4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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 agoBy 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 agoI 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.
- EA-3167 3y agoI understand that you're passionate about this issue, but please don't just reply to all of my posts with essentially the same reply, especially as an interjection.
- gnicholas 3y ago> It's not the people's fault they loose access to the tech if Apple hasn't paid the ones who invented it The ITC decision will not require Apple to remove the functionality from anyone's devices.
- gnicholas 3y agoI believe it is accessible — Massimo is willing to license it to Apple. The issue is that Massimo thinks the reasonable licensing fee is higher than what Apple wants to pay.