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

31–40 of 173 posts

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

#31

Post by skygazer »

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.

Maybe? The two violated patent claims are "a protrusion comprising opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping" and "one or more chamfered edges" of the protrusion, on a patent titled “User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user.” It doesn’t appear anything that HN users would consider technology related was involved, and despite the palpable sense of Schadenfreude here, if it had happened to a company other than Apple, we’d probably be more sympathetic.

The patent’s claims seem likely to be further invalidated once it gets to court, but the timing unfolded to Apple’s disadvantage. (Or maybe not, as they managed to hold everything off until after Christmas sales were completed, and maybe managed to get a bump out of the pending ban.)

I generally feel no sympathy or outrage for Apples patent strife. They are often a target not so much because of their bad acts but because they’re wealthy and a big potential payday, but they’re also wealthy enough to defend their interests and the expenses are just the cost of doing business. (Although they are usually much better at preventing this level of chaos, but they pissed off a billionaire by hiring his top staff, so there’s that.)

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

#32

Post by Tiereven »

I wonder if it is time to re-think the way patents work in an age of highly integrated devices. In this case, it seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together to deliver a stellar product that promoted both inventor rights and benefited the public. Instead, both companies are suffering, and the public loses access to a technology.

Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific advantages of the specific pulse oximetry technology at question here. While that may satisfy a small percentage of customers whose primary motive is that specific feature, the majority of people I know wouldn't consider that a valid option, since they like the integration with the "apple ecosystem", or similar reasons.

Would it be possible to separate end products from component technology in a way that prevents this? Perhaps by tracking an accounting line for patents internally, then pushing for legislation which requires patent-cost -> end product cost transparency?

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

#33

Post by jevoten »

c0pium wrote: post #29
orbital-decay wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's how they should work. Unfortunately, concept patents get granted all the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-pa...

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

#34

Post by nullindividual »

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…

As soon as you encountered FDA regulations and requirements for a device like this, you'd be asking for far more than 10 years of patent protections.

I'm no fan of patents, but medical devices/medications are extremely expensive [in the US] to develop.

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

Tiereven wrote: post #32

I wonder if it is time to re-think the way patents work in an age of highly integrated devices. In this case, it seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together to deliver a stellar product that promoted both inventor rights and benefited the public. Instead, both companies are suffering, and the public loses access to a technology. Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific…

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by Godel_unicode »

hedora wrote: post #18
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.)

The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway…

Clips work by observing transmission of light through the finger being absorbed by oxygen-carrying blood as opposed to the single chip wearable which depends on measuring reflected light. Different techniques, different patents.

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

#37

Post by mthoms »

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.

According to the Massimo CEO, Apple has not made any offer whatsoever to resolve this.

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

#38

Post by cozzyd »

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.

Or they could remove the feature (I don't find the pulse ox particularly useful on my Garmin watch... When I go to high altitude I bring my cheapo pulse ox from Walgreens that is supposedly much more as accurate). Or find some other way to implement it (Garmin, at least, has implemented it differently).

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

#40

Post by solardev »

Animats wrote: post #39

There are other watches with this. Withings is FDA-approved. Garmin and Samsung have several models. There are non-Apple watches which will pair with iPhones. And there are Apple watches without a blood-oxygen sensor. No big deal.

How did the other manufacturers get away with this? Did they actually license the patent, or are they the next victims to get shut down...?
Post reply on HN