Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’m curious of the timing of this.
Why is Apple only now appealing the rulings made on Oct 2023 and Jan 2024?

Has something changed between then and now?
The conspiracy theorist in me says there’s been some back room dealings between Cook and the Orange Man.
 
An Apple win with this argument would be a terrible precedent, as it would basically say that whoever has enough money to bring the patent-utilizing product to market first wins, and large corporations would always achieve that over small companies due to their massive deep pockets, basically stealing patents from small companies.
Yes this wasn't a case with just a patent troll. did they even try to work out a licensing agreement?
 
Apple maintains that Masimo's device was not market-ready when the company filed its complaint, and that the legal standard should not permit hypothetical products to justify trade restrictions. The decision had wrongly "deprived millions of Apple Watch users" of the blood-oxygen feature, Apple's attorney said.​

Turns out, Apple is aware it's illegal to claim you have a technology before it's ready.
 
I’m curious of the timing of this.
Why is Apple only now appealing the rulings made on Oct 2023 and Jan 2024?

Has something changed between then and now?
The conspiracy theorist in me says there’s been some back room dealings between Cook and the Orange Man.
They filed the appeal over a year ago; the case was just heard. The justice system moves slowly.
 
That’s not what Apple is arguing. See this helpful for post from @PC1967, emphasis mine.
But for the ban, Apple would not be paying Masimo any royalties under license for using the Masimo patent, thus depriving Masimo of the revenue its patent deserved while keeping that money in its own pocket.

That is harm. To Masimo specifically, and to the patent system and inventors in general.
 
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.

Exactly why it would not be "great" if it the decision were somehow in favor of Apple on some strange technicality or (see below)

The conspiracy theorist in me says there’s been some back room dealings between Cook & ....

Always a concern of mine also. Even if this was previously filed, I worry about shenanigans in the current US environment.
 
I’m curious of the timing of this.
Why is Apple only now appealing the rulings made on Oct 2023 and Jan 2024?

Has something changed between then and now?
The conspiracy theorist in me says there’s been some back room dealings between Cook and the Orange Man.
Were you curious with the relationship between Joe Kiani and the previous administration? Especially when the previous administration declined to veto the ITC ruling?

It goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matz
The patent system is a travesty. It was intended to protect an inventor from having their ideas stolen so that innovation is rewarded. Instead, it's almost exclusively used by big companies and patent trolls. Big companies patent everything they can to stifle competition from others and protect themselves, and patent trolls patent everything they can to extract money from companies that try to innovate.
 
Why is Apple only filing the appeal now? Millions of Apple Watch users have been waiting a year and a half to be able to use the blood oxygen feature.

The biggest head-scratcher of this years-long dispute with Masimo is how slow-moving Apple’s responses have been.

We all just want to see this resolved already.
 
Why is Apple only filing the appeal now? Millions of Apple Watch users have been waiting a year and a half to be able to use the blood oxygen feature.

@surferfb covered this.
It was filed over a year ago and has just taken this long.

They filed the appeal over a year ago; the case was just heard. The justice system moves slowly.
 
The thing about suing a big company like Apple is you have to be sure about the long term. Big companies have no choice but to throw everything they can at the lawsuit and show that even if they did something wrong, at the end of the day, you will pay more than you get.
 
Apple, just buy them, take the IP, and shut the company down.
So big companies should be able to just buy and shut down any company whose IP they’re after? Would anyone here be cheering this on if it was Facebook, Google or Microsoft we were talking about?

Why doesn’t Apple just pay Masimo for access to the IP?
 
So big companies should be able to just buy and shut down any company whose IP they’re after? Would anyone here be cheering this on if it was Facebook, Google or Microsoft we were talking about?

Absolutely not!

This is a constant problem.
(rules for thee, but not for me -- with "me" being Apple)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TheHeron
Apple customers have been wanting this blood oxygen feature on the watch and have been asking for it but because Apple are such a greedy company, they refuse to pay Masimo a license to use the patent behind this blood-oxygen feature thereby denying Apple customers what they want.

Just pay the damn patent license Apple instead of trying to bully your way into making the patent invalid thus not having to pay Masimo anything because that is what all this faff us about, is about Apple not wanting to pay a rival company (Apple wanted to use a blood-oxygen feature in their watches, thus making them a rival) any money to use that companies patent.

This is what we have come to see of Apple, a company who refuses to pay other companies for their technology. If they cannot use it for free Apple will either buy the company or try and get patents ruled invalid. Look at what Apple tried to do with Qualcomm. Spent years trying to get Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid and when that didn't work they bought Intel's wifi division so they could try and make their own wifi hardware. When that failed they went back to try and Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid again.

This is how it works in the corporate world, you either buy out the competition or you bully them into working with you. Apple are masters at it.
 
Yes this wasn't a case with just a patent troll. did they even try to work out a licensing agreement?
FYI “patent trolls” is a pejorative term created by counsel and PR of companies trying to delegitimize an IP owner’s right to exploit the inherent value of that owners’s IP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmadsen3
That company happens to be one of the largest suppliers of pulse ox monitors to hospitals.

Shutting it down would be an exceedingly bad move.

