This is more complicated than characterizing Apple as not wanting to own up to illegal behavior. It is more about Masimo viewing Apple as a huge company from which to extort money.
I never said Apple engaged in illegal behavior, nor did I characterize them as doing so nor did I say they needed to make any kind of public or private admission that they did so since this is still an ongoing case.
Agreeing to licensing terms doesn’t mean they have to stop appealing the decision and accept what the lower courts decided. It means they reach a deal whereby they license the technology and if the appeal goes their way they can then take Massimo to court (and they’d unquestionably win) to recoup the fees they paid in error. There’s a very good chance Massimo won’t want add to their legal bills and wind up paying Apple more than they otherwise would have to if that matter went to court. If Apple ultimately wins then Massimo has to pay them back the money they obtained from them under false pretenses. No judge or jury would rule otherwise and if Apple did have to take them to court they could sue them for damages and to recoup their court costs for even having to file a lawsuit to get paid back.
If Massimo won’t play ball unless Apple admits to something that is still being adjudicated in court, and I’m guessing that their shareholders would demand that they don’t go there and that they take the money instead, but if they don’t then there are still other ways Apple can handle this that doesn’t involve screwing the consumers by taking away functionality or admitting to wrong doing. Apple could approach another smart health tracker with the technology and license it from them until the court case is over. Apple could also actually innovate and come up with their own solution. Even if somebody else tried to sue them under false pretenses by the time that made its way through the courts the outcome of the Massimo case would be known. Since the patents in question expire in either 2027 or 2028 Apple could simply roll with another solution outlined above and switch back to the sensor and software in dispute when the patent comes off the books.
That they won’t do any of those things even though they have the resources to isn’t a good look for Apple. It’s kind of a giant middle finger to their US customers. It’s insulting to ask somebody to pay to upgrade their device to one that does less than an older, now much less expensive version of the same device can do. Thanks but no thanks. If I do upgrade my 7 it’ll be to the older version of the Series 9 or Ultra 2 without the software block in place.
They have more than enough money to end this and recoup their expenses if they are proven right in court. If they don’t want to then they should pay somebody else to license their technology or come up with a way to do it that doesn’t violate any other patents and doesn’t require them to pay anybody anything because not only can they easily afford it but it’s the right thing to do for it’s US customers until the court battle has played out.
A company Apple’s size could even make a version that customers could order directly from them that is bundled with a license fee to Maximo that allows the user to turn the sensor back on. Apple could build the cost of the licensing fee into that version plus toss another Apple Tax on top of it. Give the customers what they want. I’d happily drop another $50 to $100 for a version with the sensor re-enabled. If they win and get Maximo to pay them back they could pay the difference back to their customers in Apple Store credit and make even more on a sale of another piece of hardware or an accessory or two.
en.wikipedia.org
