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

Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 510 posts

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#91

Post by ceejayoz »

xoranth wrote: post #77
rvnx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more hostile scenario (if this is even legal, probably not, though I'm not sure): Apple could borrow a large amount of shares of Masimo and short the company. They have enough cash for that, and the borrow fee might be less than the settlement costs, plus they could profit from the operation.

If you mean shorting Masimo purely to drive down the price, that's market manipulation and is definitely illegal. E.g. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

Your link doesn't support that assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Research would be out of business if that business model was illegal. You can short all you like; you can't be deceptive/fraudulent about it.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#92

Post by SoftTalker »

mikestew wrote: post #41
lukev wrote: post #39

Why would Apple take their devices off the market or disable the feature instead of parting with a minuscule fraction of the pile of gold they're sitting on for a patent license? I mean obviously for now it makes more sense for them to wait and hope they win on appeal or get the import ban veto'd, but if it actually comes down to not being able to sell the device, surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing co…

surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost? Assuming a spherical cow, and that Apple's decision-makers aren't completely incapable of basic math, the logical conclusion would be...? (Spoiler: I assume the patent-holder is asking some outrageous sum. Or there's a piece of the story we're missing. Or maybe some kind of game of chicken.)

If you can't agree on licensing terms, then you sell the watch without the infringing technology. Nobody (relatively speaking) is making a buy/not buy decision on the Apple Watch due to its blood oxygen monitor functionality. It's a feature that isn't important or necessary for the vast majority of people.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#93

Post by FireBeyond »

mikestew wrote: post #64
gunapologist99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their pockets aren't infinitely deep Interesting take

I'm sure you're familiar with the meaning of "infinite", as I'm sure you are familiar with the difference between "market capitalization" and "cash on hand". Assuming those two statements to be true, what's your point? EDIT: and I see parent pulled a ninja edit. Stay classy.

One point: many here have made comments like "Masimo is a $4B company, screw `em, they can fend for themselves". I think commentary on Masimo's value/available resources should be in context to their competitor.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#94

Post by grecy »

ladberg wrote: post #62
speedylight wrote: post #55

Since Masimo is a publicly traded company, can’t Apple just buy enough shares to have a controlling interest in the company and just force them to back out?

It's pretty nontrivial to buy a majority interest in any public company. It's not like you can just spend 1/2 the current market cap to acquire it, the price will shoot up drastically as soon as the market is aware of someone (especially Apple) trying to do it.

> the price will shoot up drastically as soon as the market is aware of someone

Will that still happen if you put in a single order to buy 51% of all the shares at a price a little above the current market value ?

That trade will be complete before the market "sees" you are trying to buy a ton.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#95

Post by varispeed »

eweise wrote: post #83
xyst wrote: post #68

IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.

> Apple poached its top executives

What is this? Are they some form of slaves? If company doesn't want its employees "poached" they should pay them enough money so they don't think of "switching sides".

This notion that corporations can own people and their brains should stop.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#96

Post by epistasis »

renewiltord wrote: post #85

This stuff is ancient technology. It's a pulse oximeter. We've had those for decades. And then this is a pulse oximeter with computer storage attached. That's a nonsense patent. If Apple is fighting it, perhaps there's a chance it will invalidate. That's a good thing for us.

Have we had a wrist based pulse oximeter for decades?

If this were so trivial, Apple may not have needed to hire so many people that worked on the patented technology

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#98

Post by dharmab »

drno123 wrote: post #86
eweise wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.

Pulse oxymeters exist for at least 30 years. What kind of patent does Masimo hold?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-1094...

It's fairly specific about an arrangement of sensors with specific capabilities.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#99

Post by eveningsteps »

neilv wrote: post #38

This seems to be great marketing. https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/18/apple-halting-apple-watch-ser... > In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple has announced that it will soon halt sales of its flagship Apple Watch models in the United States. > The Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 will no longer be available to purchase from Apple starting later this week. And https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/18/tech/apple-halt-sales-ap…

nit: it's "brick and mortar"

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#100

Post by granzymes »

mikestew wrote: post #41
lukev wrote: post #39

Why would Apple take their devices off the market or disable the feature instead of parting with a minuscule fraction of the pile of gold they're sitting on for a patent license? I mean obviously for now it makes more sense for them to wait and hope they win on appeal or get the import ban veto'd, but if it actually comes down to not being able to sell the device, surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing co…

surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost? Assuming a spherical cow, and that Apple's decision-makers aren't completely incapable of basic math, the logical conclusion would be...? (Spoiler: I assume the patent-holder is asking some outrageous sum. Or there's a piece of the story we're missing. Or maybe some kind of game of chicken.)

This is also an iterated game. Apple doesn’t want a reputation for caving to patent trolls because that invites more lawsuits.

Indeed, Apple has a reputation for going scorched earth on patent trolls and trying to invalidate your entire patent portfolio after you poke the bear (Masimo has already had several of their patents invalidated in the course of their litigation with Apple).

Post reply on HN