Apple Watch Import Ban Now Official, Apple Appeals Decision

[dotnet]

I have no doubt that Apple licenses IP all the time from companies big and small. The reason they didn’t license Masimo’s patents is most likely that they firmly believe the patents have no merit. I think they will continue to try and prove that.

In the meantime, and assuming the above is true, the way Apple is letting this play out puts Masimo in a quite perilous position. This could end up very costly, even ruinous, for Masimo.

If Apple succeeds, which I think they believe they will, in getting all of Masimo’s claims invalidated some time later in 2024, Masimo will face a potentially massive claim for lost revenue from Apple due to the ITC ban. Masimo’s CEO’s surprise and dismay at Apple’s announcement to stop selling the watches tells the story, in my opinion.

 

[Octavius8]

Apple considers they should not pay royalties to Masimo because Apple thinks they came up with that tech by themselves and with Masimo ex-employees and that Masimo is a patent troll.
Problem: the court found out there is a reasonable patent infringement, so far, adn Apple has not been able to prove otherwise. So far Apple is being negligent to accept they cant use someone elses tech without payin them.
And you thought only chinse companies stole tech?.

 

[jz0309]

This is now in the news, everywhere. Apple is harming its reputation and potentially harming its existing customers (S6, 7, 8…) as they may not be able to do out of warranty repairs on any watch with SpO2.
Regardless how this ends, that damage is done.
I have a Ti S7 and an Ultra2, both with AC+ so I should not be impacted

 

[Octavius8]

If Apple losses thye will have to pay back royalties since Apple Watch 6 (thats the claim from Masimo). Do you think Apple wants that?. They prefer to keep the battle long enough to bring Masimo to bankrup. Is cheaper that way for Apple.
Other scenario is to buy Masimo. Maybe that is the escape plán of Masimo board?.
Failin in favour of Apple will be a huge hit on small innovative companies. Apples does NOT innovate, Apple used to buy smaller companies who innovated and either use their tech, or just kill the "competition" and otscapabilities to "help" other camps.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

Masimo wanted a partnership and remain in control over how the technology is used, and Apple upset them with their earlier behavior.

Have a source for this or is this conjecture?

 

[spazzcat]

Why give Apple the benefit of the doubt? Thus far, it has seemed like Massimo is not making anything up.

Well in September, U.S. appeals court upheld U.S. Patent Office tribunal decisions invalidating parts of about a dozen patents owned by health-monitoring company Masimo and more are being reviewed.

 

[QCassidy352]

Patent holders are not required to grant a license, nor should they be (except for standard-essential patents, which this is not). Allowing patent-violating products to continue to be sold would however effectively equate to that.

If the feature is really of such minimal importance, then Apple can just remove or disable it.

i understand the law (im a lawyer who used to do patent litigation), but the law is bad. They SHOULD be required to grant a license, as that’s unequivocally a better outcome for society.

As for the disabling option, I also mentioned that, and it would be a clearly better outcome than what we have now.

 

[ifxf]

So what about Masino stealing the idea from Apple to use an oxygen monitor in a smart watch? Apple did it much earlier than Masino their smart watch.

Only if Apple put in a patent, otherwise it is just copying an idea which everyone does.

 

[dampfnudel]

Still for sale on Amazon and Best Buy.

Get yours, while supplies last.

People don’t seem to be in a hurry to buy up stock. I guess it would’ve been a different story if this was the redesigned Series X/10 being sold and now banned. Speaking of next year’s redesigned Apple Watch, I hope this gets resolved soon so Apple will be able to include an oxygen sensor in that model. I’m interested in getting the AW Series X/10.

 

[JPack]

I find it odd that Apple let it get this far, as if they truly believed they were not infringing on these patents. There's gotta be more to this.

Apple was willing to use Intel modems to save a few bucks on licensing. It’s not hard to believe Apple will try anything to bully small companies. We’ve seen this time and again with apps.

 

[TigerNike23]

If this drags on into February or March, and if Vision Pro is a flop, I’d expect at least some grumbling about Tim Cook’s leadership.

We all know Tim Cook is a bean counter, as shown by the ease of which materials can be bent or the low specs of base products, but this would be a very different situation.

Fortunately for him, people have forgotten about the AirPower fiasco mostly because it was an accessory. The Watch is a main product line, as is the Vision Pro.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

Live by the patent die by the patent. Hope Apple has to settle and pay out and or the watch remains banned until Series 10 without the blood oxygen. Glad David is winning against Goliath.

