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

191–200 of 510 posts

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

#191

Post by bumby »

taeric wrote: post #185
caminante wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? That doesn't apply here at all. > To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could appeal to the Biden administration to reverse the ruling. But Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.

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

#192

Post by bdowling »

theamk wrote: post #22

Patents in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en They look identical to me btw? both files on 2020-02 and have title of "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user". From summary: > light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, a…

> some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art

The standard is to consider ALL of the elements together in the specific configuration. If this were not the case, then any invention that incorporated any conventional element (e.g., a lever) would be invalid.

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

#194

Post by starttoaster »

bitvoid wrote: post #186
russdill wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize from the perspective of patent law, the patent is not dumb and Apple needs to respect patent law. But man, the patent is just dumb. It's simply just existing technology A, but on obvious technology B. There is absolutely zero innovation. https://patents.google.com/patent/US11474483B2/en

Wrong patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en

So all wear-able devices that use light to measure attributes from your blood stream require a license from the holders of this patent? It's really no surprise that businesses don't try to compete with each other in the "free market" and quasi-monopolies reign supreme. Chances are you're going to be seen as eating somebody's lunch somehow if you try to sell anything.

I suppose you could argue that it's Apple violating the patent here, hardly a party to feel empathy for. But they just had the gumption to put skin in this game. We could have tons of competing devices that do this in their own wear-able products with distinct user experiences for each, but somebody beat them all to the patent house so why bother.

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

#195

Post by frakkingcylons »

mort96 wrote: post #180
sokoloff wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the common usage of the phrase, that is what it means.

The way I use the term, a company which engages in patent trolling is a patent troll. That seems natural to me, but I apologise if that’s unorthodox use.

It's not unorthodox, it's just a nonsensical circular definition.

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

#196

Post by aeturnum »

starttoaster wrote: post #194
bitvoid wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong patent. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en

So all wear-able devices that use light to measure attributes from your blood stream require a license from the holders of this patent? It's really no surprise that businesses don't try to compete with each other in the "free market" and quasi-monopolies reign supreme. Chances are you're going to be seen as eating somebody's lunch somehow if you try to sell anything. I suppose you could argue that it's Apple violatin…

I think there are many problems with the patent system but the way you are describing it is overly broad. There are lots of technical details in this patent that describe a way of doing that. Once the period of exclusivity is up anyone can use that technique freely - but for now other people would have to pay or use an inferior technique that doesn't violate the patent. Arguably there's not a lot of value in every device working as perfectly as possible, but there's a lot of value in giving inventors temporary monopolies on truly new things.

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

#197

Post by thisisonthetest »

keeptrying wrote: post #193

Damn need to go get one. Still have the series 3.

I’ve been waiting for a killer feature that will make it more than just an expensive fitbit for me. Every generation I say “surely the next gen will be it” but it never was (I guess I’m a laggard in ‘Crossing the Chasm’ parlance).

Personally I expect a Siri overhaul / replacement with an LLM. To me that would be a total game changer and I’d be first in line!

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

#198

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

taeric wrote: post #185
caminante wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? That doesn't apply here at all. > To avoid a complete ban on sales, Apple had two months to cut a deal with Masimo to license its technology, or it could appeal to the Biden administration to reverse the ruling. But Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

Practically speaking, damages for the infringement would be a reasonable royalty.[1] So, having to go through the courts to enforce a patent is sorta like a compulsory license, in a way. Going to the ITC skips that, goes simply to stopping future sales.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/284#

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

#199

Post by avidphantasm »

SllX wrote: post #19
freedomben wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. > Apple, of course, is one of the largest and most powerful companies in history — it’s the first to hit a $3-trillion — that’s trillion, with a T — market cap. Apple is at least 100 times bigger than Masimo, 500x based on the numbers in the article. Sounds David and Goliath to me. Add in the despicable behavior and you've got a story where real life is more than fiction could do.

It’s still a multi-billion dollar company. At that scale, you’re not facing any real disadvantages in the legal process even against Apple unless your company is actively losing money already and you won’t have enough cash on hand to continue operating. A quick looksie at their financials indicates that is not the case here. I don’t want to say Market Cap doesn’t matter, but man is it irrelevant to most discussions a…

Also, the issue at hand is a hobby for Apple, but it’s Massimo’s bread and butter, so they ought to be willing to spend accordingly on lawyers.

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

#200

Post by pests »

bumby wrote: post #191
taeric wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorta? Compulsive licensing is something that only exists in a very narrow market for copyright material. Pretty sure it does not exist at all for patents. You can argue that it is somewhat moot here, as Apple was not showing any willingness to negotiate. But the post above is somewhat accurate, in that there is no guarantee that negotiations will end in a license.

I wasn’t aware either, but it looks like it’s a thing for some potentially critical patents. The example in Wikipedia is the US govt threatening Bayer with compulsory licensing of their anthrax treatment if they refused to lower their price.

I beleive the Wright Brothers also had to give up / forced to licence their patent which was key to modern flight. Maybe WW1 related? I might be wrong here butI remember reading it somewhere.
Post reply on HN