Indeed. While I have heard unsubstantiated claims Massimo wanted over $100 per watch, claims based on FRAND patents say this would have been closer to $10-20 per watch.
Evidently this judgement works out to just under $15 per infringing watch.
Masimo’s patents aren’t FRAND, so they weren’t obligated to price a license "fair and reasonably". What’s always struck me though is that I’ve never seen a single comment from Joe Kiani offering Apple a licensing deal (for that matter, even using the word "licensing"). He talks about “improving their product,” “honest dialogue,” and “win-win settlements,” but never licensing terms. That doesn’t sound like someone pushing for a standard royalty arrangement.
If he had offered one at a sane price, Apple probably would have taken it. After all, they license tech constantly. Instead, the whole thing moved into the courts, where most of Masimo’s asserted patents ended up invalidated. I assume Apple had experts telling them that would happen, and I’m sure Masimo had the same warnings.
This is why I think (I've read it from others as well) Kiani was after something bigger than a royalty, a manufacturing/development partnership, or even getting Apple interested in acquiring Masimo. Either way, it would have been personally lucrative for him and opened a massive new market for the company.
So they fought it out legally, which is exactly what companies are supposed to do when they disagree on IP. If you think Masimo’s patent is valid, this verdict should make you happy and stand as an example of what courts are supposed to do. Apple will appeal (probably), and the damages will may come down. Apple can show there was no "significant" (because who can define "significant") event-driven sales drop when blood oxygen was removed, which speaks to the actual market value of the patent.