Apple sitting on ton of cash, why not partnership with them or buy them out? Instead of finding a backdoor for free access.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals US Ban on Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Will be great if the decision is in favor of Apple, for Apple and of course the customers. But however not sure what will happen as the patent was existing and valid. As the patent is a valid one not seeing how the decision can be in Apple's favor.
As I live in Europe I've had this all the time in my watches - and while I do respect it's not nice to lose features, this is one I can't remember I've ever used other than trying it
That is not what Apple is arguing.
An ITC action is not the same as a patent infringement case in district court. To bring an ITC action under 19 USC § 1337, the patentee must show that imports are causing harm to a domestic industry. Maybe that happened here, maybe not; but it has nothing to do with patent validity.
Why did Apple wait this long?
Maybe Apple is close to releasing a non-evasive CGM watch and is using the SpO2 case to establish legal precedence against future bans.
Maybe Apple is close to releasing a non-evasive CGM watch and is using the SpO2 case to establish legal precedence against future bans.
I can see Apple making a deal on the quiet with another manufacturer, and using their technology. Surely what we are talking about here, is not hardware, but an algorithm within the firmware, which can be tweaked, as companies like Garmin, Polar, Coroa, Suunto, to name just a few, all have SPO2.
Apple 2025: How to do the immoral thing. Maybe Cook should give Trump another million and the ban will really be lifted.
Got some Chinese one during COVID days. Thing still works, accurate enough, batteries last for ages and easy to replace (unlike these electronic thermometers with small coin sized battery). It cost something like 10 or 20$
Masimo isn’t a small corp or “patent troll” as it might seem at the first glance. They have received government grants and have contracts with some government agencies, including DoD.
There were certain big money investors like Gates Foundation who gave money for development of pulse oximetry feature in these watches. They obviously don’t wanna lose their piece of cake (considering they paid for that), at least in the US. So it seems kinda logical Masimo went for a full ban of Apple Watch. Can’t say it is good or bad, this is simply how capitalism works in the US. In European countries it is much easier and everyone can buy a pulse oximeter from China that will work identical to both W1 or Apple Watch, because in China they will break every patent imaginable to bring the product to market. And it is sort of good since more people can access new technology
Mom just bought a shiny gold series 10 for her 79th birthday..... wish she had this feature, but her taking the initiative and spending that kind of money on such a thing blows my mind, I'm grateful. The fall detection and calling for help feature is what really sold her. I call her from my watch while jogging and that blows her mind. I bought her AirPods Pro and she is amazed by them. Apple products seem to have a magic that transcends generations!
Apple needs to decide what’s important for future sales. I’ll never upgrade to an Ultra without an O2 sensor.
Pulse oximetry was developed in the 1970s. This patent should NEVER have been issued.
If you want a new watch, take a road trip to Canada or Mexico. This stupidity only exists in the US.
If you want a new watch, take a road trip to Canada or Mexico. This stupidity only exists in the US.
For medical devices (and treatments), the process of manufacturing should be patentable, but not the end product. That would give an incentive to reduce manufacturing costs, rather than giving companies de facto monopolies over medical devices (and treatments), which causes prices to skyrocket. Patenting the end product in this case seems to have served only to deprive consumers of potentially important functionality. Obviously Apple and the other company should have negotiated in good faith, but when disputes arise, consumers always lose out. That's fine if we are talking about sports cars or computers, but not when the final product is medically relevant.
I am prone to pulmonary emboli, and I have a dedicated blood oxygen monitor (pulse oximeter) at home. However, because I live in the UK, which is not subject to this patent dispute, I have my AW U2 as a backup for monitoring blood oxygenation when I am on the go. Moreover, I can use that watch in an emergency if somebody else is reporting being out of breath. It seems just outright silly to limit US consumers so they don't have this functionality. It is not as though sensing blood oxygenation is rocket science - it is just bouncing light off of blood and sensing how red the reflection is (the redder the signal, the more oxygen is bound to haemoglobin). It basically requires just an LED at the appropriate light wavelength and a sensor like a photodiode to record the reflection. We have made such devices literally by hand in my neuroscience lab.
