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

71–80 of 173 posts

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

#71

Post by wkat4242 »

asadotzler wrote: post #46
FireBeyond wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. $15 pulse oximeters on Amazon are coming straight out of China from fly by night companies in a country that doesn't particularly care about IP law, and even when they do make it amazingly hard for a foreign company with even the most absolute, solid, novel patents to fight against a Chinese company blatantly and openly infringing. Trying to frame this as a money grab from Masimo is overly defensive of Ap…

None of these pulse oximeters on Amazon from China are violating these worn device patents because those pulse oximeters don't use an array of emitters, and heavily process the reflected light results. Wearable pulse ox is an entirely different tech stack as finger clamp pulse ox.

Yeah finger clamps shine through the finger completely. They don't use reflected light.

They are much more accurate for this reason but also more annoying to wear. I think the only daily-wearable one that works this way is the Oura ring.

I'm surprised how well it still works on a watch though. I never tried Apple's implementation as I don't have an apple phone to pair it with, but my galaxy watch 6's SpO2 works pretty decently compared to a finger clamp one, considering it is much harder to do it on the wrist.

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

#72

Post by CogitoCogito »

Tiereven wrote: post #64
yunohn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general publ…

The banning of these Apple products _does_ promote cooperation. After all, it is actively punishing Apple's lack of cooperation.

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

#73

Post by adolph »

c0pium wrote: post #47
adolph wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a legal question that depends on how much revenue is generated by said companies.

Or trifling matters like clips working on an entirely different principle (transmission vice reflection) than the method which remains patent encumbered.

Certainly it works on a different principle than that which is patented. At the same time, IANAL, and if the stakes are large enough the question might need an adjudicated answer.

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

#74

Post by jessriedel »

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…

> 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.

I don't think the existence of rare costly outcomes is very good evidence that anything is wrong with the system.

Among high-level players, the vast majority of poker hands ends with an "agreement" about who probably has the strongest hand (i.e, all but one player folds and there's a modest transfer of funds to that player). But in order for that system to work, there has to be a credible threat of a showdown which, from an economic perspective considering just that single hand, is inefficient.

Likewise, the patent system might be good or bad overall, but occasional occurance of costly outcomes doesn't tell us much.

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

#76

Post by tensor »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #72
Tiereven wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general publ…

The banning of these Apple products _does_ promote cooperation. After all, it is actively punishing Apple's lack of cooperation.

Paying arbitrary fees to someone who filed paperwork first does not promote any sort of "cooperation", unless your idea of cooperation is one person paying money and one collecting it and giving nothing in return.

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

#77

Post by jjtheblunt »

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…

> they have shut down competitors with bogus patents

this is an interesting point, but what are some examples?

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

#78

Post by mthoms »

sokoloff wrote: post #55
mthoms wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

For sure. But it does counter the suggestion you made that Massimo may have been "holding out" for more money.

>Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

Agreed. I never suggested otherwise.

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

#79

Post by solardev »

AlbertCory wrote: post #57

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.

Can we still manufacture electronics here, even if we wanted to? I thought all the expertise and machinery was outsourced a long time ago?

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

#80

Post by edm0nd »

sircastor wrote: post #50
jusonchan81 wrote: post #48

Is there a chance Apple will pay Masimo for the technology and resume sales? I am curious why that didn’t happen. If this is an exec’s decision and this leads to bigger losses than paying Masimo, I wonder what would happen the people involved in the decisions.

There's a chance. This is likely Apple exhausting options before it settles into a licensing deal. First you try cease-and-desist, then appeals, then settlement, then import restriction negotiation, etc. Obviously Apple does not want to pay a fee per watch for the technology. They say they're going to try to fix it in software, Masimo says it's a hardware thing. Apparently this whole thing happened because Masimo sta…

It's also happening because after some failed negotiations Apple just straight up started poaching employee talent from Massimo.
Post reply on HN