I do find it amusing the patents are almost never ok on HN except when they're being violated by Apple.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      It's difficult to be objective when you gave thousands of dollars to that corporation in product purchases or stonks or have an inexplicable emotional attachment to their products. You now have skin in the game. Hence the Apple defense mob on HN.
      - ryanobjc 3y ago
        The o2 sensor on the apple watch is a net win for the wider society. And never forget: patents exist to benefit society as a whole. Not particular companies.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >The o2 sensor on the apple watch is a net win for the wider society. Doctors' work is also a net benefit to society, yet we still pay them handsomely because nobody works for free, nor do companies develop IP for free. If Apple cared about the net benefit to society or at least its customers who buy their products, they should have just paid to license the apropriate IP. It's not like they're short on cash.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        I don’t know the details, but one of the few benefits of having companies as rich as Apple is that they can conceivably push back on stupidly broad patents. That they have lost this case doesn’t mean the parent is in any way sensible. Most parents are obvious and the patent examiners seem to have very little expertise or time to do their job properly. This creates a mess, and the courts sometimes enforce patents even when they seem stupid to everyone in the business. I’m not saying that happened here - but it might have. Most patents are dumb.
        gnicholas 3y ago
        By this logic, all medicine should be free. Of course, that would result in pharma companies deciding not to spend billions of dollars researching ways to create new drugs. I'm not saying the existing system is optimal, but it's overly facile to say that O2 sensors are a social good, therefore any company ought to be able to implement patented methods related to O2 sensors.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        I would argue by that logic medicine should be accessible, not free. Apple Watches aren't free either, the point is access to the tech.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I care more about patent abuse, not about which giant corporation wins. The only people who actually lose here are consumers.
  - jmisavage 3y ago
    15 of the 17 patents that they claim Apple violated have been invalidated. Apple is still appealing the other 2 so they could be legit or go away as well. If those remaining 2 hold up then Apple should pay, if not then Masimo is abusing the patent system.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >if not then Masimo is abusing the patent system. I bet my money every single company out there is abusing the patent system. Apple famously patented "slide to unlock" and B&O's own scroll wheel invention for their iPod. Everyone can agree the patent system is broken in many ways and leads to the sorry state of today where if everyone is abusing it and you don't then you loose out so you have to abuse it too, to stay in the race. It's a tragedy of the commons.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Who cares what the size of the "little guys" is? The size is not the point. See the comment they were replying to for why they said that. The size is exactly the point if they're being characterised by size.
- Hippocrates 3y ago
  They rattle off a bunch of other "physiological parameters" like glucose, hemoglobin and "other". I wonder how many of these have been demonstrated via their technology vs. are theoretically possible (patent trolling)? I could be wrong but I thought non-invasive blood glucose has not been cracked yet, yet seems to be covered by the patent. Also curious as these appear to be dated in 2021 but the Apple Watch 6 with pulse oximeter came out in 2020. Unless there is something different about the "latest" watches.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Patents on things that can exist but don't work well are valid. If they're unsafe, inaccurate, unreliable, etc, that's a problem for commercial viability, but not an issue for getting a patent.
    - Hippocrates 3y ago
      Yeah I was just looking into this and apparently you can even patent things that don't work at all, but may be asked for a working model at some point in the future. Thats surprising, because I could easily see the sense in patenting slightly futuristic ideas with a plausible mechanism and then scrambling to create a model if and when it becomes economically enticing.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        A patent could be invalidated if it's something that can't be made, so you can't patent futuristic ideas. Or at least, if you try, and someone calls you on it, it's invalid. But you can patent inventions that do exist but are crap. Many inventions are crap, and that's okay. If you have a bad invention, you still have an invention.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  $1B is 1000x smaller than Apple's market cap.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    As I said, everything other than a handful of countries are smaller than Apple. Does that make a billion-dollar company the "little guy" though? Is Chevron the "little guy" compared to Exxon?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
Fernicia 3y ago
Yeah screw the big guy! He's always trying to... checks notes... let us read our blood oxygen levels...
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  Maybe if they would read blood oxygen levels legally, using IP they legally licensed, it wouldn't be a problem. Edit: change of tone
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Funny how HN tries to save face for Apple at all costs. It doesn't. It's not you vs Big HN. Stop talking like it. It's just some people with different opinions.
    - JadeNB 3y ago
      > > Funny how HN tries to save face for Apple at all costs. > It doesn't. It's not you vs Big HN. Stop talking like it. It's just some people with different opinions. Did your parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033027) change their comment? It doesn't currently say what you quoted, only: > Maybe if they would read blood oxygen levels legally, using IP they legally licensed, it wouldn't be a problem.
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        They did.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    Alternatively, it blows my mind that the pulse-ox tech we’ve had in doctors’ offices since the mid 1970s is still that locked up in patents. I’m on Apple’s side on this. If it were a company other than Apple, I’d also be in that company’s side on this. Masimo isn’t a patent troll, but I don’t see how that $6B company can claim to own tech that’s been in wide use for several decades.
granzymes 3y ago
More likely, Apple pulls blood oxygen information for new Apple Watch sales until September when they introduce a hardware redesign for the Series 10. This is a probably the least notable feature of the Apple Watch. If you live at a normal altitude and are healthy, your blood oxygen will be >95% all the time.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  Why would they redesign the hardware? Can't they just switch the feature off with software until they work out a deal?

