Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#31

Post by fnfjfk »

anonporridge wrote: post #24
fnfjfk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t use the term “poaching” to refer to workers deciding to work somewhere else. Workers aren’t owned by their employers, like the king’s deer. https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...

It still seems like a useful metaphor when talking about the interactions of higher level entities like corporations.

If the company whose workers were hired away didn’t want that to happen, they should have paid them more or offered better benefits.

When this happens, it’s because workers are winning. Not just those with a new better-paying job, but everyone in the sector that benefits from rising wages.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#32

Post by noah_buddy »

progbits wrote: post #20
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

HN is more than one person, but these two opinions are somewhat compatible: patents should not exist, but as long as they do Apple needs to comply with them, not be given a pass.

I think we’re getting into muddy waters because the statement conflates moral, legal, and business frameworks implicitly.

Legally, they should follow patent law. Business wise, it may be cheaper not to, even considering fines, meaning it’s the right course of action if a business exists to generate as much profit as possible. Morals probably don’t even come into it from Apple’s perspective.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#33

Post by layer8 »

pxeboot wrote: post #8

Apple must license tens of thousands of patents for their products. What is so special about not paying for these? Is this dispute even about the patents at this point or just some kind of feud with Masimo?

Apple disagrees that they violated any of Masimo’s patents (and most of them were indeed dismissed in court so far). If they can win that legal battle, that will be the better outcome for Apple long-term. So that’s the route they’re going.

Masimo’s CEO claimed that they offered settling but that Apple didn’t even respond to that offer.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#34

Post by gruez »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #29
fnfjfk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t use the term “poaching” to refer to workers deciding to work somewhere else. Workers aren’t owned by their employers, like the king’s deer. https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...

The King owns the land, not the deer. The deer are free to leave… and if they enter onto someone else’s land they may be hunted by someone else. But this assumes they do leave. It’s one thing to message someone on LinkedIn. It’s something else to enter into a competitors place of business and make the same offers.

And what if the king lures the deer to his lands by making it more attractive?

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#35

Post by kemayo »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #21

"In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings." lmaoo what a joke

It's literally true, in the sense that they'll suffer harm and it won't be fixed if the appeal goes in their favor. They'll lose sales, and those sales won't just back-up and all get made the instant the product is on the market again.

It's not an amount of harm that's actually significant to Apple, I'm sure, but it is irreparable.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#36

Post by bagels »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #21

"In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings." lmaoo what a joke

Do you think I is not true? They will miss some sales, and thus revenue from this. Maybe many are unsympathetic, but it seems to be a factual prediction.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#37

Post by gruez »

yieldcrv wrote: post #6

USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Just another incentive Hey and we wont have to play geopolitical football with random conflicts around the world just so Taiwan feels safe, for now. We could ignore them all and let some other countries pick up the slack if anybody actually cares to misappropriate their r…

> USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically

>You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here

Sure, you might get USITC off your back if manufacturing was domestic, but surely there are other agencies tasked with patent enforcement once you're onshore?

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#38

Post by odiroot »

faeriechangling wrote: post #2

They want a stay so the courts have time to make a decision, but last I heard from Masimo's CEO they haven't even come to the table to make a deal outside of court. Why should good faith be extended to these thieves who are acting entitled to this technology even now and show no remorse or contrition? If they worked with Masimo they could develop an accurate FDA approved health sensor, but they want to sell their cus…

I totally expect someone to rush and explain to us how Apple is on the side of customers here.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#39

Post by victor106 »

OT: anyone here used the Masimo smartwatch?

https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1

Now that I know the SPO2 monitor on my Apple Watch is shit. I am looking for something more accurate.

I am a big Apple fanboy and always thought I could trust Apple’s products but I am beginning to doubt that with this case.

They could’ve easily licensed Masimo’s tech and provided their customers better technology.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#40

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #37
yieldcrv wrote: post #6

USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Just another incentive Hey and we wont have to play geopolitical football with random conflicts around the world just so Taiwan feels safe, for now. We could ignore them all and let some other countries pick up the slack if anybody actually cares to misappropriate their r…

> USITC and exclusion orders are rendered void if everything was made domestically >You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here Sure, you might get USITC off your back if manufacturing was domestic, but surely there are other agencies tasked with patent enforcement once you're onshore?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN