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

221–230 of 510 posts

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

#221

Post by yieldcrv »

mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

hmm, maybe the government can be instructed to mediate patent licenses

the company is being particular about how they want to get paid, maybe thats the anticompetitive practice that the government shouldnt be granting an exemption for

there are examples of the government mediating sells such as during bank failures

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

#222

Post by doix »

caminante wrote: post #209
mort96 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.” Doesn’t this quite plainly mean that they aren’t willing to just license the patent?

Nothing of the sort. How does this statement reject a willingness to license?

Because the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate.

I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit.

Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.

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

#223

Post by asadotzler »

granzymes wrote: post #100
mikestew wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost? Assuming a spherical cow, and that Apple's decision-makers aren't completely incapable of basic math, the logical conclusion would be...? (Spoiler: I assume the patent-holder is asking some outrageous sum. Or there's a piece of the story we're missing. Or maybe some kind of game of chicken.)

This is also an iterated game. Apple doesn’t want a reputation for caving to patent trolls because that invites more lawsuits. Indeed, Apple has a reputation for going scorched earth on patent trolls and trying to invalidate your entire patent portfolio after you poke the bear (Masimo has already had several of their patents invalidated in the course of their litigation with Apple).

Why do you call them patent trolls when they're not. Patent holders who build and ship products based on those patents are not patent trolls. Do you not know what that phrase actually means?

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

#224

Post by willis936 »

nomel wrote: post #116
whycome wrote: post #32

Samsung phones (Note 8?) had a pulse oximeter that was downgraded via software updates (you could still access if installing an older APK). I wonder if it was in response to something similar. And, could Apple have similarly complied with a simple software change?

> could Apple have similarly complied with a simple software change From a user perspective, disabling a widely advertised/used feature after a user has bought something is probably worse than having new customers think it’s out of stock.

Might even result in some unopened presents returned.

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

#225

Post by WrongAssumption »

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.

Why do you think 51% of the companies shares are available all at once at exactly slightly above market value? How exactly do you think this trade would get completed?

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

#226

Post by chillfox »

caminante wrote: post #209
mort96 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.” Doesn’t this quite plainly mean that they aren’t willing to just license the patent?

Nothing of the sort. How does this statement reject a willingness to license?

That statement very much reads like they aren't willing to license unless they get final say on products using the tech. Which sounds quite unreasonable as a condition for patent licensing.

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

#227

Post by asadotzler »

mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

A patent troll is a person or company that acquires patents solely for the purpose of licensing and enforcement, rather than using the patented technology to produce their own products or services.

This IS NOT A PATENT TROLL. Please don't water down our language by lumping all patent licensors in with patent trolls. The phrase was created with a purpose in mind and you're harming that with your use.

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

#228

Post by evilduck »

skinkestek wrote: post #148
ceejayoz wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nah, Windows Mobile, Palm devices and even the Newton had virtual keyboards long before the iPhone came around. They were resistive screens with shitty operating systems that required a stylus to do anything but the lack of a physical keyboard is not the difference. Smartphone design language changed dramatically after they all started copying the iPhone.

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

#229

Post by ryukoposting »

dr_kiszonka wrote: post #121
bagels wrote: post #97

What's new in this patent? Cheap ($10) pulse ox sensors operating on similar principles have been available since well before this patent has been filed.

This patent is about a wearable ox sensor.

There are hundreds of companies making wearable SpO2 monitors. Hell, I worked for one. Ours were transmissive, whereas I'm pretty sure most wearables are reflective. Maybe that's the key, who knows.

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

#230

Post by CrazyStat »

RadixDLT wrote: post #74
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.

its too expensive (150 per share and going up), apple would need to spend billions

Price per share is meaningless without also saying how many shares there are, in which case you might as well just use the market cap (about 6b, in Masimo’s case).
Post reply on HN