231–240 of 510 posts
All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
This is endemic though, I don't think Masimo is especially unique here, companies often encourage filing frivolous patents.
All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation
Sure but on the other hand as someone with a pretty recent Apple Watch on my wrist I am very happy whenever Apple suffers a loss and loses money.
That is a bizarre take.
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.
All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation
Masimo, the company who is suing apple, has a market cap around ~$6B. Apple's wearable business (which might include the audio products as well, I guess), at least according to the article, "generated $13.48 billion in revenue". Don't think this is as big of a threat as someone like Samsung suing iPhone.
Since Masimo is a publicly traded company, can’t Apple just buy enough shares to have a controlling interest in the company and just force them to back out?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but on the other hand as someone with a pretty recent Apple Watch on my wrist I am very happy whenever Apple suffers a loss and loses money.
"I am very happy whenever Apple suffers a loss and loses money" That is a bizarre take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Executives aren't usually the ones with specific technical skills about the arrangement of sensors and so on. If you were looking to infringe like this, it would be better just to poach engineers.
But how does Apple get access to those employees, when they have been dealing with the executives? Through the executives bringing a team over.
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.