I am prone to pulmonary emboli, and I have a dedicated blood oxygen monitor (pulse oximeter) at home. However, because I live in the UK, which is not subject to this patent dispute, I have my AW U2 as a backup for monitoring blood oxygenation when I am on the go. Moreover, I can use that watch in an emergency if somebody else is reporting being out of breath. It seems just outright silly to limit US consumers so they don't have this functionality. It is not as though sensing blood oxygenation is rocket science - it is just bouncing light off of blood and sensing how red the reflection is (the redder the signal, the more oxygen is bound to haemoglobin). It basically requires just an LED at the appropriate light wavelength and a sensor like a photodiode to record the reflection. We have made such devices literally by hand in my neuroscience lab.
Patents don't require you to bring a product to market. Apple is dreaming.
Apple: “Don’t use our IP or else we’ll sue you.
Also, let us use your IP for free.
Rules for thee, not for me.”
Also, let us use your IP for free.
Rules for thee, not for me.”
I agree, it should not. But it obviously does or patent trolls would never win lawsuits. Apple’s making a transparently disingenuous argument and will lose.
With this particular argument in this particular venue, Apple isn't saying that the patent is invalid because there was no product using it on the market. What they are saying is that the ITC is not empowered to provide patent protections (they do use patents to protect trade, but it is not necessarily the same thing). The ITC is empowered to protect trade. So, Apple's argument is that because there was no product on the market there was no trade violation, regardless of the dispute of a patent infringement. They are saying, you can't ban the sale of a competing product to protect a non-existent product. I can't speak to the merits of that argument, but I can understand it.
Now, for those who are saying, "Apple just needs to pay...." or "Why not buy the company...." and "Tim won't let a dime slip out of his greedy hands...." All that is crap. Apple is a mulitbillion organization and makes deals regularly where patent holders are compensated for IP. They make deals regularly where they are compensated for patents they hold. Apple is not a company that won't make deals when they can. So, what we have in this case, is an inability for Apple and Masimo to come to an agreement on the value of the IP. I've heard that Joe Kiani has suggested that Apple is unwilling to discuss the matter, which is clearly absurd, because they are paying people to talk about it in court. I've also heard that Kiani is not open to a licensing agreement and is only open to a manufacturer's deal, which may be why Apple isn't talking to him about it. That is unconfirmed information, but I think it is clear that Masimo has not indicated they are not willing to make an agreement that is consistent with other deals Apple has made in the past, or else we would have never heard about these patents as related to AW.
As for buying the company, Apple could likely do that. But why? So they can overpay for IP that is gonna expire in a couple years? If they can get what they want without overpaying, do that. These are not the days of Steve Jobs where he makes business personal. Steve might have bought the company just so he could fire Kiani. However, Tim Cook has a history of being a level headed business man, not a petulant child who holds grudges. Apple may drag their feet and practice some malicious compliance under Tim, but there is no indication those are not strategic moves as opposed to personal vendettas.
Now, for those who are saying, "Apple just needs to pay...." or "Why not buy the company...." and "Tim won't let a dime slip out of his greedy hands...." All that is crap. Apple is a mulitbillion organization and makes deals regularly where patent holders are compensated for IP. They make deals regularly where they are compensated for patents they hold. Apple is not a company that won't make deals when they can. So, what we have in this case, is an inability for Apple and Masimo to come to an agreement on the value of the IP. I've heard that Joe Kiani has suggested that Apple is unwilling to discuss the matter, which is clearly absurd, because they are paying people to talk about it in court. I've also heard that Kiani is not open to a licensing agreement and is only open to a manufacturer's deal, which may be why Apple isn't talking to him about it. That is unconfirmed information, but I think it is clear that Masimo has not indicated they are not willing to make an agreement that is consistent with other deals Apple has made in the past, or else we would have never heard about these patents as related to AW.
As for buying the company, Apple could likely do that. But why? So they can overpay for IP that is gonna expire in a couple years? If they can get what they want without overpaying, do that. These are not the days of Steve Jobs where he makes business personal. Steve might have bought the company just so he could fire Kiani. However, Tim Cook has a history of being a level headed business man, not a petulant child who holds grudges. Apple may drag their feet and practice some malicious compliance under Tim, but there is no indication those are not strategic moves as opposed to personal vendettas.
Even if Apple is right, if they want to act in the interest of their users they should just pony up to settle with Masimo and move on IMO.
Apple, just buy them, take the IP, and shut the company down.