Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#101

Post by hnlmorg »

jhugo wrote: post #87
ajross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As if it's impossible to know who to hire from LinkedIn, patents, knowledge of the field, etc. That's misunderstanding the argument: it's not "They poached our employees and that isn't fair!", it's "Clearly our technology was legitimate and innovative, they had to poach our employees to duplicate it!" It's an argument toward the standing of the patent(s?), not a complaint of unfair trade practices.

> That's misunderstanding the argument: it's not "They poached our employees and that isn't fair!", it's "Clearly our technology was legitimate and innovative, they had to poach our employees to duplicate it!" This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos, even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation. So of course you'…

> This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos

You're basically agreeing to the GP's "thin" argument by saying you need people who already successfully did it to have a higher chance of succeeding.

> even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation

You can't do a clean-room re-implementation if you're hiring people who already worked of the original implementation. Plus clean-room design only circumvents copyright claims. They don't defend against patents.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#102

Post by orenlindsey »

AlbertCory wrote: post #57

What no one's mentioned here is: this is an International Trade Commission ruling, not a US court or PTO ruling. So Apple cannot import those watches. They could probably build them in the US (now there's a thought), and injunctions against domestic products are possible but very unusual. Usually there are damages, not injunctions.

Apple can't build a factory to produce Apple Watches before the entire situation would be resolved. And if they could, it would be much more expensive to run compared to making it in Vietnam (where they make it now).

It would just be a stopgap solution.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#103

Post by kshacker »

nimbius wrote: post #69

Every time I read about This I am gobsmacked by just how big a cavalier blunder this is for apple. Who on gods earth at Cupertino thought the pittance you could save from sherlocking would somehow be more than the revenue from a new iPhone in 2023? Now you've either got to pay the license or buy the damn company. And you STILL had to admit to wrongdoing in front of the ITC and the world. Any acquisition you seek from…

Or you can win the patent lawsuit and invalidate the patent !!

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#104

Post by stefan_ »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #20
1123581321 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

But the amount of processing necessary to trigger the patent is "any amount more than zero". Here's what claim 19, which Apple was adjudged to have indirectly violated, says about processing: > [the user-worn device comprising, among other things: ] one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals,…

It's funny how these things work. They don't even specify the wavelength of the LEDs used, instead preferring to patent any wavelength imaginable. But obviously not all of them will work. Why was this allowed in a patent? How is this a valid description of what they built?

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#105

Post by withinboredom »

c0pium wrote: post #52
hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmission of light through a thin part of the body, such as a finger or ear, as opposed to reflectance. Reflection pulse oximetry from a thick part of the body, such as a wrist, is a much more recent invention and is the subject of these patents.

This. Is this it? "The scattered light through the tissue came back instead of through, so this is totally novel!"

Like literally, we are arguing over the vector of the light?

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#106

Post by spogbiper »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #77
hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

> they have shut down competitors with bogus patents this is an interesting point, but what are some examples?

https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-gets-u-s-ban-on-htc-andr...

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#107

Post by mission_failed »

manderley wrote: post #97
AlbertCory wrote: post #57

What no one's mentioned here is: this is an International Trade Commission ruling, not a US court or PTO ruling. So Apple cannot import those watches. They could probably build them in the US (now there's a thought), and injunctions against domestic products are possible but very unusual. Usually there are damages, not injunctions.

But that wouldn't vanish the patent issue?

It is wouldn't, but the ITC ruling is quicker to get than going to court for patent issues.

Which is exactly why Apple uses import bans to screw with competitors importing headphones.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#108

Post by c0pium »

withinboredom wrote: post #105
c0pium wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmission of light through a thin part of the body, such as a finger or ear, as opposed to reflectance. Reflection pulse oximetry from a thick part of the body, such as a wrist, is a much more recent invention and is the subject of these patents.

This. Is this it? "The scattered light through the tissue came back instead of through, so this is totally novel!" Like literally, we are arguing over the vector of the light?

Technically yes, but that’s a bit like saying rocket engine patents are about the vector of hot gasses. There are a lot of issues with creating one chip that both emits and receives light which are not present in a transmission model. In particular, if you look at the actual claims in the case, this is what many of the areas which were infringed upon deal with.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#109

Post by Geisterde »

imjustforyou wrote: post #19
1123581321 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

Patent laws really are so strange. Two people had an idea in 1989 (over a decade before I was born) and as a result, I am not allowed to build a product using that idea and sell it, even if I independently reached the idea myself. I think in an ideal world, we would have intellectual rights and patents, but for a vastly reduced scope of time. You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congrat…

I would argue intellectual property laws are bad at the outset, and that the concept of intellectual property is praxeologically unsound. What right does a person have to restrict the progress and free will of another (or society for that matter) simply because they came up with an idea "first"?

The very idea of intellectual property though, you own your mind, you own your thoughts, sure. You can own a document with the details of your idea, and you can physically restrict others from seeing your property. What does it mean for an idea to be property though? Why are government resources invested in protecting something that private companies and individuals have the responsibility of protecting themselves?

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#110

Post by FirmwareBurner »

edm0nd wrote: post #80
sircastor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a chance. This is likely Apple exhausting options before it settles into a licensing deal. First you try cease-and-desist, then appeals, then settlement, then import restriction negotiation, etc. Obviously Apple does not want to pay a fee per watch for the technology. They say they're going to try to fix it in software, Masimo says it's a hardware thing. Apparently this whole thing happened because Masimo sta…

It's also happening because after some failed negotiations Apple just straight up started poaching employee talent from Massimo.

That' not the complete story. Apple basically screwed Massimo in getting Massimo to spill their guts on their sensor tech promising them an licesing/partnership and instead of following through, they decided to cease any licensing deal and instead poach the team to build that tech inhouse instead of licensing it.

It's known in SV as "brain fucking". A lot of big companies do this to small companies where they promise a acquisition/licensing/funding deal in order to get presentations with confidential info on the core tech, and then just use their massive war chest to build that core tech themselves without compensating the smaller player for having reveal the keys to the kingdom.

Post reply on HN