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

371–380 of 510 posts

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

#371

Post by consp »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #302
CharlieDigital wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Case in point: reaching out to the President of the United States to intervene. Crazy.

Or leasing a new Mercedes every few months so that you never have to have a license plate and register your car like the rest of us plebians...and can illegally park in handicapped parking spaces because cops can't issue a ticket to a vehicle with no plate.

Why on earth can you drive without a registration of the vehicle. This simply indicates the law is broken. Still scummy behaviour but fixing the law so you have to get a plate before driving would solve this (like it's in many places of the world).

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

#372

Post by mort96 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #308
markmark wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Being required to conduct good-faith negotiation sounds like a great idea, a reasonable tradeoff between protection that encourages innovation so that inventors can profit off their inventions, while also allowing for society to progress based on those inventions. LG could ignore trolls and morons - but if Samsung makes a good-faith, fair offer to license the technology, they should have to have a good reason for say…

> The patent system was never intended to be used like a weapon to protect a market.

This doesn't seem true to me. Nothing about the design of the patent system makes sense if the intent if not to use it like a weapon to let a giant company protect a whole area of the market from competition.

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

#373

Post by t0mas88 »

notatoad wrote: post #265
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.

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.

If that was the only innovation, why would Apple go and have several meetings with them and then try to hire their engineers? Sounds like they had something that Apple wanted, and Apple decided not to pay for it. This case is the result, which certainly will be settled at some point.

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

#374

Post by jojobas »

adrian_b wrote: post #348
jojobas wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Virtually everything humans create or “discover” is an inevitability. Even though it's inevitable that someone will invest a lot of time to get us better TFT displays in form of IPS, it's very much favorable that he can reap some reward for it. It's a bit of a gamble and is therefore supplanted by the trade secret and research grant systems, still it's a useful incentive to do cool stuff.

The main problem is not that patents exist. Especially in the distant past, there have been many patents that were really valuable and their inventors deserved to be rewarded. The main problem is that today patents are granted far too easily. Most patents contain in their claims only things that any competent professional could discover independently after a few hours of thinking about how to solve a problem. Other c…

>The main problem is that today patents are granted far too easily.

Currently in the US, for better or worse, actual scrutiny happens when you try to claim infringement, not at application.

>Other claims are far too general and cover all the ways that everyone could list about how to solve a problem,

This is covered by the non-obvious clause.

>Today few patent owners are willing to license them at fair and non-discriminatory prices.

Plain wrong.

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

#375

Post by consp »

caslon wrote: post #366
oblio wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah late stage capitalism. Don't innovate, poach.

I don't mean the people shouldn't chose to be compensated well but if you are up against practically infinite funds there is no realistic option for a counter offer.

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

#376

Post by rickdeckard »

caslon wrote: post #366
oblio wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They attempted to acquire a specific tech of Masimo, but changed their approach to hiring key resources of it instead of partnering with the company (or acquiring (parts of) it).

The aftermath is this lawsuit, which illustrates that Apple needed their hires to build something that was already existing in Masimo and would have been subject of that partnership.

I'm sure this "brainrape" strategy often works flawlessly, especially on smaller companies. But in this case the tech was already patented.

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

#378

Post by hakdbha »

caslon wrote: post #366
oblio wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#379

Post by porcoda »

This kind of case is why I hate patents. As many other commenters pointed out, the fact that light through the skin can be used to measure biometrics is arguably "obvious" given that many people noticed it around the same time. The patent simply measures which group had the $, time, and motivation to submit a patent before any of their peers did. In this situation, the basic measurement method appears all over the place, like in cheap pulseoximeters. Sticking the same device in a wearable or other device isn't a giant leap that deserves being defended via patent law to protect an "inventor".

I'm sure patents have a place in the modern world, but I rarely see a case where they are being used as intended - more often than not, it's as I said above : a measure of who from a bunch of peers who "invented" the same thing at the same time made their submission to a patent office first with the goal of squelching competition or building revenue streams via licensing. Basically, scummy practices abusing the system. Apple certainly is not innocent in this regard - I hate it when they play this game just as much as I hate it when others do too.

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

#380

Post by Eisenstein »

mort96 wrote: post #369
Eisenstein wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't made any arguments. I asked you a question.
Post reply on HN