6 ms·
Apple wins $250 US jury verdict in patent case over Masimo smartwatches
- bell-cot 2y agoSuggested Title change: s/wins $250/wins only $250.00/ That'd minimal editorializing - while making it quite clear that there is no missing 'K', let alone missing 'M'.
- stillwaitingpls 2y agoIt's already old news at this point. The major damage you highlighted is already done.
- lttlrck 2y ago"wins token $250"
- altairprime 2y agoEmail the mods (footer contact link) if you’d like to see the title changed; make your case, or link your comment here, and they may agree with you. Otherwise they probably won’t see this comment (whether it’s upvoted or not).
- mirekrusin 2y agoA quarter of a cost of monitor stand.
- HumblyTossed 2y agoTitle really doesn't do the article justice. There's a BIT more going on there than just the $250 that Apple got.
- gnabgib 2y agoSmall discussion (13 points, 17 hours ago, 5 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41950858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41950858
- runjake 2y agoIn case the point is missed: Apple asked for $250, stating their cases was on principle. The courts aren’t slighting Apple.
- borski 2y ago> Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling. But on this point, they lost. $250 is the statutory minimum in the US for infringement. Apple did not successfully win an injunction, which was what they really wanted.
- refulgentis 2y agoInteresting, I figured now they're going for an injunction, now that they have the ruling, no? I don't think you can get a jury ruling then immediately ask for an injunction with the same judge and all Fwiw I'm a bit confused overall, it seems like either Apple is full on Baghdad Bob'ing or there's still an injunction to go for. More I think about, it's probably A :p
- borski 2y agoApple sued for infringement of their design patents, for Masimo’s old watches and chargers, and asked for $250 in damages. They won that set of claims, meaning Masimo’s old watches and chargers infringe. Masimo’s current products did not infringe, and Apple tried to sue on the basis that they infringed their technical/utility patents. On this set of claims, the jury disagreed, and the damages Apple was asking for there was injunctive relief against Masimo’s current products (aka taking them off the market). They lost that. They can't go for an injunction since the jury ruled that Masimo's current products do not infringe.
- avidphantasm 2y agoBut now someone at Apple can treat themselves to a very nice dinner.
- napierzaza 2y ago[dead]
- kylehotchkiss 2y agoDoes this mean watches will get their blood oxygen sensors back? The news hasn’t yet seemed to clear this up for me
- inquirerGeneral 2y agoNo
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mauriciob 2y agoThat’s a separate case (Masimo suing Apple) which is still ongoing. Apple countersued to try to block Masimo from releasing their own smartwatch, this article refers to this case.
- MBCook 2y agoRight. Quite possibly to have a better bargaining position in negotiations to be allowed to turn that feature back on. Interesting to see what happens next. I never thought the original injunction would go into place, let alone be allowed to go on this long.
- CharlesW 2y agoYes, but not because of this specific verdict. This was a (failed) attempt to impact the ability of Masimo to sell its own smartwatch, in which case Masimo would've lost the ability to continue blocking imports of Apple Watches with an enabled pulse oximetry feature in the U.S.
- mensetmanusman 2y agoCan you convert $250 to number of apple smart watches?
- pinkmuffinere 2y agoNot sure if this request is serious, but it’s approx 0.5 Apple smart watches
- Cheer2171 2y agoApple sued for violations of both design patents and tech patents. Apple won that Masimo's design infringes on Apple's design patents, for which they only asked for $250. Apple lost the other technology patent infringement parts of the case, for which they were asking for an injunction against Masimo selling their watches.
- borski 2y agoTo be clear, Masimo’s old (and previously discontinued) design infringes on Apple’s design patents, not the one presently on the market.
- jijji 2y agoIt looks like Apple's claims were related to the charging of the watch itself... Which brings me to my question of why not use standard USB Type-C charging ports instead of some proprietary charging method? It seems like from the very beginning it is a poor choice, on both parties, to charge a device using a non-standard charging device.
- arjvik 2y agoIt makes sense to have wearables like watches and smart rings charge via wireless inductive charging, because the physical space of even a USB-C port inside a watch is quite limiting for the electronics that can be placed inside the watch, and physically wouldn't fit inside of a ring.
- sjm-lbm 2y agoWireless inductive charging also allows for a (more) sealed case design, which is helpful for a device that will almost certainly encounter moisture in normal use cases. I can keep my phone somewhere dry when it's raining, I've never thought to take off my watch when it rains.
- paultopia 2y agoCan someone please explain why Apple doesn't just buy Masimo in a fight like this? Their market cap is like 5% of Apple's annual profit...
- adtac 2y agoso that the next company won't sue
- sxg 2y agoMasimo's CEO and board have to approve the purchase, but it appears that Masimo isn't interested in being bought.
- MBCook 2y agoThe CEO wasn’t. Rumors were he was single-handedly refusing to listen to any offer, which is why (supposedly) he was pushed out recently. Somewhat surprising a deal wasn’t made after that. Perhaps Apple though this would strengthen their bargaining position and was waiting to see how this would go.
- dagmx 2y agoThe CEO has resigned as of a month ago (or forced out rather) The primary investors seem quite upset with his handling of this. Rumours are that he was hostile to a buyout but in his lawsuit has also invalidated a lot of their own patents. So it’s a pyrrhic victory at best for him. I assume the new CEO will be expected to look to play better and reduce the damage.
- andrewoneone 2y agoWith this case it seems like Apple is just going to take them to court again and again until the well runs dry and Masimo’s patents can be purchased for pennies on the dollar. https://www.masimoconsumer.com/ https://www.masimoconsumer.com/ Their products feel simultaneously like knock offs and 5 years old all at once.
- qwtree 2y agoSeems like a good outcome. Patent trolls should occasional suffer some consequences of their actions (I know that Masimo sells actual products but they pulse oximetry patent is just silly...)
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoMasimo basically came up with the idea of how to do it accurately long before anyone else right? Is that really trolling? I don’t recall the details but I remember thinking they actually had a legitimate claim.
- dagmx 2y agoThey actually had the majority of their patents invalidated during the legal process. The one patent they have remaining (that is what Apple are dealing with) is on a very particular sensor configuration not the concept or technology in general beyond that.
- amar0c 2y agoWhy do hackernews people share links behind paywalls and pop-up's that want me to disable ad blocker ?
- ryanobjc 2y agoIn every single press release Masimo complains apple hired away staff. Um, you are in California. There are no non-competes. You just are confessing every single time you can’t retain talented staff.
- wombatpm 2y agoAny reason that Apple just doesn’t buy the company outright? Market cap is only 7.5B.
- stuartd 2y agohttp://archive.today/tgTd1 http://archive.today/tgTd1