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

261–270 of 510 posts

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

#261

Post by Eisenstein »

doix wrote: post #222
caminante wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think it should be illegal to refuse to license your patented technology to another company?

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

#262

Post by pb7 »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #231
gxyt6gfy5t wrote: post #127

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.

Apple products are so much better than the competition that even their haters buy them.

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

#263

Post by notatoad »

imoverclocked wrote: post #258

I think we need a different form of patent. Current patents attempt to claim: this thing I figured out is novel and nobody else should copy me. Many times, they claim this so someone else can't claim it and thus avoid arbitration. It would be nice if we could also file: this thing I figured out is not novel and is a natural progression to the current state-of-the-art. I guess the only means of doing this currently is…

>It would be nice if we could also file: this thing I figured out is not novel and is a natural progression to the current state-of-the-art.

isn't this just publishing? no formal procedure required, no government, no patent office, no filing fees, put your a record of your work somewhere that people can find it and then it can be used as prior art in a dispute.

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

#264

Post by teleforce »

ryukoposting wrote: post #229
dr_kiszonka wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you meant by transmissive wearable, for fingers normally it is fine that you have in-situ measurement settings, for wearable like smart watch it will be clunky to have transmitter and receiver at the opposite of sides of (relatively massive) hand?

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

#265

Post by notatoad »

jojobas wrote: post #235
gxyt6gfy5t wrote: post #127

All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation

The laws are supposed to reward Masimo for their innovation by Apple paying them an appropriate licensing fee. Apple decided to circumvent that by milking them for IP in a feigned acquisition attempt and then headhunting their engineers and are going to be punished financially for not rewarding innovation. The law is working as intended.

right, but it sure looks like masimo's "innovation" is filing the patent paperwork for the general concept of how pulse oximeters have always worked, not anything new they invented.

filing patents for something you didn't invent is not the law working as intended.

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

#266

Post by notatoad »

speedylight wrote: post #67
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.

As long as the cost is less than what apple makes from the watches annually, it would still be worth it, no?

pulse oximeter isn't really an essential feature though. the value to apple is not the total value of the apple watch, it's the marginal difference from what they'd make from selling the watch with that feature disabled in territories where the masimo patent is upheld. which is probably pretty trivial

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

#267

Post by Solvency »

SaintGhurka wrote: post #109
grecy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That would only work if 51% of the shares had a sell order waiting.

Has this ever happened? Could it theoretically happen?

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

#268

Post by andsoitis »

nox100 wrote: post #255
areoform wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A design patent, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent , is different from a patent granted for an invention.

Seems similar to me. Lots of rounded rect products existed before iPhone. Like say, cassette tapes, vhs tapes, 8track tapes, bars of soap, cans of spam, license plates, sardine cans, etc...

> Lots of rounded rect products existed before iPhone.

The design patent is very specific. It isn't about rounded corners in general.

Patent (incl. prior art): http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1701443/USD670286S1.pdf

How to think about it: https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rec...

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

#269

Post by gojomo »

theamk wrote: post #234
bdowling wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It cannot be that simple, can it? Otherwise changing a single element (say "concave surface" to "sine-shaped surface", or "strap" to "clamp") would invalidate the patent.

Expert patent language typically covers every foreseeable usable variant, and any subset of features likely to provide the core benefits, as 'claims'.

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

#270

Post by teleforce »

its_ethan wrote: post #52

The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-1094...

Patents normally granted after several years, this patent only took about year, kind of looked fishy to me. Then after closer look, this patent is just continuation of a series of patents by Masimo. How Apple eluded some of the original patents by Masimo is very intriguing. Other comments mentioned that Masimo had been meeting with Apple since 2012 and the fact that the first version of Apple Smartwatch was introduced back in 2015, Apple kind of expecting the lawsuit by not paying the royalty.
Post reply on HN