I don’t think anyone is rooting for “Apple to fail” and if they are, they need to find better activities than getting so fired up about a tech corp bigger than whole continents. There’s more important issues. We just think that it’s only fair they face consequences for stealing patents. Am I happy they brought it to the mass market? Yes. But it’s found to be someone else’s work and that means they should compensate, and very well so. They have made crazy profits on the Apple Watch. And Apple of all is very well-known for pursuing everyone who they suspect of patent infringement, has been a patent troll, and files patents they don’t even intend to use constantly.
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
I feel for the person who created or signed this off at Apple. I bet it’s a crap time for them!
Well, I think I do.
As asthmatic person since birth I found it reliable to confirm that low saturation symptoms (in my case - way increased heart rate, tiredness, worsened short time memory, lowered focus and depression-like sudden feelings drop with self punishment) are not a sickness / being tired or my cumulated feelings but present reality which then helps me decide if I should take an inhale or meds or seek additional help.
If possible naturally I always rerun tests additional times when in low SpO2 and compare to finger one if I have it around. But it’s all about increasing self awareness in my case leading to better health - faster you see problem faster you react and mitigate further problems. So in sum up I rely on it and it only once / two times a day have weird readings.
Yesterday I found my S8 is only 1% off the finger tip meter used by medics so had 89 when doctor device had 88 which is really impressive and later was on par with it when got on both 96 after meds so I am getting even more confidence on AW.
Band: No longer extra tight braided solo loop (so no longer so called sausage wrist
)Europe, so for now I only worry about SW update…
Edit next day: I hope my case not told that it’s always giving correct results, because it tends to differ sometimes even 4% compared to finger readings. But it’s still a source of information to take into consideration to check health.
Last edited:
Well all but one juror sided with Apple so what are the chances of a unanimous verdict for Masimo on retrial. Zero on the same patent claims.
not necessarily. It would be a new jury so realistically no one can predict what would happen.
The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Big difference.
I mean you can make a prediction, but it isn't over until the fat lady sings. And unless you're a trial attorney, I'm not, and I have no idea whether you are, I don't know if you are necessarily qualified to make that assertion.
Not necessarily. It would be very unfair to assign sole blame to any individual working at a company that mandates and fosters an environment of aggressively pursuing IP from outside the company that could be beneficial to future products. This goes to the top.
If the U.S. House of Representatives is correct in indicating the CEO of Masimo is a huge supporter of Joe Biden going back years, its not likely that Apple will get a free pass from the president to keep selling Apple Watches.
Nor should they, or anyone else. That veto power was added to keep goods and services vital to national security flowing. Not to pat your buddies on the back.
It is common sense. If you managed to convince all but one juror on the first try, then then chances that you will fail to convince any juror on the second try are next to nothing.
Jurors are finders of fact. The facts will be the same on retrial. And reasonable jurors will all come to the same conclusions. If one juror disagrees, then it is more likely that that juror had an unreasonable interpretation of the facts than being the only one who was right and everyone else was wrong.
In any event, the retrial may not happen and by then the next generation watch will be on sale and no longer infringing, so the retrial is somewhat moot from the consumer's perspective.
yes, they are finders of fact, but at the end of the day, they are still human beings and inherently prone to different interpretations. There are still to many variables at play to come to a firm conclusion this early on. I mean, if the parties wanted, they could withdraw the request for a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial (see FRCP §38(d)).
Last edited:
Ok, well, since Apple straight up stole this technology and didn't have to pay for it, why didn't we get a steep discount on the watches it to begin with??
And they did. Apple went through the whole lawsuit with Masimo, lost, and now they are abiding by the terms of the outcome. They just are not obligated to license the tech from Masimo (which would likely cost a fair amount because those aren’t FRAND patents we are talking about) and are opting to explore alternatives.
How is Apple not playing by the rules here?
And on a side note, going by past trends, the more people here insist that Apple “needs” to do something, the more I am convinced that is absolutely the last thing Apple should do. Just a hunch.
I know Apple will do the right thing, and just give everyone a full refund, no questions asked. Thanks Apple.
How do you know its nonsense. based on what I have seen thus far, it looks like there might be a meritorious claim.
According to the article, that is not true. The article states that the watches are available at Apple retail locations, at least until December 24. Also, when looking in the Apple Store app, the pick up option states: Visit an Apple Store for availability.
It's nonsense because this is all Apple's own doing. They had years and years to resolve this issue with the company in question and chose to not do anything about it until it came time to ban the product outright from US shelves...
gotcha. I misunderstood what you were saying.
I disagree. Facts are facts, the jury will be given the same instructions (likely) and the same evidence. The variables are not so great that it is unpredictable. The interpretation is governed by the instructions and the evidence which is the same for all jurors. The next trial will either be a win for Apple or another hung jury unless the lawyers totally botch it.
I served on the jury in a criminal case a couple of years ago and there was one holdout who decided to disregard all of the evidence that prevented him from getting to "guilty." Eventually he came around and agreed with everyone else but I am convinced that a retrial would have produced the same result unless the evidence completely changed. Jurors are not permitted to interpret things they way they want - they have to follow all of the evidence and apply the instructions properly, otherwise the verdict can be thrown out.
Especially in technical patent infringement trials, these aren't cases where there is a lack of evidence or jurors wishing they had more to go on. The jurors will see the actual patents and the actual infringing product and put them together. Patent claim interpretation is not performed by the jury - it is performed by the judge, so the jury will be told what the claims mean and told to use that meaning during their deliberations.
Also, Apple asked the Patent Office to revisit the Masimo patents and the Office and the Federal Circuit invalidated just about everything, so that is another data point. What is left in the patents for Masimo to assert is slim and on thin ice but still presently a problem for Apple. I don't fault Apple for fighting to invalidate the rest of the claims given how many of them have been invalidated so far, but if and when to fold their cards is purely a business decision.
So you served on one Jury. That doesn't make you an expert on it, in the same way that me being a second year law student doesn't make me an expert, but I can tell you that attorneys have plenty of ways to appeal to a jury, and getting a new panel can function as a clean slate. If the patents are invalidated, then they probably won't get raised at trial, but my original point is still generally true.