Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
When will Apple Man up, come to a licensing agreement with Massimo to return the blood oxygen sensor to US users or innovate around the disputed patent in question…

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. Part of the case was thrown out of court by the judge. Last year, the jury ended deliberations with no verdict, but was 6-1 in favor of Apple. In other words, 6 out of 7 people who’ve heard the details of case side with Apple.

Why doesn’t the CEO of Masimo man up and admit he is wrong?
 
Here's the thing ... Does the "troll" as you called them, own the IP and is Apple using their IP without compensating them.
That's not how these things work. The "troll" owns SOME IP in the general area of interest. They then review the products out there that have functions that MAY BE violating one or more claims in the patent. Typically they won't know enough about the internals of the product to know for certain. And, unless Apple attempted to patent the same technology, and did an extensive patent search because of that, there's no way Apple engineers would even know about this patent. Typically, the patent "troll" won't have invested the time and money required to determine whether the actual product violated the claims. They will just assert that the claims were violated, and hope for either: a gullible or sympathetic judge and/or jury; the defendant company just pays them off to avoid the cost of litigation; or, maybe they will be lucky and discovery will reveal an actual violatio .
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus
At least Apple (and others) had the good sense to set up a separate company to patent troll for them.

Rockstar was a player from about 2012 to 2014, set up as a tactic to protect certain players (Apple and others) already in the mobile phone business and impede others (used mainly against Android/Google/Samsung). That's 10 years ago, and it no longer exists-- the trading symbol, SPEX, has been delisted from NASDAQ. You would also find that the links in that Wikipedia article mostly go nowhere and the link to the Rockstar website opens a generic page in Vietnamese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus
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.
 
Last edited:
I was considering upgrading my 5-year-old watch because I like some of the features of the high-end ones. But, I won’t give up the blood-oxygen sensor and I won’t wear two watches.
I bought my Ultra 2 just before the ruling took effect, so it has the blood oxygen monitoring. If you look for an Ultra 2 manufactured before the ruling took effect, that watch will still have blood oxygen monitoring. It has been updated several times, and this feature has not been affected (as I initially feared it might — I tested on my old Watch 7).
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus
Agreeing to licensing terms doesn’t mean they have to stop appealing the decision and accept what the lower courts decided.

It is the US International Trade Commission that issued the order upon a complaint by Masimo’s CEO. Masimo filed complaints in several different venues to extract the maximum pain from Apple. Masimo is even trying to seize patents issued to an Apple employee so that it can steal IP from others and boost its claims in its scheme against Apple.

This whole thing is extortion assisted by a broken patent system and a political bureaucracy. I’m okay not upgrading my watch until this whole thing goes away. I’m not okay with feeding the trolls.
 
It is the US International Trade Commission that issued the order upon a complaint by Masimo’s CEO. Masimo filed complaints in several different venues to extract the maximum pain from Apple. Masimo is even trying to seize patents issued to an Apple employee so that it can steal IP from others and boost its claims in its scheme against Apple.

This whole thing is extortion assisted by a broken patent system and a political bureaucracy. I’m okay not upgrading my watch until this whole thing goes away. I’m not okay with feeding the trolls.

Particularly egregious here is that Masimo actually essentially lost in court before they tried the trade commission. It is the very definition of throwing **** against the real looking for something to stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus
A pending patent should be able to be gotten on a concept that hasn't been completed yet, but yeah, there needs to be a time limit to produce an actual product to retain that patent.

I have had LOTS of ideas that I could have patented but don't have the resources to create the ideas into a real product. Crazy to think that could be patented and when someone else comes up with the idea I could sue for millions.
It's the American way. Look to get rich by suing someone else.
 
Rockstar was a player from about 2012 to 2014, set up as a tactic to protect certain players (Apple and others) already in the mobile phone business and impede others (used mainly against Android/Google/Samsung). That's 10 years ago, and it no longer exists-- the trading symbol, SPEX, has been delisted from NASDAQ. You would also find that the links in that Wikipedia article mostly go nowhere and the link to the Rockstar website opens a generic page in Vietnamese.
Hence my use of the word HAD.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.