 

[jz0309]

This is an insane response to a finding of infringement for some minimally important feature that most users probably don’t even know exists. Require a royalty, require Apple to disable the blood ox by software, but don’t ban sales of the entire device. IP law run complexly amok.

and you very well know that the statement I bolded is just simply incorrect

 

[bsolar]

Well in September, U.S. appeals court upheld U.S. Patent Office tribunal decisions invalidating parts of about a dozen patents owned by health-monitoring company Masimo and more are being reviewed.

While some patents got invalidated others were not and the patents still considered valid are the reason for the import ban.

There is still an appeal process so things might still change, but the current stand is that Apple has been found violating valid patents owned by Masimo.

It makes sense for those who don't know the details of the matter to defer to the first verdict, with the caveat that appeal might still change the outcome.

 

[jz0309]

i understand the law (im a lawyer who used to do patent litigation), but the law is bad. They SHOULD be required to grant a license, as that’s unequivocally a better outcome for society.

As for the disabling option, I also mentioned that, and it would be a clearly better outcome than what we have now.

if the law is bad - change it
as for disabling SpO2 - you really think Apple would get away with that without lawsuits from customers?

 

[WiiDSmoker]

How much further would innovation be if not for the patent system. Humans would probably be able to get beyond the Milky Way galaxy if not for all the greed on earth.

Patents are a way for a company to protect itself against bigger large companies such as Apple outright stealing other people’s technology and profiting from it. Apple plays the patent game and does everything it can to protect itself as well.

 

[CosmoCopus]

Tim has nothing to do with this lol. Apple’s patent lawyer bench is huge and decides what flies on these moves. Tim does not get to disregard anything the lawyers wouldn’t have cleared.

He’s the CEO of the company…how can he not have anything to do with it?

 

[bsolar]

i understand the law (im a lawyer who used to do patent litigation), but the law is bad. They SHOULD be required to grant a license, as that’s unequivocally a better outcome for society.

How would you suggest that to work? E.g. who sets the price, or the licensing conditions?

I understand there are e.g. patents subject to FRAND licensing, but FRAND licensing agreements are entered voluntarily and are typically limited to patents essential to implement a standard, which limits their extent quite significantly.

 

[the future]

I think if it has gotten to the point the Apple had to stop selling the product, Apple has probably already tried to license the tech and failed to reach an agreement.

Masimo wanted like 100 $ per Watch sold. Which is insane.

If Apple firmly believes it has not infringed on Masimo’s patent it has every right to fight to the end. Masimo has every right to defend it to the end. This will be over sooner rather than later.

Also, this. Apple licenses tons of tech. So either they think Masimo has no ground to stand on or they think what they‘re asking is way to high.

In the meantime, and assuming the above is true, the way Apple is letting this play out puts Masimo in a quite perilous position. This could end up very costly, even ruinous, for Masimo. If Apple succeeds, which I think they believe they will, in getting all of Masimo’s claims invalidated some time later in 2024, Masimo will face a potentially massive claim for lost revenue from Apple due to the ITC ban. Masimo’s CEO’s surprise and dismay at Apple’s announcement to stop selling the watches tells the story, in my opinion.

Yeah, this situation is actually very risky for Masimo. They should blink right now and start negotiating to license their tech for a reasonable amount.

 

[kiensoy]

That’s why Tim wanted the orange dude so much.

 

[MrSegundus]

Oh well. The SE is way more than good enough.

 

[MrSegundus]

Apple’s arrogance came back to punish it. I am amused at all the messages of people that a few months ago said this would *never* happen. Well guess what, it *did* happen. Hopefully Apple will learn the lesson and improve its behaviour, but I doubt it. External regulatory bodies need to keep punishing so that it does what is right: paying for using IP of other companies, opening up their phones to alternative stores, adopting standard connectors etc. It is all happening and the world is a better place because of it.

Bingo.

 

[bsolar]

Also, this. Apple licenses tons of tech. So either they think Masimo has no ground to stand on or they think what they‘re asking is way to high.

AFAIK Masimo's patents are not subject to FRAND licensing agreements, so Masimo is not required to license them under "fair", or "reasonable" conditions and can be as unreasonable as they want.

Assuming the patents stand, even if Apple thinks what Masimo is asking is too high it would still not give Apple the right to just infringe the patents.

 

[Zest28]

you mean Apple stole the technology to use it in a smartwatch? lol.

What you mean stole? Apple was doing this in the Apple Watch before these patents existed.

 

[fyun89]

I'm amused at all the people who don't know any of the facts of the case and simply decided Apple is guilty because BIG COMPANY BAD.

Do more research ON FACTS.

Apple actually actively poached researchers FROM from Massimo since 2013. Go ahead and LOOK UP.

Then Apple decided to release products that had technologies with patent on!

Please be an INFORMED fanboy!