Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bsolar

macrumors 68000
Jun 20, 2011
1,535
1,751
Tesla is open source, and literally sends tech to other companies (Ford) in the hopes of advancing EVs... Masimo smirks and throws up the money sign, ala Johnny Manziel. Disgusting.

Tesla's "open source" pledge comes with significant strings attached and adhering to it basically means invalidating one's own patent portfolio.

Furthermore, patents are not the only way to protect an invention, the other most prominent being trade secrets which Tesla definitely makes significant use of.
 

latweek

macrumors regular
Mar 26, 2015
174
243
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.
Tim doesn't run Apple? You actually think that Apple's patent lawyer tells Tim what to do, or that Tim was unaware? Either of your theories still indicates Tim is either ignorant or incompetent. I choose both.
 

I7guy

macrumors Nehalem
Nov 30, 2013
34,340
24,082
Gotta be in it to win it
Tim doesn't run Apple? You actually think that Apple's patent lawyer tells Tim what to do, or that Tim was unaware? Either of your theories still indicates Tim is either ignorant or incompetent. I choose both.
Wrong on both counts. Anybody who can tell the exact story from an apple perspective on MR is an insider. Apple is one to do a coin toss. Whatever happened until now was one of a set of considered possibilities; especially if apple thinks it can win on appeal.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: prefuse07

gatorvet96

macrumors regular
Apr 21, 2016
235
657
Indeed.
But now they're negotiating in a position of weakness.

A rare instance where Tim's arrogance and greed has come back to bite him.
How can you infer that it is "arrogance" or "greed"? It could be way more complicated than that. He is a CEO and may have been told by other more tech knowledgeable SVP or VP that we are clear. We have no idea as the public what they had discussed.
 

AppleWes

macrumors 6502a
Oct 9, 2013
559
502
Nothing was mentioned to explain why the suit only targeted the iWatch 9 & Ultra models since the blood oxygen sensor was there starting in the 6 model.
Did Apple change the sensor tech used in the recent models?
I may be mistaken but I think Apple doesn't sell older models in the first place regardless of ban, so only SE was left as a option.
 

TigerNike23

macrumors 6502a
Feb 13, 2017
860
2,061
Fort Myers, FL
I honestly think he doesn't have long left. Apple has gambled here and lost, and Cook is ultimately responsible for that.

Add to this the impending Vision Pro damp squib and Cook will be asked to do the right thing.

Yeah I’m a huge fanboy, own every product save for the Mac (waiting on M3 Mini), but I really sense a huge whiff on the Vision Pro. Should’ve been made 3 or 4 years ago when AR/VR was the rage, but Apple was too focused on the Silicon transition. Now AI is the rage, and they’re way behind the curve with Siri, but still moving forward with the headset.

Maybe Cook can pull a rabbit out of the hat with this patent dispute, but it’ll be difficult. Either he pays the licensing or nerfs current and previous Watches. What a mess.
 

ant69

macrumors 6502
Feb 2, 2009
267
99
maybe apple should just buy masimo? might be cheaper in the long run....
 

Username-already-in-use

macrumors 6502a
May 18, 2021
562
1,036
Either (1): Apple infringed the patents of a third party and Apple’s counsel screwed up by failing to advise the Apple board to settle early and pay compensation and/or license the technology.

OR

(2) Apple did not infringe the patent of a third party, but Masimo managed to get a ruling based off of a form of abusive patent litigation where they seek to enforce broad patents that shouldn’t be ordinarily enforced. In this eventuality, Apple should win on appeal.

- - -
To be clear I have no idea which is the case here.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,612
1,748
Redondo Beach, California
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.
If they disabled the O2 sensor after I bought the watch, I'd sue Apple. Me and millions of others as well. Apple got caught stealing from another company and now has to pay for it. They can afford to pay. So what if Apple looses a couple of billion dollars? Who would care?

Hopefully, this whole thing will be educational for Apple.

The technology is NOT expensive. An entire pulse oximeter can be bought at Walmart for under $20 or at Aliexpress for $5. Apple could have bought a license for under $1 per watch but now it will cost them 10X more it they are lucky.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,612
1,748
Redondo Beach, California
Either (1): Apple infringed the patents of a third party and Apple’s counsel screwed up by failing to advise the Apple board to settle early and pay compensation and/or license the technology.

OR

(2) Apple did not infringe the patent of a third party, but Masimo managed to get a ruling based off of a form of abusive patent litigation where they seek to enforce broad patents that shouldn’t be ordinarily enforced. In this eventuality, Apple should win on appeal.

- - -
To be clear I have no idea which is the case here.
Read the patient. It is very obvious what is covered and the language is not very technical. Masimo seems to have invented something basic and new and has a fundamental patent. It is as if they came up with the idea that round objects can be used as "wheels". There is no way to make not-round wheels. roundness is not just a detail that could be done with some other shape. Masim's patent is kind of like roundness. They invented the idea of using coloreed LEDs that are held in place in the skin, even the idea that there needs to be a "bump" on the device to force the LED into skin contact. There is no "software fix" for this. Look it up. The patent is online
 

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,033
6,062
Bay Area
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.
This is an indefensible take unless you think the “little guy” (comparatively speaking - Masimo is a multi billion dollar company) winning is a good unto itself, which is laughably simplistic. An import ban is bad for the public, full stop. And since patents only ultimately exist to advance the public good, a result that is obviously bad for the public shouldn’t happen under a properly functioning patent system.
and you very well know that the statement I bolded is just simply incorrect
Not at all. I’ve never used mine once. I’ve talked to other Apple Watch users and prospective buyers countless times and never once heard someone mention blood ox. Anecdotal, sure, but I doubt most users know it’s there, let alone buy for that feature.
if the law is bad - change it
as for disabling SpO2 - you really think Apple would get away with that without lawsuits from customers?
Changing the law is exactly what I’m advocating, thanks.

disable on new sales.
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.
Negotiation in the first instance, and binding arbitration (with an evidentiary hearing) if that fails to produce an agreement. it’s a minor feature in a consumer product with a fixed price. Not exactly unknowable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZZ9pluralZalpha

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,033
6,062
Bay Area
If they disabled the O2 sensor after I bought the watch, I'd sue Apple. Me and millions of others as well. Apple got caught stealing from another company and now has to pay for it. They can afford to pay. So what if Apple looses a couple of billion dollars? Who would care?

Hopefully, this whole thing will be educational for Apple.

The technology is NOT expensive. An entire pulse oximeter can be bought at Walmart for under $20 or at Aliexpress for $5. Apple could have bought a license for under $1 per watch but now it will cost them 10X more it they are lucky.
Disable on new sales. We’re not talking about existing devices, just like an import ban doesn’t require Apple to come to your house and take your old watch.
 

Victor Mortimer

macrumors 6502a
Apr 17, 2016
840
1,473
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.

I'm all about BIG COMPANY BAD, because they are. All of them.

But this isn't on Apple. This is Masimo getting a patent that should never have been issued on a technology that was invented in the 1970s.

Apple should keep fighting this. Not just for this patent, but to make a case for invalidating lots of these stupid "a thing, but with a computer" patents that should ALL be invalidated.
 

ShawnTXDFW

macrumors 6502
Apr 10, 2015
259
53
Dallas/Ft Worth
Why is it that this Masimo company come cry wolf after years of its patented product being used though? They say everything from the Apple Watch Series 6 on up. So, clearly this has been going on for awhile. Just seems so odd to me. 🤷‍♂️
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.