Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The patents Masimo are claiming that Apple infringed include one that describes a non-invasive device that produces and is responsive to light based signals responsive to analytes in blood communicating to a “monitor” which may include handheld computing devices like a mobile phone (among other examples) see US patent 10945648B2.

I’m just a simple caveman. I don’t understand technology and your world scares me, but I do know that Masimo has owns a patent and that the Apple Watch has functions that are covered by that patent.
 
Same people who hating on the EU for asking Apple to not open up it's platform are now mad at Masimo for (checks notes) not opening up theirs?
 
Surely the key question is does Apple's solution actually get around Massimo's patents? If it does then no problem with relaxing the ban. If it doesn't, then another infringement case is looming (with a likely much higher fine for Apple if it looses).
If the patent is for on device, absolutely. The watch is now basically a sensor like you could buy from dozens of companies. But even those non-Masimo companies do the blood ox on device without a license.

The question is why Masimo is targeting Apple, and why other companies aren’t targeted.
 
The patents Masimo are claiming that Apple infringed include one that describes a non-invasive device that produces and is responsive to light based signals responsive to analytes in blood communicating to a “monitor” which may include handheld computing devices like a mobile phone (among other examples) see US patent 10945648B2.

I’m just a simple caveman. I don’t understand technology and your world scares me, but I do know that Masimo has owns a patent and that the Apple Watch has functions that are covered by that patent.
Masimo’s patent is too broad as described here. Should be limited or struck.
 
Actually I have a relative for whom it played a vital role in extending their life. It identified that they were experiencing episodes of tachycardia. Basically their heart beat was consistently too fast leading to low blood oxygen. That trend observed over time was what lead to them getting help during a more extreme episode. They ended up on blood thinners.

Why this was so useful is that they had dementia. Originally we got the watch for them due to their risk of falls. They couldn’t take active readings easily and not without assistance. But the ability for the watch to do it passively in the background was how their condition was identified. Heck we never would have known to take blood oxygen readings. Or even know what this condition was. We hadn’t heard of it.

My family members case is more of an edge case. But if this technology helps even a small number of people, then it’s worth having. I wouldn’t go as far as calling Masimo a patent troll. I also don’t agree with companies allegedly stealing other peoples work. But I do know the impact of this feature is real and hopefully a solution is found to the dispute soon. Because it really can make a difference.
Tachycardia doesn't cause hypoxia. It can be a response to something causing hypoxia. And tachycardia can be detected without a pulse ox. If they were put on blood thinners, most likely they detected afib. Which the watch can do without a pulse oximeter. Or they found a PE, which a lack of hypoxia doesn't rule out in anyway regardless.

Whether or not it's appropriate to put a demented patient prone to falls on blood thinners... that's a discussion I'll leave to the family and docs involved.
 
why did it take Apple 2 years to come up with the brilliant work around of....just show the results on iPhone only.
Because that’s not what they did. They developed a way to transmit the raw data from the sensors to the phone and then do all the calculations to convert the raw data to Ox% on the phone. It is the moving of the calculations to the phone as well as the display of the result on the phone that is important.
 
A pulse ox doesn’t really save lives at a hospital much less on phone. They are very inconsistent based on the finger, the temperature of the skin etc
My statement is 100% factual whether you like it or not . I’ve been an RT for 15 years, trust Apple isn’t saving lives, they are playing bully as usual
 
Why hasn’t Apple just developed their own algorithms in the past 2 years instead of being in litigation for so long and denying this feature to their customers. Fitbit, Garmin, etc have found their own way to do this without Massimo tech, so why can’t one of the worlds biggest companies do it too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaladinGuy
I don't get it. If there wasn't some agreement being made behind the scenes with Massimo, then why did it take Apple 2 years to come up with the brilliant work around of....just show the results on iPhone only.

In the complaint, it says Apple tried proposing this exact method of offloading processing to the iPhone before in January 2025 but was denied by CBP.

The rest of the complaint is redacted, but it appears the 24K gold trophy Tim Cook provided earlier this month made a difference. CBP immediately changed their minds and ruled differently when Apple presented the same idea again.
 
I read the entire ruling on this and it seemed to imply that the decision was made with Masimo's knowledge. I may have misunderstood, those sections possibly referred to earlier proceedings. If that is the case, the new decision was made in light of reconsidering arguments made in the original case for the import ban and their implications for what Apple is allowed to import (namely, iPhones and Apple Watches that are not capable of both taking and calculating an SpO2 reading independently of each other can be imported as separate units). Masimo is (understandably) irritated that the original decision's implications have been ruled on in a way they don't like, but nothing fishy is going on here.
 
The patents Masimo are claiming that Apple infringed include one that describes a non-invasive device that produces and is responsive to light based signals responsive to analytes in blood communicating to a “monitor” which may include handheld computing devices like a mobile phone (among other examples) see US patent 10945648B2.

I’m just a simple caveman. I don’t understand technology and your world scares me, but I do know that Masimo has owns a patent and that the Apple Watch has functions that are covered by that patent.
You need to look at the claims of the patent to see what is protected. Hint: not everything described in the patent is protected. The claims are fairly narrow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
I have nothing new to add to this vs the other day when we already covered all this.

It is sort of “fun” watching people contort themselves into a pretzel to defend the Apple position in a different way in each thread and/or topic with updated news or when a new twist comes along.

👍😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
Tachycardia doesn't cause hypoxia. It can be a response to something causing hypoxia. And tachycardia can be detected without a pulse ox. If they were put on blood thinners, most likely they detected afib. Which the watch can do without a pulse oximeter. Or they found a PE, which a lack of hypoxia doesn't rule out in anyway regardless.

Whether or not it's appropriate to put a demented patient prone to falls on blood thinners... that's a discussion I'll leave to the family and docs involved.
I didn’t say the Tachycardia necessarily caused the hypoxia. The hypoxia was a symptom of a very fast heart beat relating to Tachycardia. But from what I understand it does work both ways.

Respectfully I think I’d rather trust clinical decisions relating to medication choices to medical professionals. Considering it supported my family member to live a couple more years, I’d say we feel very good about that choice.

The point is that the trend in the low blood oxygen data over time lead to us seeking clinical diagnosis. We likely wouldn’t have had the diagnosis without it since we didn’t know to take those measurements. It was only due to that data that we ever sought further intervention.

What’s fascinating about this article is so many posters are ignorant to the concept that some people will and do benefit from this feature. It’s all about progressing their own argument rather than showing any interest in the idea that this technology may help somebody that isn’t them…
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
Considering how they often buy a company to use some tech, but then never improve it and shut down half the stuff (stuff like Dark Sky or Siri), I think that would be terrible for the medical industry. I doubt Apple have much interest in all the other medical industry devices they make but people no doubt depend on their stuff.
Apple likes to buy competing companies on the cheap unless they are forced to buy high which was the case when they bought Intel’s modem division for $1 Billion. Cook 🧑‍🍳 generally likes to stay away from multi-billion dollar acquisitions. Apple still has not bought ChatGPT or Perplexity AI. Cook 🧑‍🍳 thinks he can build his own LLM. Cook 🧑‍🍳 will ride this Workaround Masimo’s patent until 2028 when the patent expires.
 
The blood oxygen feature was added during the COVID pandemic when folks were paranoid about their oxygenation levels. Now, not so much.
 
Surely the key question is does Apple's solution actually get around Massimo's patents? If it does then no problem with relaxing the ban. If it doesn't, then another infringement case is looming (with a likely much higher fine for Apple if it looses).
It is patent at this point I belive all the rest have voided and this one will most likely end the same way once it works its way through the courts.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.