4 ms·

Somehow others competitors managed to do it without patent infringement or just pay the licence fees. Apple just thought they were so big that they could get aw

Somehow others competitors managed to do it without patent infringement or just pay the licence fees. Apple just thought they were so big that they could get away with stealing the IP, because they have deeper pocket for court proceedings. It's not the first time they do it

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Apple will just not offer the capability until the patent expires. Consumers will still buy the watches, they bought them before this existed.
- albert180 3y ago
  If the court finally determines in the End that they violated the patent, they have no choice but to pay up for all the watches already out there. If they are smart they will now offer a good deal for both sides instead of loosing and pay a huge punitive damage
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Apple has almost a $3T market cap, I'm sure their legal team will be fine coming to a favorable arrangement if nerfing the functionality with software updates isn't sufficient. They can fund any settlement out of ~$380B in annual revenue. Any settlement under ~$1B is a day of revenue. The horror.
    - albert180 3y ago
      How should that be sufficient. They have already done the damage and used the technology they didn't pay for. Also customers will sue if they nerve a feature via software that was advertised bigly back then, claiming that this was the reason they bought the watch
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        "Laws are for poor people." Apple will outlast any legal challenges, and any successful will be immaterial to their financials. I have no dog in this fight (no exposure to AAPL besides whatever is in index funds, no standing in claims), just calling it how it is. Any class action is going to be cost of business. At a certain market cap and revenue run rate, it doesn't matter. Some damages will get paid, class action counsel will get paid, consumers will get a few bucks, and everyone will move on until the patent expires. Might have a securities fraud lawsuit to contend with too, everything is securities fraud as Matt Levine @ Bloomberg says. Very similar to Tesla's FSD story. You can outrun the financial liability if your sales and brand are strong enough. Was it wrong what Apple did? The moral position is irrelevant. We might as well argue over the color of the bikeshed.
- markemer 3y ago
  Not even that. They’re suing to invalidate the patent entirely and are also attacking the W1 watch Massimo sells based on Apple Patents. I’m not sure as to why Apple decided to go full scorched earth, but man they pissed somebody off.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    It would be a fantastic outcome if they managed to get the patent invalidated because it seems rather silly (not that Apple, just like other larger corporations, doesn’t have a tendency to patent perfectly “obvious” “innovations” either)
    - albert180 3y ago
      Well back then it was a major breakthrough for more accurate measurements, so no. Fuck Apple and their we can steal anything we want attitude. The other way around they are not that lenient

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Apple will just not offer the capability until the patent expires. Consumers will still buy the watches, they bought them before this existed.

albert180 3y ago
If the court finally determines in the End that they violated the patent, they have no choice but to pay up for all the watches already out there. If they are smart they will now offer a good deal for both sides instead of loosing and pay a huge punitive damage
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Apple has almost a $3T market cap, I'm sure their legal team will be fine coming to a favorable arrangement if nerfing the functionality with software updates isn't sufficient. They can fund any settlement out of ~$380B in annual revenue. Any settlement under ~$1B is a day of revenue. The horror.
  - albert180 3y ago
    How should that be sufficient. They have already done the damage and used the technology they didn't pay for. Also customers will sue if they nerve a feature via software that was advertised bigly back then, claiming that this was the reason they bought the watch
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      "Laws are for poor people." Apple will outlast any legal challenges, and any successful will be immaterial to their financials. I have no dog in this fight (no exposure to AAPL besides whatever is in index funds, no standing in claims), just calling it how it is. Any class action is going to be cost of business. At a certain market cap and revenue run rate, it doesn't matter. Some damages will get paid, class action counsel will get paid, consumers will get a few bucks, and everyone will move on until the patent expires. Might have a securities fraud lawsuit to contend with too, everything is securities fraud as Matt Levine @ Bloomberg says. Very similar to Tesla's FSD story. You can outrun the financial liability if your sales and brand are strong enough. Was it wrong what Apple did? The moral position is irrelevant. We might as well argue over the color of the bikeshed.
markemer 3y ago
Not even that. They’re suing to invalidate the patent entirely and are also attacking the W1 watch Massimo sells based on Apple Patents. I’m not sure as to why Apple decided to go full scorched earth, but man they pissed somebody off.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  It would be a fantastic outcome if they managed to get the patent invalidated because it seems rather silly (not that Apple, just like other larger corporations, doesn’t have a tendency to patent perfectly “obvious” “innovations” either)
  - albert180 3y ago
    Well back then it was a major breakthrough for more accurate measurements, so no. Fuck Apple and their we can steal anything we want attitude. The other way around they are not that lenient