Apple May Sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Watches Without Blood Oxygen App in U.S. Amid Patent Dispute

[Sarpent]

The “We are all experts” crowd is in the house.

I'm willing to guess that MacRumors is read by some really smart people -- many, many of which write some seriously complicated computer code for a living -- and I've never worked with a developer who I believe couldn't understand something as simple as a pulse oximeter.

Beyond that, my cardiologist asks me for my EKG pdfs and my pulse oximeter readings at my bi-yearly telehealth meetings. He doesn't seem to be threatened by this tech, and actually embraces it. I would want it no other way.

 

[japanime]

Yes, it's a software fix.

I think the technical term is "bork." 😉

 

[Naraxus]

Skirting the patent rather than doing what's right and paying Masimo for their infringment. Typical Apple. Steal other's tech, claim victim & cry foul, litigate the infringed company & then settle for far less than they should be.

Such a scuzzy company

 

[darkslide29]

I see some (joking?) comments that European Apple Watch 9s will be sold at a premium since they’d be unaffected.

I’m American with a U.S. Apple ID account, but my wife bought me an Apple Watch 9 from a Canadian Apple Store. Can anyone help me interpret what this means for me? Or is it too early to tell?

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

I’m wondering what this does to the AppleWatch X for this year. Hopefully they’ll fix it by then so the sensor suite can be utilised fully with all the bells and whistles they’ve saved for this release.

Or they buy Masimo…

They aren't buying them .....

 

[Aenean144]

Apple Insider CrabApplePrime has confirmed a Leaked rendering of Apple Watch Ultra 3

View attachment 2336926

Heh, this is literally the idea in one of the images in Masimo's '648 patent that the ITC says Apple infringes on. It's actually more infringing than the standalone Apple Watch. Masimo's example drawings are all of a finger clamp form factor. A watch form factor wasn't something they wanted to, or was thinking of doing, at the time of filing if the patent drawings are any indication. It's the job of both the patent writer and the patent examiner to have the patent apply to any and all ideas, not implementation, but ideas so that they capture as much of the market as possible.

Apple can just get out of it by not using a protrusion, but something convex and conformal. Or using one LED, or challenge what is meant by an individual emitter or receptor. Or they could win the patent court case and it goes away.

 

[iGeneo]

If Apple can get caught for one feature, one may wonder if it may be caught for other features. Who knows.
If Apple removes that feature via a software update, expect a massive class action lawsuit. iWatch owners will want compensation for any loss of function they paid for.
Apple should've just paid the royalty fees.
Let's see how the rest of the trial goes.

Look two posts above yours....

 

[GooseInTheCaboose]

Does this take effect immediately?

I was thinking of upgrading my Apple Watch to the 9 but hadnt gotten around to it yet.

If I buy it soon will the blood O2 monitor still work?

That was one of the key features for me

 

[iGeneo]

Does this take effect immediately?

I was thinking of upgrading my Apple Watch to the 9 but hadnt gotten around to it yet.

If I buy it soon will the blood O2 monitor still work?

That was one of the key features for me

Buy now... yes, it will still work

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

Thank you for the heads-up! Very much appreciate it.

It's rare when a true expert or physician weighs in here, leaving most to speculate as fact without any science backing it up.

I’m happy to see that too. Just dont throw out the baby with the bath water. My old Series 4 alerted me to AFIB I had no idea I had. I’m like… this has to be wrong. Nope.. doctor and cardiologist verified. Paroxysmal AFIB. Stuck for a long time, cardioversion didn’t fix it, I think it came back once and has been gone since then. I’m still on blood thinners just in case. If I need to check my pulse ox I have a finger reader I try and check once a week. Don’t really need it 24x7.

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

Guess I'll just keep my series 7 then, until the dust settles. Or for good, depending on which way it settles.

Yeah.. I was thinking about going to a Series 9 just because I have AFIB but it doesn’t look like there’s been any improvements in the EKG.

 

[Techwatcher]

Lawyers watching this massive class action lawsuit formulate in real time

 

[Chuckeee]

Better grandfather previous purchasers. Taking away existing functionality for current users would not be acceptable.

