That’s exactly what they are doing. Whether the patent’s are invalidated or they pay up, they are playing by the rules.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 No Longer Available From U.S. Online Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
only because they were forced to. The reason it came to this is because they were trying to play fast and loose. They could have contested the patent first if they thought it was invalid.
I am not sure that I have anything to add to this discussion but for what it is worth here are a few observations:
1. If Apple 'stole' a 3rd party's technology they should pay. Their luring away the original patent hoider's engineers does not look good even if it is perfectly legal. Under the circumstances the engineers would be under an NDA not to share confidential technology. It becomes difficult not to believe that if Apple did indeed use the patented technology, the engineers may have some legal liability which has not been mentioned.
2. If they found a work around so that it did not contravene the exact wording of the original patent, I still believe they owe the original patent holder some recompense for their work. This will be considered to be unrealistic by many and not applicable to the real world, but it remains my personal thought.
3. If they came up with something new that is similar to an existing patent, then they owe the original patent holder nothing, that is life. This could be the case if the original patent holder demonstrated that it was possible, for example but you came up with an implementation that was totally different. Patents are, generally, on implementations that contain new ideas not just new ideas.
4. We do not know whether any of the above is true.
5. Apple seem to be believe they have a strong case and fought to get the original ruling reversed. Obviously they could not convince a third party, that had no skin in the game, to agree and and now they have to pull the devices with the contravening technology.
6. From a personal point of view the blood oxygen sensor in the Apple Watch did not work and produced quite different results to a medically certified pulse oximeter. So from my personal point of view, the technology and implementation in the Apple Watch is without value and I would have no issue with them disabling or removing the technology.
As we debate this without all the facts most of this is pure speculation. My thoughts are based on working with patents for many years, but the exact reasons for this debacle are not really clear and the issues highlighted are relatively straughtforward .
1. If Apple 'stole' a 3rd party's technology they should pay. Their luring away the original patent hoider's engineers does not look good even if it is perfectly legal. Under the circumstances the engineers would be under an NDA not to share confidential technology. It becomes difficult not to believe that if Apple did indeed use the patented technology, the engineers may have some legal liability which has not been mentioned.
2. If they found a work around so that it did not contravene the exact wording of the original patent, I still believe they owe the original patent holder some recompense for their work. This will be considered to be unrealistic by many and not applicable to the real world, but it remains my personal thought.
3. If they came up with something new that is similar to an existing patent, then they owe the original patent holder nothing, that is life. This could be the case if the original patent holder demonstrated that it was possible, for example but you came up with an implementation that was totally different. Patents are, generally, on implementations that contain new ideas not just new ideas.
4. We do not know whether any of the above is true.
5. Apple seem to be believe they have a strong case and fought to get the original ruling reversed. Obviously they could not convince a third party, that had no skin in the game, to agree and and now they have to pull the devices with the contravening technology.
6. From a personal point of view the blood oxygen sensor in the Apple Watch did not work and produced quite different results to a medically certified pulse oximeter. So from my personal point of view, the technology and implementation in the Apple Watch is without value and I would have no issue with them disabling or removing the technology.
As we debate this without all the facts most of this is pure speculation. My thoughts are based on working with patents for many years, but the exact reasons for this debacle are not really clear and the issues highlighted are relatively straughtforward .
Last edited:
In the first federal court case he wanted $3.8 billion in damages which was back in 2020 I believe.
Exactly, every legitimate company has a right as well as a duty to its investors and shareholders to protect its intellectual property to safeguard the future viability of the company. Apple wouldn’t exist today if they didn’t constantly monitor the products of other companies and took action (which they have) if their IP was being used by another company. Their legal guns are always ready for action. For many people who come to MR to discuss these articles and news stories, Apple products are such a big part of our lives that we couldn’t imagine our lives without them. I include myself in that group. That doesn’t mean we should blindly side with Apple every single time they get called out for less than desirable behavior. Anyway, I suspect this will be resolved soon enough either in the courts or by Apple. More likely by Apple.
That's really the whole storey
There isn't really a more nuanced take here
Apple was hoping to get away with this -- and they aren't going to be able to
Here is an example of what Apple stole:
"A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a user's tissue, the user-worn device comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs);
at least four photodiodes configured to receive light emitted by the LEDs, the four photodiodes being arranged to capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user;
a protrusion comprising a convex surface and a plurality of through holes, each through hole including a window and arranged over a different one of the at least four photodiodes; and
one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the photodiodes and determine measurements of oxygen saturation of the user.
[...] wherein the plurality of LEDs and the photodiodes are positioned on a same side of the user's tissue."
and
"20. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a user's tissue, the user-worn device comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs);
at least four photodiodes configured to receive light emitted by the LEDs, the four photodiodes being arranged to capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user;
a protrusion comprising a convex surface and a plurality of through holes, each through hole including a window and arranged over a different one of the at least four photodiodes; and
one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the photodiodes and determine measurements of oxygen saturation of the user. [...]
26.The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the photodiodes are arranged in a quadrant configuration.
27. The user-worn device of claim 26, further comprising opaque walls surrounding the photodiodes.
28. The user-worn device of claim 27, wherein the walls are configured to reduce mixing of light from distinct quadrants of the tissue."
Ok this puts it in a completely different perspective.
I must have just missed the cut off. I ordered an Ultra 2 at 10:43 pacific this morning and picked it up an hour later.
They are still “playing by the rules” of the legal system, there is no other spin to be out on this.
because they were sued. If the ITC hadn't put this order in, than they'd still be selling infringing products.
Case 1
This is the original case is Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 8:20-cv-48
Case 2
ITC
Case 3a and b
Apple countersuing Masimo in Delaware over Masimo's smartwatch. Apple Inc v. Masimo Corp, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Nos. 1:22-cv-01377 and 1:22-cv-01378
I belive there are two additional cases going on:
Case 4
Apple tries to invalidate two of Masimo's patents which relates to case 1 and 2.
Case 5
Masimo tries to invalidate some of the patents Apple are using in case 3.
and there is also
Case 6
Apple v AliveCore which in fact also the ITC ordered an important ban but stayed the order.
They are also doing this. They have been somewhat successful and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit uphold that the relevant part of Masimo's patens vare invalid due to prior art.
cause of action for that docket is patent infringement, not theft of trade secrets. Docket also lists several registered patents.
It’s not an infringing product until it is and the legal wrangling is not over yet.
Fine. I'll give you that. "Allegedly infringing products."
and they are going back to trial next year. Its not over yet.