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

411–420 of 510 posts

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

#411

Post by ffgjgf1 »

mrtree wrote: post #409
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. These patents seem pretty trivial though. > Masimo has been on the cutting edge of pulse-oximetry Maybe because they built an artificial patent moat around themselves and no other company can compete?

“Making a wristband pulsioximeter is trivial” Sure sure.

Are you replying to the right comment?

But no, that’s actually the hard part. Something Apple did manage to accomplish quite well though (just like many other smaller companies would be able to do if there were no trivial patents preventing them from doing that).

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

#412

Post by saiya-jin »

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.

> 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.

Its highly amoral. That may be fine (but clearly law may say otherwise), many companies do it. But then some folks not only here on HN preach Apple like second coming of Jesus also for its supposed 'high morality' and 'taking care of privacy'.

Nah, just another huge amoral corporation, this time with great marketing. As long as we can cca agree on that all is fine. Till then, I'll keep pointing to tens of cases like this to naive folks or paid PR posts worshiping them (the idea that there are none on such influential place like HN is... unwarranted)

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

#413

Post by simondotau »

freejazz wrote: post #154
simondotau wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes compliance more straightforward with less opportunity for strategic manipulation. It makes damages easier to quantify.

None of those are pro small time inventor, those are all benefits to big business and lower the friction of infringing, i.e. making it efficient. It turns patents into an after-the-fact licensing scheme, where businesses can infringe all they want until a small time inventor can muster the capital to actually enforce their own patents. Your response seems to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic dynami…

Your line of argumentation seems specious. If you have evidence to show that making compliance more efficient encourages non-compliance, I'd like to see it. It seems to me that if a corporation is inclined to knowingly abuse a small inventor's patent, they'll do so regardless of how efficient the compliance process is.

Perhaps I don't know the basic dynamics of patent litigation. You're an expert, could you enlighten me?

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

#414

Post by konschubert »

saiya-jin wrote: post #412
caslon wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Its highly amoral. That may be fine (but clearly law may say otherwise), many companies do it. But then some folks not only he…

The employees certainly benefit from this.

If the original company doesn’t want their staff to be hired away, they can pay them better or provide gardening leaves.

If they have such amazing technology, why don’t they monetise it and pay their employees well? They can provide vesting options to their key employees that require them to stay.

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

#415

Post by ajross »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #392
ajross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others are answering this with more specifics, but there's a first principles answer here too: not without facing a shareholder lawsuit for the difference. The whole idea behind owning stock in the company is that the company acts to maximize the value of that stock on your behalf. So if the ownership of the company (Apple Computer, in this case) takes a deliberate act that fails to honor the shareholder compact (tak…

If Apple ever bought Masimo it would be either merged into Apple or operate as a subsidiary.

That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders. Imagine Apple owes Masimo a $2B judgement. Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary. The other 49.9% say, wait, we were owed $1B dollars in that settlement and all we got was $250M of AAPL stock! And they sue.

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

#416

Post by prepend »

rickdeckard wrote: post #376
caslon wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I don’t think “brainrape” is a good description as employees leave of their own choice.

The corporation isn’t paramount, the individual is. Saying Apple “brainraped” Marino because Masimo didn’t want the employees to leave with their skills leaves out the very important part that employees wanted to leave.

Companies should be able to hire away key talent because it helps the talent who get hired away. As well as the talent who stay.

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

#417

Post by rickdeckard »

konschubert wrote: post #414
saiya-jin wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Its highly amoral. That may be fine (but clearly law may say otherwise), many companies do it. But then some folks not only he…

The employees certainly benefit from this. If the original company doesn’t want their staff to be hired away, they can pay them better or provide gardening leaves. If they have such amazing technology, why don’t they monetise it and pay their employees well? They can provide vesting options to their key employees that require them to stay.

Every employee can stay or leave as he pleases, that's not the point.

In this case, Apple hired those key-members because they wanted the tech which was developed in the environment created by Masimo. They got what they wanted, but turns out that tech was also patented, so here we are.

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

#418

Post by ffgjgf1 »

ajross wrote: post #415
ffgjgf1 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple ever bought Masimo it would be either merged into Apple or operate as a subsidiary.

That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders. Imagine Apple owes Masimo a $2B judgement. Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary. The other 49.9% say, wait, we were owed $1B dollars in that settlement and all we got was $250M of AAPL stock! And they sue.

> That doesn't obviate the rights of the other Masimo shareholders

It does if they willingly sell their shares to Apple

> Then they buy the 50.1% of company for $500M and write off the debt to their subsidiary

Well that would not be legal. They’d use their position as the majority shareholder to buy out everyone else and delist the company (of course they could still not sell, they’d just end up having shares in a private company)

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

#419

Post by this_was_posted »

pharmakom wrote: post #407
consp wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, Apple has better market access and product execution so isn’t it a good thing if they acquire innovative tech?

In the bigger picture this kind of behaviour would destroy the market for innovative tech. Why would anyone still invest in making something innovative if your work gets taken away from you the moment you become successful?
Post reply on HN