4 ms·

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 sen

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.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Apple Watches aren't free either, the point is access to the tech. It's not the people's fault they loose access to the tech if Apple hasn't paid the ones who invented it. Apple also has access to the tech, they need to pay for it, and not sell people tech they don't have rights over.
- 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]

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.
        FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Apple Watches aren't free either, the point is access to the tech. It's not the people's fault they loose access to the tech if Apple hasn't paid the ones who invented it. Apple also has access to the tech, they need to pay for it, and not sell people tech they don't have rights over.
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]