61–70 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".
Patents at this point seem to be more about seeing which company’s lawyers can create the broadest-worded patents possible than about any sort of encouragement of innovation. Apple is also guilty of this, so I get that it’s satisfying to see them on the receiving end, but in the end the whole system is clearly broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally true, in the sense that they'll suffer harm and it won't be fixed if the appeal goes in their favor. They'll lose sales, and those sales won't just back-up and all get made the instant the product is on the market again. It's not an amount of harm that's actually significant to Apple, I'm sure, but it is irreparable.
Both yourself and the GP are technically correct depending on how you choose to interpret harm on the company. The problem is that the tone of that claim implies the kind of harm that is significant while being just vague enough to also be covered under your interpretation should they get challenged on that statement. Thus I would argue that Apple are still being disingenuous even if they are technically correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are implying that a company has any ownership whatsoever over its workforce. It does not. The workers are not “theirs”, and they are presumably employed under an “at-will” agreement. Companies and owners sure do get upset when it’s the workers that take advantage of “at-will”.
No I’m not. I’ve never once commented on “ownership”
I just said Apple have deeper pockets so it’s not exactly a fair fight in response to your comment that Masimo should have offered to pay them more.
> If the company whose workers were hired away didn’t want that to happen, they should have paid them more or offered better benefits.
It’s just like when legal threats are made against smaller companies or individuals. Sure, those smaller entities could in theory fight their case. But in practice they usually cannot afford to go head to head with Apple and co, so instead cave to whatever the big corp demands are.
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…
I totally expect someone to rush and explain to us how Apple is on the side of customers here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poaching to re-implement patented technology, is.
That would be IP theft and is completely unrelated to the patent system, and that hasn’t been proven in this case fwiw. While some patents were found to have been infringed, that is different than IP theft even if the same people are involved. It’s a poor extrapolation or idea anyway. Patents are public, and no sane entity would hire someone to reimplement a patent without a license. More likely, they thought they we…
Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both yourself and the GP are technically correct depending on how you choose to interpret harm on the company. The problem is that the tone of that claim implies the kind of harm that is significant while being just vague enough to also be covered under your interpretation should they get challenged on that statement. Thus I would argue that Apple are still being disingenuous even if they are technically correct.
I'd think they were being disingenuous if it was a PR statement, but this is just people quoting the legal filing by Apple's lawyers. My understanding is that "irreparable harm" is the core component of the legal requirement for getting a stay like this, so using the words when requesting it seems pretty unavoidable. (And a legal filing is precisely the place to be making technically-exact statements.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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-mistri…
There are established processes to invalidate a patent ? It is more than 10 years since this started , patent office is slow but not that slow . Apple may believe they didn’t infringe masimo’s tech and theirs is novel enough, I doubt they have made indication that they believe it is invalid.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/analyzing-itcs-i...
"Apple countered that it did not infringe the asserted claims of Masimo's patents and attempted to distinguish the technology underlying its pulse-oximetry technology. Apple also argued that Masimo's asserted patent claims were invalid as obvious over the prior art."
> There are established processes to invalidate a patent ?
Is there? IANAL, but I thought the standard procedure was to make your product and then wait for the patent holder to sue. That has the advantage that you get to bring your product to market faster, and don't have to wait years for the inevitable lawsuits to settle.
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…