US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by brianpan » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 7:27 PM UTC

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…

Masimo claims Apple had project to emulate or obtain their tech without paying them, including poaching employees. Apple hired their CTO Marcelo Lamego.

“In the first two weeks that Lamego was at Apple, he filed 12 patents for medical and sensor technologies for the Watch. Though he would only stay at the company for six months, Lamego would be named as an inventor on many more.”

https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-10-05...

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

#172

Post by AlbertCory » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 9:32 PM UTC

jevoten wrote: post #164

AlbertCory wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both of your examples are from the 90's. It's simply incorrect to say "concept patents get granted all the time." No, they don't. You patent an invention. The claims on it may be inappropriately broad, but there have always been mechanisms to address that.

Unless you have a source showing things have changed for the better, I don't see how the age of my examples is relevant. Especially since they may have been granted in the 90s, but expired only very recently.

You can find sources about the changes in patent law since the 90's. For the most salient example: CLS Bank v. Alice.

Many of the abuses since then have been corrected. That's how the age is relevant.

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

#173

Post by dang » Wed, Dec 27, 2023, 10:16 PM UTC

jqpabc123 wrote: post #168

dang wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but please don't post generic flamewar comments to HN. This kind of thing leads to repetitive threads that have happened many times before, which is not the curious conversation we're trying for here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ok. But I do feel compelled to respectfully suggest that the following discussion lacks much in the way of what I would call "flames".

That could be. But we have to moderate by the general pattern, even though not every thread works out that way. It's basically about whether the expected value of a thread is flamewar or not.