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

151–160 of 510 posts

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

#151

Post by ceejayoz »

freejazz wrote: post #144
ceejayoz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Given there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.

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

#152

Post by simion314 »

happytiger wrote: post #49
simion314 wrote: post #46

Interesting that the president of the USA has the duty to also review this kind of disputes. If he can pardon people and in USA corporations are people could in theory the president pardon a company for some crime they did ?

It is in fact quite broad and the only explicit exception is impeachment. The exact execution of “pardoning a corporation” is something that would require legal parsing, but it’s within presidential authority. > The Constitution establishes the President’s authority to grant clemency, encompassing not only pardons of individuals but several other forms of relief from criminal punishment as well.1 The power, which has…

Thanks for the quality comment.

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

#153

Post by adrr »

drekk wrote: post #136
adrr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conversely, I'm not going to need to ration insulin in Argentina, Brazil, or India. Can't speak to the DPRK or Somalia as I haven't been. If capital was allocated democratically rather than at the whim of companies (that end up chasing taxpayer subsidies anyways... SpaceX, Tesla, etc.) you wouldn't need to strictly enforce patent law. The risk is already being assumed mostly by the government for truly bleeding edge…

Insulin isn't covered by patent laws. You're free to take your capital and go start an insulin company and sell it at low prices.

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

#154

Post by freejazz »

simondotau wrote: post #149
freejazz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of those are pro small time inventor, those are all benefits to big business and lower the friction of infringing, i.e. making it efficient. It turns patents into an after-the-fact licensing scheme, where businesses can infringe all they want until a small time inventor can muster the capital to actually enforce their own patents. Your response seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic dynamics that influence behavior on both sides of patent litigation.

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

#155

Post by freejazz »

ceejayoz wrote: post #151
freejazz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.

My snark is mostly directed at people who lament the patent system as precluding innovation wherein it actually does the opposite by forcing public disclosure and precluding the use of trade secrets to protect such information indefinitely.

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

#156

Post by 8ytecoder »

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.

India doesn't allow software patents and evergreening of pharmaceutical patents. Both are reasonable positions IMHO. Other than that, the IP protection is no less or no more than most of the western countries.

Considering most of my issues with patents is around trivial software patents and the abhorrent practice of slightly modifying a formula (coupled with paying generic manufacturers to not produce) to effectively extend the usable lifetime of a drug patent, if anything, it's the West that needs to change to make patents be actually good for innovation and not just a means to throttle competition.

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

#157

Post by golergka »

drekk wrote: post #139
golergka wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. Would you be willing to invest your own savings into tech-centric startups if they wouldn't be able to legally defend the tech they invented?

The funny thing is I'm being compelled to invest my own savings (taxes) to fund R&D that is then patentable. It would be a huge improvement to directly pick what I'm subsidizing, and actually get to read the results I've paid for. Capitalism is a few centuries old. Statistically speaking it's most likely not the economic system we end up with forever. Optimizing for innovation under that constraint only seems prematu…

> I'm being compelled to invest my own savings (taxes) to fund R&D

Taxation is, of course, theft, and any of it's use unethical — but I don't think this has anything to do with my question, which you haven't really answered. I wasn't asking about subsidising or donating either, my question was specifically about investment: act that assumes you expect the returns.

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

#158

Post by varispeed »

epistasis wrote: post #102
varispeed wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple poached its top executives What is this? Are they some form of slaves? If company doesn't want its employees "poached" they should pay them enough money so they don't think of "switching sides". This notion that corporations can own people and their brains should stop.

The notion is not that Masimo owned those executives or employees, the notion is that Apple needed the particular skills and expertise of those employees in order to build what they built.

Still, you don't own people. People should be free to switch employers if they don't like their current ones.

If we going that route, we might be bringing back slavery by the backdoor.

The Masimo case should have been thrown out.

Just imagine you are an engineer with amazing and unique skillset but you were unfortunate enough to pick wrong employer. You get a new offer from someone who sees your potential and could give you tools you need to help you do what you love.

With this kind of precedent, companies won't touch you with a barge pole even if you ticked all the boxes and you really don't want to work where you are.

It's bad for workers and for progress in general.

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

#159

Post by varispeed »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #119
varispeed wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong way to deal with this kind of thing. Apple should have not been allowed to grow this big in the first place so they could pull these kind of tricks. Otherwise you'll be playing whack-a-mole. Correct way would be to force Apple to split into separate independent entities. This should apply to all other businesses too big to fail.

Is Apple "too big to fail"? What's the equivalent of a "bank run" for a tech company? Is an Apple failure likely to cause a Great Recession or Great Depression? To be clear, I'm not defending "too big to fail" banking policies; I just don't see how that applies to Apple.

Maybe I used wrong idiom, what I am trying to say is that Apple has too much power and this is bad for economy, because it reduces competition (as in they can buy any business they deem useful or destroy any they see as a threat).

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

#160

Post by neom »

"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"

"Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations. Instead, he said that Apple had appealed to President Biden to veto the I.T.C. ruling, which Mr. Kiani knows because the administration contacted Masimo about Apple’s request."

“If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.”

Super interesting case, thought Apple would be less sloppy than this.

Post reply on HN