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

121–130 of 173 posts

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

#121

Post by 0xB31B1B »

gnicholas wrote: post #66

In the meantime, retailers like Best Buy can sell units that have already been imported to the US, and Apple can still sell the SE. I wonder if Apple preemptively imported a ton of watches for resale, to give them some breathing room. I imagine the post-Christmas period is relatively slow, and they’ll likely refresh the watches in May. Would it be possible for them to stuff the resale channels with 3 months of invent…

Outside of their own apple stores Apple is not managing or storing inventory for retail sale. A shipment for bestbuy or Amazon will almost always go straight from the origin to the retailer logistics hub in the US.

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

#122

Post by smitty1110 »

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.

You make a small mistake, which is really the fault of reporters for not explaining the somewhat complex world of Article I tribunals. The "International Trade Commission" is more properly known as "The United States International Trade Commission", a creation of Congress to adjudicate a number of trade-related disputes. As an Article I Tribunal, all appeals are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And of course, that gives you a fast track to the Supreme Court if desired. The President may also unilaterally overturn rulings, as has been done by Presidents Reagan and Obama.

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

#123

Post by araes »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #116
stefan_ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why wouldn't it be allowed in a patent? As far as I know, there isn't a law that says patents have to specify the wavelengths used. If you built it with wavelengths that worked, it'd be covered by the patent. If you built it with wavelengths that didn't work, it'd probably be useless.

From Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP, Sections 2103 - 2106.07(c).)

"It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility."

“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”

Flowchart on Pg 19. Section 2016 for the general examination process: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf

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

#124

Post by sumedh »

Geisterde wrote: post #109
imjustforyou wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why are government resources invested in protecting something that private companies and individuals have the responsibility of protecting themselves?

How can an individual protect themselves if a big company steals their ideas?

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

#125

Post by kube-system »

jrockway wrote: post #83
solardev wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we still manufacture electronics here, even if we wanted to? I thought all the expertise and machinery was outsourced a long time ago?

We can manufacture electronics here, though the exact details of the Apple Watch are probably not easy to accommodate. (The manufacturing engineers knew it would be built in China, so they chose parts and processes that are mature there. For example, if the requirement was for all the parts to be made in the US, then it would probably use an Intel chip, since those are made in the US. It probably wouldn't get 2 days…

> if the requirement was for all the parts to be made in the US, then it would probably use an Intel chip, since those are made in the US

Intel both has overseas fabs and contracts some parts to TSMC, especially for their latest processes.

I'm pretty sure the dies in Meteor Lake are of Irish and Taiwanese origin, and have nothing made in the US.

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

#126

Post by passwordoops »

jrockway wrote: post #84
edm0nd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a good thing. It increases salaries for everyone. If Apple can make more money with your ideas than Massimo, why shouldn't they be allowed to pay you more?

Hands down the worst take I've read here in a long time and there have been some doozies.

Aside from the detailed rebuttal someone already gave, can you explain in this world of higher salaries what incentive any company not named Apple/Google/Microsoft would have to bother doing R&D if the big boys can just come in and steal your IP and talent?

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

#127

Post by gnicholas »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #121
gnicholas wrote: post #66

In the meantime, retailers like Best Buy can sell units that have already been imported to the US, and Apple can still sell the SE. I wonder if Apple preemptively imported a ton of watches for resale, to give them some breathing room. I imagine the post-Christmas period is relatively slow, and they’ll likely refresh the watches in May. Would it be possible for them to stuff the resale channels with 3 months of invent…

Outside of their own apple stores Apple is not managing or storing inventory for retail sale. A shipment for bestbuy or Amazon will almost always go straight from the origin to the retailer logistics hub in the US.

Agreed; the question is whether Apple encouraged retailers to take on large inventories on a preemptive basis. It's in the retailers' interests to load up so that they're not left dry for an extended period. The only possible bad outcome for them is if they load up but then Apple settles, and they're not able to move it fast enough. But Apple could offer to buy back excess in order to alleviate this concern. It would seem like Apple and the retailers would want to work together 'against' Masimo here, since they both make money by stuffing the channel. I don't know if there are any ITC rules against this type of behavior during the pendency of an injunction.

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

#129

Post by firesteelrain »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #17
pushedx wrote: post #9

Do the $15 pulse oximiters that can be found on Amazon also infringe on these patents?

Here is the ruling against Apple: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/USITC... The relevant patent claims are identified: > the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent. (Many more claims were included in the complaint, but Apple didn't lose on those claims.) These are the '502 and '648 patents: https…

More than four would increase cost and wouldn’t necessarily be more accurate. I believe each LED emits Red, Blue or Infrared.

But these Apple Watches are not approved by the FDA as medical devices and are less accurate than a pulse oxomiter. Even FitBit doesn’t try to fool anyone.

So what’s the real market to add in measuring oxygen levels? Wellness? You have to not move to use it and we already know the measurements are not accurate.

Feels like they added it to sell more watches and seems like they really bought the farm this time

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

#130

Post by notatoad »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #89

I've seen tons of articles/posts about this recently, but does anyone have any links to any good articles that describe the patent(s) in question, and what the arguments are about (a) whether this patent is truly novel (I've heard tons of "pulse oximetry is decades old" arguments, but nothing about the specifics of these patents) and (b) whether Apple is or isn't infringing on the specific details? I'm sure this kind…

here's the patents in question:

- "Multiple wavelength sensor substrate" https://patents.google.com/patent/US7761127B2/en

- "Physiological monitoring devices, systems, and methods" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10687745B1/en

- "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user" https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912501B2/en

Post reply on HN