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

US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 173 posts

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#51

Post by AlbertCory »

jevoten wrote: post #33
c0pium wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how patents always work; the concept cannot be patented, it’s the method which is. Garmin for instance has their own (patented) method which works differently from the infringing Apple implementation.

That's how they should work. Unfortunately, concept patents get granted all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-pa...

both of your examples are from the 90's.

It's simply incorrect to say "concept patents get granted all the time." No, they don't. You patent an invention. The claims on it may be inappropriately broad, but there have always been mechanisms to address that.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#52

Post by c0pium »

hedora wrote: post #13

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken. The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: http…

Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmission of light through a thin part of the body, such as a finger or ear, as opposed to reflectance. Reflection pulse oximetry from a thick part of the body, such as a wrist, is a much more recent invention and is the subject of these patents.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#53

Post by AlbertCory »

skygazer wrote: post #31
Racing0461 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was back when steve jobs was suing anyone making rounded corner phones right? The apple watch patent seems like an actual thing.

Maybe? The two violated patent claims are "a protrusion comprising opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping" and "one or more chamfered edges" of the protrusion, on a patent titled “User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user.” It doesn’t appear anything that HN users would consider technology related was involved, and despite the palpable sense of Schadenf…

Patent titles have no effect on anything. I have several with the exact same titles, and they're all different.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#54

Post by AlbertCory »

hedora wrote: post #18
1123581321 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not. Massimo's relevant patents have to do with their signal processing on user-worn devices. Cheap oximeters are clip-ons that only do rudimentary processing with strong beams of light through the fingers. https://www.masimo.com/technology/co-oximetry/set/ https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en (this is one that was cited by the trade commission.)

The independent claims in that patent seem to exactly describe technologies from the 1970’s, except that the detector is flat and uses 4 LEDs. The Massimo page you cite claims they invented their signal processing technique in 1989, and Wikipedia says they shipped it in 1995. The patent you cite was filed in 2009, and is set to expire in 2028. Patents only are supposed to last 17 years in the US, not 39 years. Anyway…

"17 years from issuance" is ancient. It's been "20 years from filing date" for > 25 years now.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#55

Post by sokoloff »

mthoms wrote: post #37
sokoloff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the patent litigator also knows all of those facts and may have been holding out for too much money (in Apple’s calculus) and the long-run game is better for Apple if they take some short-term pain now in exchange for being known as a difficult target. Apple will be fine without watch sales for a long time if needed.

According to the Massimo CEO, Apple has not made any offer whatsoever to resolve this.

That not incongruent with a strategy to wait out a patent holder and thereby be known as a difficult target.

Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#56

Post by Frost1x »

solardev wrote: post #40
Animats wrote: post #39

There are other watches with this. Withings is FDA-approved. Garmin and Samsung have several models. There are non-Apple watches which will pair with iPhones. And there are Apple watches without a blood-oxygen sensor. No big deal.

How did the other manufacturers get away with this? Did they actually license the patent, or are they the next victims to get shut down...?

I haven't dug into this in-depth but from what someone who had mentioned, I think it falls into a very specific approach they're using around an array of 4 sensors which is patented. I suspect other manufacturers use different approaches that isn't patented here. Again, this is secondary information so take it with a grain of salt.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#57

Post by AlbertCory »

What no one's mentioned here is: this is an International Trade Commission ruling, not a US court or PTO ruling.

So Apple cannot import those watches. They could probably build them in the US (now there's a thought), and injunctions against domestic products are possible but very unusual. Usually there are damages, not injunctions.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#58

Post by skygazer »

AlbertCory wrote: post #53
skygazer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? The two violated patent claims are "a protrusion comprising opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping" and "one or more chamfered edges" of the protrusion, on a patent titled “User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user.” It doesn’t appear anything that HN users would consider technology related was involved, and despite the palpable sense of Schadenf…

Patent titles have no effect on anything. I have several with the exact same titles, and they're all different.

Yes, they’re always vague. Maybe I should have omitted it so as not to confuse. To be clearer, the cited claims are the issue.

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#59

Post by Grazester »

mthoms wrote: post #37
sokoloff wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the patent litigator also knows all of those facts and may have been holding out for too much money (in Apple’s calculus) and the long-run game is better for Apple if they take some short-term pain now in exchange for being known as a difficult target. Apple will be fine without watch sales for a long time if needed.

According to the Massimo CEO, Apple has not made any offer whatsoever to resolve this.

I don't know when this was said but wouldn't offering to resolve be acknowledgement that there was infringement on Apple's part? Maybe now there will be willing to negotiate something

Re: US ban on some Apple Watch sales now in effect

#60

Post by peyton »

yunohn wrote: post #49
Tiereven wrote: post #32

I wonder if it is time to re-think the way patents work in an age of highly integrated devices. In this case, it seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together to deliver a stellar product that promoted both inventor rights and benefited the public. Instead, both companies are suffering, and the public loses access to a technology. Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific…

> seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together That’s literally what Massimo wanted, before Apple bailed on the partnership and poached their employees instead…

Where are you getting this information? The consumer business is ultimately a threat to Masimo. Did they have any intention of commercializing these patents? Why did so many employees leave?
Post reply on HN