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

Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 510 posts

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#141

Post by [deleted] »

gnicholas wrote: post #110
modeless wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted to spend a bunch of money they could just license the patents. It would probably be cheaper than buying the whole company.

It might be cheaper to license the patents, but if they managed to buy a controlling interest in the company, they would also then stand to profit from Masimo's licensing arrangements with other companies. That is, they would be purchasing a revenue-generating asset. And after this lawsuit, I'm sure Masimo will have more revenue, as other smaller companies realize there is no way to win against them, since even Apple…

[deleted]

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#142

Post by tjfjr »

llamaInSouth wrote: post #72
xyst wrote: post #68

IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

At least, unlike copyright, patents don't last forever...

Copyright protection does not last forever, though in my opinion it still lasts far too long.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#143

Post by callalex »

Baader-Meinhof wrote: post #103
xyst wrote: post #68

IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

A lot of medicine requires $100's of millions of R&D, with a high chance of failure. No company would take that risk if their work wasn't protected. So at least in some fields, it spurs innovation.

Sure, but the technology we’re discussing in this case existed before even the entire company that is suing Apple existed. There was no risk or inventing involved.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#144

Post by freejazz »

ceejayoz wrote: post #88
eweise wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.

Does anyone know what specifically Masimo invented that Apple infringed upon? Pulse oximetry was in standard practice before the company existed, and Masimo's Wikipedia article doesn't mention Apple anywhere.

If only there was a patent that explained specifically what Masimo invented, otherwise no one would ever know!

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#145

Post by freejazz »

simondotau wrote: post #133
eweise wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.

Either the patent system is catastrophically broken or it isn't. I have always contended that it is, and I don't get to ignore that right now because Apple appears to have engaged in shenanigans. (I don't think patents need to be entirely eliminated, but they need drastic reform. The patent system should be an incentive to small inventors, not a pay-to-play shield for big corporations. Obviously eliminating software/…

How is exactly is FRAND pro-small time inventor and not pro-efficiently infringing big businesses?

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#146

Post by krzys »

jalino23 wrote: post #69
xyst wrote: post #68

IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

coughs in codec patents

internal raw rolling eyes

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#147

Post by morsch »

adrr wrote: post #122
xyst wrote: post #68

IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

Countries with very lenient enforcement of IP laws have very minimal innovation. Brazil, Argentina, India. Countries who haven't signed TRIPS almost no innovation, North Korea, Somalia. Countries with the strictest patent laws and enforcement are the leaders in innovation. Germany, US, South Korea. Strict enforcement of patent laws ensures that capital will be invested in innovation.

Strong handed IP enforcement is hardly the only thing Germany, the US and South Korea have in common. Etc for the other groups.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#148

Post by skinkestek »

ceejayoz wrote: post #106
skinkestek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying this is right. But I think it is something poetic about a company that sues and wins over Samsung for a "design patent" and uses the fact that Samsungs lawyers cannot see the difference as proof... when that company gets hit by a ridiculous "intellectual property" lawsuit. Said as an Apple user who has brought in a number of new Apple users, meaning I am not against Apple only against ridiculous "inte…

It's hard to look at pre-iPhone and post-iPhone smartphones and not see a pretty clear dividing line with significant shift in looks and functionality. I'm leery of design patents, but it's hard to say there wasn't some invention going on there. We've had easy fingertip pulse oximetry since 1977, and Masimo was founded in 1989. It's unclear to me what in their patent is novel.

The big change with iPhone was the lack of physical keyboard, wasn't it?

The form factor square with rounded edges in itself has been used for calculators and pocket PCs long long long before iPhone hasn't it?

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#149

Post by simondotau »

freejazz wrote: post #145
simondotau wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either the patent system is catastrophically broken or it isn't. I have always contended that it is, and I don't get to ignore that right now because Apple appears to have engaged in shenanigans. (I don't think patents need to be entirely eliminated, but they need drastic reform. The patent system should be an incentive to small inventors, not a pay-to-play shield for big corporations. Obviously eliminating software/…

How is exactly is FRAND pro-small time inventor and not pro-efficiently infringing big businesses?

It makes compliance more straightforward with less opportunity for strategic manipulation. It makes damages easier to quantify.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#150

Post by jjav »

grecy wrote: post #94
ladberg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty nontrivial to buy a majority interest in any public company. It's not like you can just spend 1/2 the current market cap to acquire it, the price will shoot up drastically as soon as the market is aware of someone (especially Apple) trying to do it.

> the price will shoot up drastically as soon as the market is aware of someone Will that still happen if you put in a single order to buy 51% of all the shares at a price a little above the current market value ? That trade will be complete before the market "sees" you are trying to buy a ton.

> That trade will be complete before the market "sees" you are trying to buy a ton.

That's not how the market works. There are not enough open sell orders at any price (let alone a little above most recent price) for someone to sweep in and buy 51% (or even just a few percent) at once.

As soon as more than a trivial (in the noise) amount of your buys goes through all the open sell orders will start to move up in price (since it's nearly all automated), so you'll be chasing that ever-increasing price a long way up.

Post reply on HN