Buying it, giving Apple a lifetime exclusive license to Masimo IP and then selling Masimo again could make sense.
 
Apple customers have been wanting this blood oxygen feature on the watch and have been asking for it but because Apple are such a greedy company, they refuse to pay Masimo a license to use the patent behind this blood-oxygen feature thereby denying Apple customers what they want.

Just pay the damn patent license Apple instead of trying to bully your way into making the patent invalid thus not having to pay Masimo anything because that is what all this faff us about, is about Apple not wanting to pay a rival company (Apple wanted to use a blood-oxygen feature in their watches, thus making them a rival) any money to use that companies patent.

This is what we have come to see of Apple, a company who refuses to pay other companies for their technology. If they cannot use it for free Apple will either buy the company or try and get patents ruled invalid. Look at what Apple tried to do with Qualcomm. Spent years trying to get Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid and when that didn't work they bought Intel's wifi division so they could try and make their own wifi hardware. When that failed they went back to try and Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid again.

This is how it works in the corporate world, you either buy out the competition or you bully them into working with you. Apple are masters at it.
Where have you gotten your information that "they refuse to pay Masimo a license to..."? Apple has numerous agreements in place to pay patent holders for IP. I think more likely than Apple refusing to pay a license fee is that Apple and Masimo can't agree on what a "reasonable" fee is.

Since Masimo's patents aren't SEP, they can claim they are worth whatever they want. In court filings, Masimo originally asked for 1.85 billion dollars. Which would lead a reasonable person to suspect they believe they are entitled to a significant per device fee.

Keep in mind that Apple doesnt sale nearly as many watches as they do phones. In 2020 for example, they sold around 43 million watches as compared to almost 200 million phones. It is estimated that Apple pays licensing fees to ARM at a rate of around .30 per chip, so around 60 million for the phones that year. You mentioned Qualcomm, it is estimated that Apple pays them about 1.6 to 1.8 billion a year, which is uncommonly high even for a SEPs royalty. That being the case, Masimo is not negotiating from a position of good faith when claiming they are owed 1.85 billion for a single (non-marquee) feature on a relatively low volume product.

You say "This is how it works in the corporate world, you either buy out the competition or you bully them into working with you. Apple are masters at it." The only reason this sounds even a little off if because you used the word "bully", like Tim is shoving Joe's head into a toilet and giving him a wedgie or something. These are two massive companies who are in the midst of a business dispute over IP, they've both made financial assessments of the situation and have come to dramatically different conclusions about the value of the IP.

Also, don't pretend that Masimo is some small company being run by a pair of scrappy upstarts out of a garage somewhere, the private jet that Kiani flys on is probably just as nice as the one Tim flys on, or at least not noticeably different to most people who are not Billionaires, which both Kiani and Tim are. So to suggest that he is in a position to be bullied is simply not accurate.
 
...

This is what we have come to see of Apple, a company who refuses to pay other companies for their technology. If they cannot use it for free Apple will either buy the company or try and get patents ruled invalid. Look at what Apple tried to do with Qualcomm. Spent years trying to get Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid and when that didn't work they bought Intel's wifi division so they could try and make their own wifi hardware. When that failed they went back to try and Qualcomm's wifi patents ruled invalid again.

...
Why all the hate for companies getting patents invalidated? Patents are often awarded with little scrutiny, especially for complex concepts that the patent office is frankly not qualified to assess. If the patent is weak or doesn't really represent novelty or utility then it should be easily invalidated through the established process. The only problem is that it is so expensive to avail one's self of the process. So Apple with there deep pockets invalidating patents helps everyone. Certainly the small companies who get "bullied" by large corporations benefit, if they own a valid patent then they are able to sale out or negotiate a reasonable deal. If they want access to a patented process, but can't afford to challenge the patent holder, then they benefit when Apple (or Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc...) incur the legal costs to have it invalidated.

Consider some of the patents that have been successfully issued.

Someone applied for and got a patent for the Comb-Over method. Yep, President Trump's method of combing his hair was patented in 1977, although it had been in popular use since at least the early 18th century. I'm not an expert on the president's hair, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were using it prior to 77.

Using passwords to restrict access in the context of computers. Not at all novel, passwords had been used for thousands of years. That they would be used in a computer system is simply inevitable and obvious. Additionally, I believe they had already been used long before anyone applied for the patent on it.

I’m not implying that patents have no place in business or that inventors and innovators shouldn’t be able to safeguard their novel ideas. However, I’m simply suggesting that merely receiving a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’s valid.

In the Masimo situation, 15 of the 17 patents they cited were invalidated. Apple didn't invalidate them, they simply proved they should have never been awarded to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: webbuzz
Here's a lawyer's take: the Court of Appeals is likely to affirm the ITC’s decision.

Actually, if you read the transcript of the hearing. You clearly get the opposite take of the article you link to. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit Court is notoriously conservative with a long record of pro big business decisions. Apple could not ask for a better court to consider their appeal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: surferfb
Exactly why it would not be "great" if it the decision were somehow in favor of Apple on some strange technicality or (see below)



Always a concern of mine also. Even if this was previously filed, I worry about shenanigans in the current US environment.
Shenanigans was so 45 era. Nowadays it runs gamut from conflicts of interest to crimes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.