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

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#81

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #12
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…

[flagged]

> HN: patents are immoral and ideas should be free!

HNer who never went through expensive R&D struggle of his own product

> Also HN: if you infringe a patent you’re a thief!

HNer who actually developed and released working product.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#82

Post by FireBeyond »

callalex wrote: post #66
odiroot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally expect someone to rush and explain to us how Apple is on the side of customers here.

I will. Customers benefit from features. In this case the feature is using light to measure blood oxygen, which has been done for close to a century, and was invented before the company trolling Apple was even formed. Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent for technology that already existed, but they claim it is novel because they are permanently affixing the device to a person and adding…

> Unfortunately our broken patent system issues this troll a patent

Masimo isn't exactly a patent troll. They've been around for decades making medical devices that are in almost every hospital. And as a healthcare provider, the devices they make are actually some of the nicer ones in that segment.

The problem with your argument is it presupposes that Apple is this helpless company just trying to make our lives better. It completely ignores that Apple had dozens of meetings with Masimo, feigning interest in a partnership or agreement, getting into the weeds of the technology, and as soon as it had learned enough, it bailed out of that agreement, hired the people involved and started making things.

I have no particular horse in the game (indeed I own an Apple Watch, though I am a paramedic - but not one who uses Masimo devices in my ambulance, but use them when getting a patient to hospital), but acting like Masimo is some PE-backed patent troll is very inaccurate. It has put devices on the market that have been absolutely genuine advances in the field of non-invasive monitoring.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#83

Post by spacemadness »

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #81
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> HN: patents are immoral and ideas should be free! HNer who never went through expensive R&D struggle of his own product > Also HN: if you infringe a patent you’re a thief! HNer who actually developed and released working product.

I’d place all these opportunists on here putting thin layers on ChatGPT in the first camp.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#84

Post by lancesells »

TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #79
insaneirish wrote: post #27

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".

Just have a look here, where MacBook repairmen is going through Apple mistakes https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup

Curious as to what he recommends instead of a Macbook?

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#85

Post by kemayo »

DannyBee wrote: post #74
kemayo wrote: post #35

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.

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 destr…

You're right, it's not actually the direct lost-sales that they're calling irreparable harm. Reading further into the legal filing, it seems that they're arguing that having to take the Watch off the market will cause damage to their reputation and to public goodwill, and cite some earlier cases indicating that those both qualify as irreparable harm. (Page 6.)

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#86

Post by dragonwriter »

yieldcrv wrote: post #62
dragonwriter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Onshore patent enforcement is mostly just private litigation, there aren't domestic "patent police".

Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all. maybe a judge could go that far, but thats not been the path and its a super high bar to get that far

> Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all.

No, a court absolutely can issue a permanent injunction on further sales as well as damages for past behavior, and defying such a court order (as well as being the basis for further civil litigation by the offended private party) absolutely can be the basis of civil and or criminal contempt actions by the originating court and compulsory enforcement actions related to that by law enforcement (US Marshals, in the case of a federal court order.)

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#87

Post by hnlmorg »

jquery wrote: post #72
hnlmorg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The GPs point was that this ban is a drop in the ocean (financially speaking) for Apple. So claims of irreparable harm is a little over the top. Which is correct from a financial / social perspective.

You are claiming that from a legal stand point Apple are correct. Which is also true.

My point is that both arguments are correct. One doesn't contradict the other.

You touched a little on this when you said there's no room to play nicely in court. And I agree with that. That's exactly why statements like that are used in legal claims. But what you're failing to empathise with is why they're used. It's because it is "technically correct" to the extreme edge of reality. And that's why the GP scoffed.

Or to put it another way: the alternative would be Apple saying "yeah we were a little underhanded and this ban wouldn't affect the health of the company, but we'd like to appeal the ban regardless". That would also be technically correct but you're not going to win any legal arguments that way. So of course Apple are going to write the most dramatised version of facts that favour themselves.

The problem with being technically correct is that there are a multitude of ways one can say the same technically correct thing yet convey a completely different story.

So yes, you are right. But I can also totally see why some might scoff at the Apples statement when taken verbatim. Frankly, it is a bit of an absurd statement. If it were made in any other circumstance outside of a legal appeal, it would be a pretty absurd claim to make. Literally the only reason one can defend that comment is because it's a legal statement.

And hence why both parties in this thread are correct.

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#88

Post by yieldcrv »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
yieldcrv wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all. maybe a judge could go that far, but thats not been the path and its a super high bar to get that far

> Exactly, if a court actually finds damages then the monetary tally just racks up as you keep making money from a product, but no federal agency currently has authority to stop you from selling the product at all. No, a court absolutely can issue a permanent injunction on further sales as well as damages for past behavior, and defying such a court order (as well as being the basis for further civil litigation by the…

exactly like my following sentence says ok, strange quoting choice

yes it a judge does that it moves into the existing process for any order or collections

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#89

Post by FireBeyond »

fnfjfk wrote: post #15
whatever1 wrote: post #11

Here [1] is the CEO of Masimo (a public company, making medical devices for decades) It seems that Apple deceived Masimo that they are interested in collaborating, and then proceeded to poach Masimo's technical people to basically steal their technology. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg

Don’t use the term “poaching” to refer to workers deciding to work somewhere else. Workers aren’t owned by their employers, like the king’s deer. https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...

To me the poaching aspect isn't about the workers rights, which are as you said.

It's about the company, Apple, being where it is not supposed to be, for its own gains.

If Apple had said "Can we come to your offices and have a bunch of meetings with your employees to see which we might be interested in hiring?" do you think that Masimo would have indulged that?

Now Apple came and said "We're really interested in a partnership and agreement and licensing with you and want to understand the tech of this space better". And then said "Actually, thanks for sharing all this, but we never really intended to do anything other than mild corporate espionage, and this was just the cover story."

Re: Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch

#90

Post by cortb »

lancesells wrote: post #84
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just have a look here, where MacBook repairmen is going through Apple mistakes https://www.youtube.com/@rossmanngroup

Curious as to what he recommends instead of a Macbook?

Previously Lenovo, I think currently framework.
Post reply on HN