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

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

Onshore patent enforcement is mostly just private litigation, there aren't domestic "patent police".

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#42

Post by lostlogin »

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.

> 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.

While pretty aggressive, is it actually wrong to walk up to a worker and offer them a job?

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#43

Post by gruez »

tw04 wrote: post #5
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…

It shouldn’t. They’ve done this and similar multiple times now, got downvoted for pointing it out in another thread. Apple is not acting in good faith here. Some beancounter determined it would be cheaper to steal the tech than acquire the company so they decided to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument.

>I’ve yet to hear anyone even attempt to defend their behavior with a cogent argument.

"Apple thinks the patent is invalid" doesn't seem plausible to you? Masimo's lawsuit against Apple earlier this year was declared a mistrial, which doesn't rule out Apple as being innocent, but also suggests that the facts are not clearly favoring Masimo as you might think.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-declares-mistrial-app...

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#44

Post by kemayo »

hinkley wrote: post #23
stingrae wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only the Masimo side of the story. Apple hasn't made a statement that I'm aware of. I doubt Masimo has patents on the only possible ways to measure Blood oxygen.

I worked for a medical company in ‘97 that had an SPO2 meter they thought was pretty special. That would surely be out of patent now. Wikipedia has the first example as 1935, and Minolta making the first commercial model in 1977. Most of them have the sensor and emitter on opposing sides of an earlobe, or a finger. So maybe that’s the unique part?

The patent I've seen referenced is this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en

It seems to be a combination of describing an arrangement of sensors, strapping those sensors onto someone, and having the strapped-thing be a touchscreen device with wireless comms.

As a layperson it does sound like one of those patents which we like to make fun of -- the "X but with a computer" ones that're conceptually incredibly obvious. That said, I don't know if the sensor arrangement they describe is actually a novel thing that wasn't already out-of-patent elsewhere.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#45

Post by [deleted] »

fnfjfk wrote: post #31
anonporridge wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#46

Post by notwhereyouare »

insaneirish wrote: post #27
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…

> but they want to sell their customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap. Yup. When I think of Apple's engineering and design prowess, the first two phrases that come to mind are definitely "second rate" and "shoddily copied".

have we seen the butterfly keyboard

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#47

Post by hnlmorg »

fnfjfk wrote: post #31
anonporridge wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In theory that’s fair, but in practice it is just another example of large companies with deep pockets bullying smaller businesses.

Taking the interview at face value, those employees were already in the 98 percentile and Apple still doubled their wages.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#48

Post by op00to »

layer8 wrote: post #33
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.

"I'm innocent. I did not shoot anyone. So far, the courts have found that I have shot no one that you said I shot."

"The prosecutor offered you a plea deal, and you didn't entertain it at all. You must be guilty."

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#49

Post by bee_rider »

hammock wrote: post #28
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

More consistent than you think- and the stronger each individual statement is, perhaps the more consistent with each other they become! If only the most well-justified patents are allowed, and most patents rejected, then it follows that the patents that are left really deserve to be upheld and enforced

We need a quippy phrase, expression, or well-known analogy for the concept of “this system is or could be useful to society, so it is bad that it is being abused. I hate it as-is but it needs to be fixed not abolished.”

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#50

Post by op00to »

victor106 wrote: post #39

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.

What's not to trust? The watch is not being peeled off your arm. This will be decided one way or another.
Post reply on HN