I mean... anything is smaller than Apple, but Masimo pulled in well over a billion revenue last year. They are not the little guy. Their patents for the O2 sensor are also incredibly general. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Who cares what the size of the "little guys" is? The size is not the point. The point is Apple stole(again) from someone, now they have to pay. Breaking the law isn't when the offended party is only children, grandmas and puppies instead of other corporations. Next time they should try the legal way of doing business, like paying to license IP like everyone else. Stealing is bad m'kay.
- bigfudge 3y ago
  I'm not accusing you personally of hypocrisy, but I do find it amusing the patents are almost never ok on HN except when they're being violated by Apple.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    It's difficult to be objective when you gave thousands of dollars to that corporation in product purchases or stonks or have an inexplicable emotional attachment to their products. You now have skin in the game. Hence the Apple defense mob on HN.
    - ryanobjc 3y ago
      The o2 sensor on the apple watch is a net win for the wider society. And never forget: patents exist to benefit society as a whole. Not particular companies.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >The o2 sensor on the apple watch is a net win for the wider society. Doctors' work is also a net benefit to society, yet we still pay them handsomely because nobody works for free, nor do companies develop IP for free. If Apple cared about the net benefit to society or at least its customers who buy their products, they should have just paid to license the apropriate IP. It's not like they're short on cash.
        bigfudge 3y ago
        I don’t know the details, but one of the few benefits of having companies as rich as Apple is that they can conceivably push back on stupidly broad patents. That they have lost this case doesn’t mean the parent is in any way sensible. Most parents are obvious and the patent examiners seem to have very little expertise or time to do their job properly. This creates a mess, and the courts sometimes enforce patents even when they seem stupid to everyone in the business. I’m not saying that happened here - but it might have. Most patents are dumb.
      - gnicholas 3y ago
        By this logic, all medicine should be free. Of course, that would result in pharma companies deciding not to spend billions of dollars researching ways to create new drugs. I'm not saying the existing system is optimal, but it's overly facile to say that O2 sensors are a social good, therefore any company ought to be able to implement patented methods related to O2 sensors.
        EA-3167 3y ago
        I would argue by that logic medicine should be accessible, not free. Apple Watches aren't free either, the point is access to the tech.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  I care more about patent abuse, not about which giant corporation wins. The only people who actually lose here are consumers.
- jmisavage 3y ago
  15 of the 17 patents that they claim Apple violated have been invalidated. Apple is still appealing the other 2 so they could be legit or go away as well. If those remaining 2 hold up then Apple should pay, if not then Masimo is abusing the patent system.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >if not then Masimo is abusing the patent system. I bet my money every single company out there is abusing the patent system. Apple famously patented "slide to unlock" and B&O's own scroll wheel invention for their iPod. Everyone can agree the patent system is broken in many ways and leads to the sorry state of today where if everyone is abusing it and you don't then you loose out so you have to abuse it too, to stay in the race. It's a tragedy of the commons.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Who cares what the size of the "little guys" is? The size is not the point. See the comment they were replying to for why they said that. The size is exactly the point if they're being characterised by size.
Hippocrates 3y ago
They rattle off a bunch of other "physiological parameters" like glucose, hemoglobin and "other". I wonder how many of these have been demonstrated via their technology vs. are theoretically possible (patent trolling)? I could be wrong but I thought non-invasive blood glucose has not been cracked yet, yet seems to be covered by the patent. Also curious as these appear to be dated in 2021 but the Apple Watch 6 with pulse oximeter came out in 2020. Unless there is something different about the "latest" watches.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Patents on things that can exist but don't work well are valid. If they're unsafe, inaccurate, unreliable, etc, that's a problem for commercial viability, but not an issue for getting a patent.
  - Hippocrates 3y ago
    Yeah I was just looking into this and apparently you can even patent things that don't work at all, but may be asked for a working model at some point in the future. Thats surprising, because I could easily see the sense in patenting slightly futuristic ideas with a plausible mechanism and then scrambling to create a model if and when it becomes economically enticing.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      A patent could be invalidated if it's something that can't be made, so you can't patent futuristic ideas. Or at least, if you try, and someone calls you on it, it's invalid. But you can patent inventions that do exist but are crap. Many inventions are crap, and that's okay. If you have a bad invention, you still have an invention.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
$1B is 1000x smaller than Apple's market cap.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  As I said, everything other than a handful of countries are smaller than Apple. Does that make a billion-dollar company the "little guy" though? Is Chevron the "little guy" compared to Exxon?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Fernicia 3y ago

Yeah screw the big guy! He's always trying to... checks notes... let us read our blood oxygen levels...

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
Maybe if they would read blood oxygen levels legally, using IP they legally licensed, it wouldn't be a problem. Edit: change of tone
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Funny how HN tries to save face for Apple at all costs. It doesn't. It's not you vs Big HN. Stop talking like it. It's just some people with different opinions.
  - JadeNB 3y ago
    > > Funny how HN tries to save face for Apple at all costs. > It doesn't. It's not you vs Big HN. Stop talking like it. It's just some people with different opinions. Did your parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39033027) change their comment? It doesn't currently say what you quoted, only: > Maybe if they would read blood oxygen levels legally, using IP they legally licensed, it wouldn't be a problem.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      They did.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Alternatively, it blows my mind that the pulse-ox tech we’ve had in doctors’ offices since the mid 1970s is still that locked up in patents. I’m on Apple’s side on this. If it were a company other than Apple, I’d also be in that company’s side on this. Masimo isn’t a patent troll, but I don’t see how that $6B company can claim to own tech that’s been in wide use for several decades.

granzymes 3y ago

More likely, Apple pulls blood oxygen information for new Apple Watch sales until September when they introduce a hardware redesign for the Series 10. This is a probably the least notable feature of the Apple Watch. If you live at a normal altitude and are healthy, your blood oxygen will be >95% all the time.

yowzadave 3y ago
Why would they redesign the hardware? Can't they just switch the feature off with software until they work out a deal?