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

361–370 of 510 posts

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

#361

Post by onion2k »

boxed wrote: post #344
rickdeckard wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth to read the detailed case. Masimo is not a small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple, they're a decades-old medical equipment company. The case outlines how Apple met with them in 2013 to discuss collaboration. After that meeting, Apple apparently hired away several key-members of Masimo with knowledge about their non-invasive biometric monitoring tech, including their "Chief Medical Off…

Or maybe they are obvious, just that you don't start a product with all possible optimizations. You get the initial version out, then you iterate.

You get the initial version out, then you iterate.

"You launch a product that doesn't work and then you fix it later" is a common strategy but it really shouldn't be.

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

#362

Post by Bouncingsoul1 »

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…

Your LLMs need a reward function -> patents. You are welcome

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

#363

Post by Eisenstein »

mort96 wrote: post #325
Eisenstein wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?

It is legal to refuse to license. I want to know why you think it shouldn't be.

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

#365

Post by jiminymcmoogley »

aeturnum wrote: post #196
starttoaster wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think there are many problems with the patent system but the way you are describing it is overly broad. There are lots of technical details in this patent that describe a way of doing that. Once the period of exclusivity is up anyone can use that technique freely - but for now other people would have to pay or use an inferior technique that doesn't violate the patent. Arguably there's not a lot of value in every de…

yet as technological innovation gets faster over time, you would've thought the optimal patent term length to balance the innovation-incentivizing and innovation-chilling effects would decrease

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

#366

Post by caslon »

oblio wrote: post #333
rickdeckard wrote: post #330

Not the most neutral article. Worth to note that is not just some obscure small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple. Masimo is a decades-old medical equipment company, with several developments and patents for non-invasive PPG. Apple is obviously well-aware of their developments, and was in touch with them already in 2013, more than a year before the launch of the Apple Watch. From the actual lawsu…

Incredibly scummy.

Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire value pitch of capitalism, and it's unlikely anyone would have moved over to Apple if the compensation wasn't more worthwhile to them.

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

#367

Post by mort96 »

markmark wrote: post #253
mort96 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Mandatory licensing would be wild. If LG invent something that makes TVs better should they have to licence it to Samsung? Or should they just be able to make better TVs and use their invention for market differentiation?

Why shouldn't they have to license it to Samsung? Why do we want to stifle innovation by preventing Samsung from using any of LG's tech and vice versa? Imagine the TVs we could've had if the two companies could combine the best parts of each others' technologies.

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

#368

Post by t0mas88 »

boxed wrote: post #344
rickdeckard wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth to read the detailed case. Masimo is not a small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple, they're a decades-old medical equipment company. The case outlines how Apple met with them in 2013 to discuss collaboration. After that meeting, Apple apparently hired away several key-members of Masimo with knowledge about their non-invasive biometric monitoring tech, including their "Chief Medical Off…

Or maybe they are obvious, just that you don't start a product with all possible optimizations. You get the initial version out, then you iterate.

If they are that obvious, why did Apple feel the need to hire several former Masimo employees?

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

#369

Post by mort96 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #363
mort96 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?

It is legal to refuse to license. I want to know why you think it shouldn't be.

I obviously know it is legal to refuse to license, that's the problem.

If your whole argument is "it should be legal to refuse to license a patent", I don't know why you went down the whole "They aren't refusing to license the patent" route.

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

#370

Post by mort96 »

frakkingcylons wrote: post #195
mort96 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I use the term, a company which engages in patent trolling is a patent troll. That seems natural to me, but I apologise if that’s unorthodox use.

It's not unorthodox, it's just a nonsensical circular definition.

It's not. Company uses their patents to troll others? Company is a patent troll.
Post reply on HN