71–80 of 357 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an employee you shouldn't care, but if you're someone who wants technological progress to continue, you should care whether companies with a slush fund of billions are able to bully those with less money.
You mean like the innovation that someone else here said that was denied a patent in Japan because of prior art? We like software patents now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good for everyone except whoever had money invested in Masimo
Similar to what HNers are so happy to say about restaurant owners who actually have to be profitable and can’t depend on the largess of investors, if Masimo can’t afford to pay market rates to developers, the company doesn’t deserve to exist.
Massimo invented this technology (yay Massimo!) in the 90s yet their Japanese patents [1] weren't considered prior art (WTF?) because of technical legal reasons. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2002542493A5/en%EF%BF%BC So I suppose if Massimo is going to use a technical legality to extend then Apple can use a technical legality to avoid.
The only IP that companies can own now are specific methods/improvements, not the base idea of measuring SpO2 with light. All Apple has to do is avoid the specific improvements that Masimo owns and they are fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In contrast my Garmin and finger pulseox match exactly.
I don't know what Garmin you have, but I'm about half convinced that my Instinct's heart rate measurement is implemented by a PRNG. It's frequently off by 50% from a count/time cross-check. It does not inspire me to move up their range when this watch eventually dies: if they can't get the basic feature working, I have a hard time seeing how they're going to manage anything trickier.
That guy is a great reference, and through his videos you can find various measures where he compares devices against reference devices (e.g. the Polar H10 for heart rate for instance). A lot of the reliability of these devices relies upon a tight fit as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
25 employees including the CTO, and then bought a building nearby to Masimo's office for them to work in. At least according to the CEO of Masimo in public statements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg
Sounds good for the employees, so go Apple?
Probably a net-negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really easy to avoid your employees being "poached": treat them well, and pay them better.
Wow you must work for a company with incredibly deep pockets. No way can massimo compete on salary with apple. Only people in the game who can do that are google facebook apple chatgpt etc.
The company does $2B in revenue and spends close to $800 million annually in sales, general and admin. This is over 3x their R&D budget. (For reference, Apple's R&D spend is higher than its SG&A spend.)
Per levels.fyi, Masimo is paying senior SDEs in HCOL $150k. They could 10x the comp to these critical employees without it being more than a rounding error in their numbers. (I don't think they would have had to go to 10x. Most people would practically tattoo a brand on themselves for a one-time bonus of $1m.)
Long story short: Masimo does indeed have the money to compete on salary with Apple for this set of employees. They chose to spend the money on attorneys instead.
Some companies don't value engineers. That often works, until they end up in an engineering competition against companies that do value engineers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software patents are a scourge.
I would be a bit more sympathetic if this was not about a trillion dollar company who poached some employees rather than engage in a licensing deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really easy to avoid your employees being "poached": treat them well, and pay them better.
Wow you must work for a company with incredibly deep pockets. No way can massimo compete on salary with apple. Only people in the game who can do that are google facebook apple chatgpt etc.
What's the US Customs ruling in question? > This update was enabled by a recent U.S. Customs ruling.
https://rulings.cbp.gov/ruling/H335304 maybe this - from January 2025 It appears the patent is for "User-Worn Device for Noninvasively Measuring a Physiological Parameter of a User". So Apple is simply moving the logic to a non user-worn device - like a phone - to get around the problem. (this is my quick read / conjecture) Here is the original patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en