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 customers a second rate product that they stole and shoddily copied on the cheap.
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-mistrial-app...
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".
I doubt Masimo has patents on the only possible ways to measure Blood oxygen.
Most of them have the sensor and emitter on opposing sides of an earlobe, or a finger. So maybe that’s the unique part?
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.
https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...
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."
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.
Could they have spoken to Masimo, determined that their asking price for the technology is unreasonable, the patents are not very defensible, Apple could develop it internally for much cheaper, and finally decide to also pay Masimo's employees more to increase development speed?
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/masimo...
Masimo’s CEO claimed that they offered settling but that Apple didn’t even respond to that offer.
"The prosecutor offered you a plea deal, and you didn't entertain it at all. You must be guilty."
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.
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.
It's basically "take this arrangement of sensors and put it on a smartwatch". So a lot of my opinion of it is going to rest on whether the arrangement of sensors is actually novel, or whether this is Masimo taking a long-existing setup and saying "but with a computer!" like all the most-mockable obvious patents.
You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here
Just another incentive
Hey and we wont have to play geopolitical football with random conflicts around the world just so Taiwan feels safe, for now. We could ignore them all and let some other countries pick up the slack if anybody actually cares to misappropriate their resources like we do.
All the chips are in our hands and its only a net benefit for us
Correct. Companies want to offshore their stuff then want protection from the US gov paid for via us citizens.
>You can limit patent holders options by bringing supply chain here
Sure, you might get USITC off your back if manufacturing was domestic, but surely there are other agencies tasked with patent enforcement once you're onshore?
Patents at this point seem to be more about seeing which company’s lawyers can create the broadest-worded patents possible than about any sort of encouragement of innovation. Apple is also guilty of this, so I get that it’s satisfying to see them on the receiving end, but in the end the whole system is clearly broken.
https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1
Now that I know the SPO2 monitor on my Apple Watch is shit. I am looking for something more accurate.
I am a big Apple fanboy and always thought I could trust Apple’s products but I am beginning to doubt that with this case.
They could’ve easily licensed Masimo’s tech and provided their customers better technology.
lmaoo what a joke
It's not an amount of harm that's actually significant to Apple, I'm sure, but it is irreparable.
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".
The problem is that the tone of that claim implies the kind of harm that is significant while being just vague enough to also be covered under your interpretation should they get challenged on that statement.
Thus I would argue that Apple are still being disingenuous even if they are technically correct.
The harm is only significant if it drags out for a significant period of time. Apple will probably just remove some functionality and keep selling.
I mean it’s a watch, and the timekeeping aspects aren’t patented (I don’t think). Calculator watches existed since the 80s so that’s ok…my friend had a game on his watch in the 80s so that’s ok..
