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

Post by rchaud » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:20 AM UTC

WrongAssumption wrote: post #225

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.

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?

Post by stefan_ » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:23 AM UTC

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…

Post by stefan_ » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:29 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #155

ceejayoz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.

My snark is mostly directed at people who lament the patent system as precluding innovation wherein it actually does the opposite by forcing public disclosure and precluding the use of trade secrets to protect such information indefinitely.

Post by rchaud » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:32 AM UTC

mort96 wrote: post #181

neom wrote: post #160

"Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo" "Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations. Instead, he said t…

It’s so wild that a patent owner is allowed to refuse to sell a license to use the patented technology.

Post by prng2021 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 4:34 AM UTC

pembrook wrote: post #276

jojobas wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In some narrow cases I see the value in patents motivating financial investment in original research. But most of the time this does not apply. Optical pulse oximeters are an obvious incremental thing, and with zero knowledge of the space I don’t think it’s crazy to believe these would have come into existence on the same time frame with or without the existence of patents. Virtually everything humans create or “disc…