Like peak transmitted power level from French iPhones?

 

[HazeAndHahmahneez]

All the fanbois here disagreeing about the firmware update that gets forced to Airpods Pro Max that downgradend the ANC.

Downgrading performances on their flagship iPhones after a year.

What kind of excuse do you have now?

just two words for you:

WALLED.

GARDEN.

 

[haddy]

If Apple can get caught for one feature, one may wonder if it may be caught for other features. Who knows.
If Apple removes that feature via a software update, expect a massive class action lawsuit. iWatch owners will want compensation for any loss of function they paid for.
Apple should've just paid the royalty fees.
Let's see how the rest of the trial goes.

I don't know how many "iWatch" owners there are, but as I have an Watch, I think I'm okay!

 

[JCCL]

EU imported Apple Watches will be sold with a premium

Probably sourcing them from Mexico or Canada would be smarter though

 

[victorvictoria]

Yeah.. I was thinking about going to a Series 9 just because I have AFIB but it doesn’t look like there’s been any improvements in the EKG.

My little brother has aFib, and the watch (7 like mine) told him he was in aFib. His cardiologist told him, don't worry, it's probably just a one time reading. Two days later he's walking his dog and runs out of breath and barely makes it home. He was hospitalized for 3 days trying to get his rhythm stabilized. He's now had one ablation, two cardioversions, and a Medtronic Watchman implant. The Apple watch was more accurate than his doctor, and saved his family a world of hurt.

 

[1129846]

no, will not be removed on existing (sold) watches. The path Masimo chose (ITC) only affects watches to be sold. had Masimo gone another way, different story ...
And yes, IF Apple chose to remove the functionality (without legally required to do so) - class action suit for sure

They are still going the other route as well. Companies go ITC as well because it tends to go faster and gets a settlement faster. In this case the final settlement could be Apple disabling it on all watches and eating the class action or it settles and pays Masimo a **** you of money.

 

[jz0309]

They are still going the other route as well. Companies go ITC as well because it tends to go faster and gets a settlement faster. In this case the final settlement could be Apple disabling it on all watches and eating the class action or it settles and pays Masimo a **** you of money.

Or, Apple could end up invalidating the remaining 2 patents… who knows, lots of moving pieces.

 

[Born Again]

class action lawsuit in 3 2 1

 

[timborama]

I smell class action against Apple by customers (for removing purchase functionality). Apple is in no-win situation. Thankfully they only have to remove the functionality in the US (which we all know “only affects small number of users™”).

 

[iGeneo]

class action lawsuit in 3 2 1

Why?

 

[STOCK411]

class action lawsuit in 3 2 1

That will only happen if they remove the feature for devices already purchased

 

[canyonblue737]

Many people in this thread are confused about what this means (I'm not saying everyone, but a lot)...

1. Apple wants to prevent a BAN on *NEW SALES*. To do that they appear to be modifying the physical hardware of new shipments of the Series 9 and Ultra 2 which circumvents a ban. I assume they will find a way to make clear at the point of sale that the watch will NOT have SPO2.

2. Apple IS NOT creating a firmware change to turn off SPo2 in existing models with the feature as it has yet to be enforced by a court as the case plays out. The ban was on SALES, it was not an order that Apple turn off the feature in watches they already sold. Apple likely intends to continue to battle this in court and will likely do two things moving forward... 1) make sure when the feature is returned to the Apple Watch it uses new technology that doesn't risk a patent violation perhaps in the new watches later this year or even in the 2025 Watches and 2) if a court punishes Apple for what they have already sold and they run out of Appeals that punishment is unlikely to require turning the feature off previously sold watches but rather a finical punishment or out of court settlement that Apple would pay.

That's how Apple won't get sued... everyone that has an existing watch will get to keep the feature come hell or high water, and Apple will get rid of the feature for newly sold watches until such time as they resolve this in a court or a settlement or by changing the tech.

 

[dotzero123]

I'm fine as long as they don't take away Snoopy.