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

21–30 of 173 posts

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

#21

Post by Moto7451 »

imjustforyou wrote: post #19
1123581321 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

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…

> You come up with an amazing breakthrough that will alter the world? Congratulations, it's yours for 10 years to do what you want. After that, it's fair game. Innovate or die.

That’s how patents work in the US. You get 10 years with the ability to extend 10 more. There are games to be played with some patents that extend their life (like a new use patent in pharma) but generally these parents for seemingly old things are new ideas about an old thing.

If you want a short fun read on Solar Panels [0] you’ll find a Melvin Severy referenced. That’s my ancestor. We don’t see a penny from his work because that patent is long gone and is just referenced as prior art. Feel free to use it all you’d like.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar...

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

#22

Post by stouset »

Racing0461 wrote: post #11
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #4

Karma: https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-gets-u-s-ban-on-htc-andr...

This was back when steve jobs was suing anyone making rounded corner phones right? The apple watch patent seems like an actual thing.

Design patents are an actual thing and they cover extremely specific features of an object’s physical design.

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

#23

Post by Despegar »

zamadatix wrote: post #16
hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

I generally agree when how bogus this kind of thing usually is is brought up but in this case I'm not sure I can agree what happened here was fair play tarnished by misguided law after reading the backstory these past few weeks. The rub between the two here isn't pulse ox was used at all it's a specific implementation of a certain part of several patents Marino claims Apple stole when they were working together then…

There was no partnership as far as I know. Masimo met with Apple's M&A team, they didn't do a deal, then Apple hired Masimo employees to do it themselves.

This complaint of Apple meeting with some company and then stealing their technology is the narrative put forward by every company or VC that meets with Apple and doesn't result in an acquisition. As if it's impossible to know who to hire from LinkedIn, patents, knowledge of the field, etc.

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

#24

Post by pbhjpbhj »

imjustforyou wrote: post #19
1123581321 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

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…

The international TRIPs agreement, managed by WTO, specifies a 20y term. AFAIK, 20y is standard for patents. Which means an invention (not an idea!) patented in 1989 should be free to use from 2009 onwards.

USA used to have 'submarine patents' that could appear later, but apart from that there doesn't seem to be any jurisdiction in which a 33 year old patent would still be valid.

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

#25

Post by dagmx »

dralley wrote: post #8
tremarley wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTC probably lost out on billions due to this

HTC practically ceased to exist as a consumer facing company in the West due to this. I don't know of any hardware they've produced recently outside of their partnership with Valve on VR, and they're not the face of that relationship.

I feel like you’re exaggerating the impact of this single case on HTC’s long term viability .

The article says they rectified the issue in software right away. HTC died off in the US for many other reasons, I severely doubt this was one of them given it could be software rectified.

HTC continued to make many phones ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_HTC_devices?wpro... ) after this before being bought by Google ( https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/20/16340108/google-htc-smart... )

What killed of HTC’s mobile division was the inability to compete in the market against Google, Samsung and Motorola. I’m sure this case hurt some but given how quickly it was fixed, the import ban was likely very short lived. Especially because they had new phones available almost immediately after.

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

#26

Post by orbital-decay »

hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

Did they patent pulse oximetry, though? The referenced patent seems to be for their specific detector design and signal processing method. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2

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

#29

Post by c0pium »

orbital-decay wrote: post #26
hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

Did they patent pulse oximetry, though? The referenced patent seems to be for their specific detector design and signal processing method. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2

That’s how patents always work; the concept cannot be patented, it’s the method which is. Garmin for instance has their own (patented) method which works differently from the infringing Apple implementation.

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

#30

Post by dylan604 »

sokoloff wrote: post #7
dylan604 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed. the richest company on the planet with its massive army of lawyers are either incompetent and could not see they would be affected by an existing patent, or so egotistical that they felt they could bully their way around it. either way, that's not a good look for Apple in this.

Presumably the patent litigator also knows all of those facts and may have been holding out for too much money (in Apple’s calculus) and the long-run game is better for Apple if they take some short-term pain now in exchange for being known as a difficult target. Apple will be fine without watch sales for a long time if needed.

Assuming Apple is in a 2-year cycle with the watch like its other devices, what are the odds the offending part of the series 9 watch is also in the series 10 watch with not enough time to remove it before the 10 release. it would make the 10 necessary to be pushed back while they retool the product or continue negotiating for a licensing agreement
Post reply on HN