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

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#71

Post by dagmx »

whatever1 wrote: post #67
dagmx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To establish IP theft wouldn't one have to establish the existence of physical evidence (aka Hard Discs, emails, or any other data/documents transfers)? Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.

No, you can also discover similarity in implementation to a degree that is much more scrutinized than patent infringement.

Hiring employees away to work on the same field of technology isn’t illegal by any means (and is explicitly not allowed to be illegal in California’s non compete rules).

Your comment said they hired them to replicate patented technology being illegal. It is not illegal, unless IP theft is involved.

But there’s been no evidence or even accusations towards that by the parties involved. That’s why the case has been purely in patent law and not corporate theft.

That they were found to have infringed the patents doesn’t have enough information to extrapolate legality of the hiring or work they did. Otherwise every other area of patent dispute like modems and design patents would be full of IP theft rulings too as folks move around.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#72

Post by jquery »

hnlmorg wrote: post #68
kemayo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I don’t think our point are mutually inclusive. Legal filings with big corporations have seldom been about sincerity. So even if your point is correct (which I don’t doubt) that doesn’t also mean Apples argument is sincere too.

Hmm. I'm not following. It's technically accurate. So how are you judging sincerity here? People forget that while Apple is huge, that also makes them a big target. There's no room for them to play nicey nice in court.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#73

Post by throws7337 »

gruez wrote: post #34
goodluckchuck wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what if the king lures the deer to his lands by making it more attractive?

> And what if the king lures the deer to his lands by making it more attractive?

What if the deer did away with kings and made the lands their own?

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#74

Post by DannyBee »

kemayo wrote: post #35
sitzkrieg wrote: post #21

"In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings." lmaoo what a joke

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.

What you are describing is a textbook case of no irreparable harm.

Legally, if later money damages suffice to make someone whole, it is not considered irreparable harm. By definition: "Irreparable harm is a legal term that refers to harm or injury that cannot be adequately compensated or remedied by any monetary award or damages that may be awarded later. "

Irreparable harm is like "they are going to physically destroy the i'm trying to save".

Not "we'll lose money".

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#75

Post by DannyBee »

esskay wrote: post #9
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?

Could be a case of Masimo not bending to Apple's will and offering a low price given Apple also poached a bunch of their top staff.

According to the CEO of Masimo, Apple hasn't even contacted them at all, and he would be willing to settle:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo...

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#76

Post by DannyBee »

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.

"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."

It may surprise you to learn that it's totally common to have patent settlement agreements where you retain your right to appeal, and only owe money if the appeal fails.

So they can in fact likely both get things back on the shelves, and still appeal.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#77

Post by DannyBee »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #52

Could someone knowledgeable on the patent in question chime in on its defensibility? Masimo doesn’t seem like a patent troll here, they sell products, including a watch that take advantage of their patents presumably; however, I’m curious how broad the patent in question actually is.

You are correct Masimo is not a patent troll.

Having tested a bunch of of fingertip SpO2 sensors for $reasons, i will say they are the real deal.

In particular, the most important thing they have accomplished (though i don't think apple uses it) is that they have fingertip SpO2 meters that work ~fine during exercise.

Most fingertip SpO2 meters cannot handle movement at all, or a very small amount (apple's watch requires you remain completely still). Those that claim to work give mostly nonsense results.

Meanwhile, Masimo has fingertip meters that work fine while, say, biking, for example.

Staring at the particular patent, it looks like patent that covers a specific arrangement of sensors and processors, which i can believe is important to make something like a watch work properly.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#78

Post by FireBeyond »

gruez wrote: post #43
tw04 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mistri…

Actually, you are looking at the wrong part of this.

The mistrial had nothing to do with the patents in play here (which in fact the court had preliminarily ruled in favor of Masimo's assertion that Apple violated its patent rights).

This trial, that was a mistrial, was over Masimo's allegation of "theft of trade secrets", in that Apple had multiple meetings with Masimo over its technology and learning all about it, then hired the people running those meetings from Masimo to Apple. Masimo alleges that information was shared in furtherance of a licensing deal or agreement, but that as soon as Apple knew what/who it needed, it abandoned them, and since it has not attempted to enter into any discussion with Masimo since, that this was its plan all along, and it never entered those discussions in good faith.

The mistrial was a result of lack of unanimity that Masimo demonstrated the theft of trade secrets - there was no patent component to this trial.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#79

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

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".

Just have a look here, where MacBook repairmen is going through Apple mistakes

https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#80

Post by FireBeyond »

gruez wrote: post #69
manquer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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 asserte…

(Bearing in mind there are multiple cases going on here...)

> "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."

It did. And then the court ruled that there was sufficient merit to Masimo's claims. Hence the court ruling, and action we are seeing today. Apple's appeal will / should have to show that the court erred in that decision, with more than "we reiterate our previous claims" (a la "we strenuously object" in *A Few Good Men).

Post reply on HN