Everything that exists was inevitable and after invention obvious to everybody else.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.
Is that you Gruber? Haha.Absolutely not!
This is a constant problem.
(rules for thee, but not for me -- with "me" being Apple)
Has anyone noticed that Apple only argues on an emotional level in court or in legal disputes?
With regard to the EU, Apple says that the DMA is interfering how the App Store works (which is a lie) and that the law confuses users and developers alike. (Which is completely irrelevant in court, even if it were true.)
Here, with regard to blood oxygen levels, Apple argues that there was no product yet (which is also completely irrelevant) and that millions of Apple users were wrongfully harmed because they did not get a feature.
This is the argument put forward by a corporation that protects hundreds of patents and designs every year. Some of these products never even make it to market.
And then there is also an attempt (as with the EU) to emotionally blackmail the court with the allegedly aggrieved Apple users. Except that Apple goes even further in the patent case and says in simple terms: "A user who does not get the feature we envision is aggrieved, even if they knew the feature did not exist."
What is actually going on at Apple?
Embarrassing marketing, designs that have been developed without considering the use in reality, and narcissistic arguments in court. It's as if factual arguments no longer count.
Apple has some really bad legal council. Like really bad.
I’m not a lawyer and even I know that a patent doesn’t need to have an actual product for it to be valid.
This is a pathetic argument. I’m rooting for O2 monitoring to come back as I miss it and I want Apple to win but it’s also clear they broke the patent.
There is much to debate about the merits of the law, but for an import ban the law requires a patent holder to demonstrate a "significant" or "substantial" domestic industry related to the patented invention.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.
Most of us who depend on the feature don’t track instantaneous readings; we track trends.For those who want a newer model, just get a medical grade pulse ox you place on your finger.
I want to upgrade to a new Ultra when it comes out. I wonder if I could just buy one in Japan when I'm there. Are the feature like this tied to watch model or where your account is or some combination of both? But even if it worked at the device level, then I wonder if there are any features that would be disabled if it isn't from the US?It’s about time, even though I’m in Japan and I have been working Blood oxygen feature part of my Apple Watch. It’s nice to know that others will be having its well soon. The way this lawsuit has been running it’s contemptuous.
It’s an import ban that just impacts the US, so any watch purchased outside of the US should have the feature enabled.I want to upgrade to a new Ultra when it comes out. I wonder if I could just buy one in Japan when I'm there. Are the feature like this tied to watch model or where your account is or some combination of both? But even if it worked at the device level, then I wonder if there are any features that would be disabled if it isn't from the US?
If Apple made the watch in the US an import ban wouldn't have worked, that's on them too.It's where Apple is designed, incorporated and headquartered, so it's on them.
Yes I would.Absolutely not!
This is a constant problem.
(rules for thee, but not for me -- with "me" being Apple)
It will work in the USA. However, AppleCare will not cover repairs outside of Japan. I know I asked many people at the USA Apple store when I was there in October 2024, when I bought my M4 13-inch iPad. That's why I bought the Apple Watch Hermès when I returned to Japan.I want to upgrade to a new Ultra when it comes out. I wonder if I could just buy one in Japan when I'm there. Are the feature like this tied to watch model or where your account is or some combination of both? But even if it worked at the device level, then I wonder if there are any features that would be disabled if it isn't from the US?
Wonderful indeed.enjoy!Uk Ultra 2 owner here. All features present and working.
If they have the money to do it, yeah.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?
For now. And remember the centre of Apple's research is supposedly in Ireland.It's where Apple is designed, incorporated and headquartered, so it's on them. [the US]
Yup and Apple knows this, so until then they will just keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.Patent ends in 2028 anyway
That is disappointing. Then again I've never had to have any of my Apple Watch's repaired. I guess I'll have to think on this one!It will work in the USA. However, AppleCare will not cover repairs outside of Japan. I know I asked many people at the USA Apple store when I was there in October 2024, when I bought my M4 13-inch iPad. That's why I bought the Apple Watch Hermès when I returned to Japan.
When we speak of patent trolls we are usually thinking about non-practicing entities, which are companies that hold patents for the sole purpose of enforcing them. So in that respect, Masimo is not a troll because they are producing products that they hold patents for.4. Treat other company’s IP (especially patents) with the same respect that they want their IP treated with — so long as those other companies are NOT patent trolls (Masimo is not a troll).
The age of the patent only really matters when it expires. Apple asserted their 20-year-old patent on identifying phone numbers, emails and addresses (or other patterns) in otherwise unstructured text and making the recognized patterns into actionable buttons/links against Google & Samsung circa 2010. That patent seemed pretty obvious in 2010 but circa 1990 before web links were really a thing, Apple used it to let you add contacts and send emails on a Mac.The issue here is that the Masimo patents in question are nearly 20 years old and did not explicitly anticipate the Apple Watch. It is true that in legal terms Masimo has wrangled those patents after the fact to cover aspects of the Apple Watch
Masimo was not going to settle for just a license. They wanted to participate in the development of the Apple Watch.The age of the patent only really matters when it expires. Apple asserted their 20-year-old patent on identifying phone numbers, emails and addresses (or other patterns) in otherwise unstructured text and making the recognized patterns into actionable buttons/links against Google & Samsung circa 2010. That patent seemed pretty obvious in 2010 but circa 1990 before web links were really a thing, Apple used it to let you add contacts and send emails on a Mac.
I am just saying if Apple’s legal team wants to assert their patents that way then they don’t get sympathy when they cry foul because it happens to them. I’d wager Apple could have bought a perpetual license to Masimo’s patents for less than they spent on their lawyers and lost in profit from people like me who won’t upgrade or upgrade to a resale Apple Watch. Most importantly, Apple is NOT doing what is right for their consumers but rather their investors. Apple should negotiate a settlement for the sake of their customers.
In any event, there is nothing wrong with asserting your own patents and challenging everyone else's.
Participate in the development?!?! Masimo has a history of licensing their patents for royalties (very similar to IBM). Where are you getting this information from? Apple never even sat down to negotiate with them according to all reports I read. Plus Masimo has a new CEO and Apple still has not been open to negotiations since that happened.Masimo was not going to settle for just a license. They wanted to participate in the development of the Apple Watch.
As far as the age of the patents, the claims in the Masimo patent are nothing like the Apple patents you mentioned. In any event, there is nothing wrong with asserting your own patents and challenging everyone else's.
The former CEO made public statements to the effect of "the only way Masimo would agree to a license is if Masimo was involved in developing SPO2 tech with Apple." He was suggesting that Apple wasn't doing SP02 sensing well enough for Masimo to put their stamp of approval on it. He was also upset about Apple "poaching" engineers.Participate in the development?!?! Masimo has a history of licensing their patents for royalties (very similar to IBM). Where are you getting this information from? Apple never even sat down to negotiate with them according to all reports I read. Plus Masimo has a new CEO and Apple still has not been open to negotiations since that happened.