Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How is it dumb? It’s had zero impact on the previous generations
As a former dev for Apple, I can say the if they ceased on every single dispute at the time of the dispute, we wouldn't have many features. The market for patent trolling is huge out there and everyone casting a wide net hoping for a buck. It's sad really. I think there should be a penalty fee if you file for patent abuse and it is proved you have no case. Would allow companies to truly address the legit patent violations while not worrying about the hundreds and hundreds of false claims.
 
Now just waiting for which app will try to tap into the blood oxygen functionality as a part of their app. Would never make it beyond Apple's app approval team, but will be interesting to see if they truly lock down access to the functionality, or simply stop signing their own app.
 
I bought my Ultra 2 two weeks ago as I thought this would be the outcome, and I wanted to have the working blood O2 sensor. They won’t be disabling it on watches already in consumers’ hands. Just new sales. I’d say upgrade ASAP.
So if you bought a previous model would they be affected? Guess Garmin may be the way to go. Tim has the money to pay for functionality
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
WTF is wrong with AAPL nowadays? They don´t innovate. That has been for sure since 2018. But they are falling behind..
Apple can’t focus on more than one thing it seems. Apple Silicon was quite impressive in the beginning. But now all the focus is on Vision Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle
I read the history of using pulse metering for Oxygen levels, so looking at the wide field of pulse oximeters out there being used, I selected Phillips to see how they made theirs. It was done though a partnership with Masimo.
So Apple at best need to look at the history and see if there is any wiggle room? Given the proliferation of this technology that looks like a lot is Masimo based, its pretty much an error on Apples part to not license it for a few bucks, and just stop the argument. It also predates anything that Apple could have ever developed recently. Below is from Wiki.
======
The first pulse oximetry was developed in 1972 by Japanese bioengineers Takuo Aoyagi and Michio Kishi at Japanese medical electronic equipment manufacturer Nihon Kohden, using the ratio of red to infrared light absorption of pulsating components at the measuring site. Nihon Kohden manufactured the first pulse oximeter, Ear Oximeter OLV-5100. Surgeon Susumu Nakajima and his associates first tested the device in patients, reporting it in 1975.[48] However, Nihon Kohden suspended the development of pulse oximetry and did not apply for a basic patent of pulse oximetry except in Japan, which facilitated further development and utilization of pulse oximetry later in U.S. In 1977, Minolta commercialized the first finger pulse oximeter OXIMET MET-1471. In the U.S., the first pulse oximetry was commercialized by Biox in 1980

By 1987, the standard of care for the administration of a general anesthetic in the U.S. included pulse oximetry.

in 1995, Masimo introduced Signal Extraction Technology (SET) that could measure accurately during patient motion and low perfusion by separating the arterial signal from the venous and other signals. Since then, pulse oximetry manufacturers have developed new algorithms to reduce some false alarms during motion,[53] such as extending averaging times or freezing values on the screen, but they do not claim to measure changing conditions during motion and low perfusion. So there are still important differences in performance of pulse oximeters during challenging conditions.[18] Also in 1995, Masimo introduced perfusion index, quantifying the amplitude of the peripheral plethysmograph waveform. Perfusion index has been shown to help clinicians predict illness severity and early adverse respiratory outcomes in neonates,[54][55][56] predict low superior vena cava flow in very low birth weight infants,[57] provide an early indicator of sympathectomy after epidural anesthesia,[58] and improve detection of critical congenital heart disease in newborns
Sounds like fairly obvious and trivial 'innovations' to me. 'SET' sounds like straightforward digital signal processing of some sort and the 'perfusion index' sounds suspiciously like simple mathematical integration, but I am no expert. I presume one cannot patent the correlations between measurements and clinical outcomes per se, but these days it seems like the Patent Office would patent 2+2=4.
 
It’s not like this is an important feature. How often do you check your oxygen levels?
Readings from a smartwatch are unlikely to be very accurate in terms of absolute value. However, if recordings are taken over the long term, they can indicate a change in health status. Many years ago I had chest pains from pulmonary emboli but it was dismissed by my GP as a cold. After struggling for weeks with pain, breathlessness and fatigue, I would up being taken by ambulance to an emergency room in shock after nearly collapsing from air hunger. Admittedly Apple does not sell the pulse oximeter on the Apple Watch as a medical device, but surely if your SpO2 was dropping meaningfully and you had symptoms, you'd likely seek professional medical advice and you might be taken more seriously (emboli are often misdiagnosed, which is why I didn't sue my GP into the Stone Age). For people like me who are prone to lung damage, the pulse oximeter is just a good casual way of seeing of anything has changed. I wish I had something like an Apple Watch back then as an early warning system - it might have prevented a lot of damage.
 
The fact that they kept selling and even introducing two more generations after the dispute was already filed in 2021 (if I am not mistaken?) is kind of dumb on Apples part tbh
Why is it dumb? Apple doesn't believe the patents are valid and is challenging the patents in Court. What is dumb is that the our system allows for import bans when the fate of the at issue patents have not been resolved in court (the ITC is not a court). There is a strong possibility that at least some of the patents will be invalidated based on Apple's luck in court so far. The import ban itself is also stupid because if the courts eventually determine Apple violated the patents, the courts will order Apple to pay damages, which is an appropriate resolution of the matter since the alleged patent holder has indicated that it is willing to enter into a licensing agreement with Apple.
 
I'd be very surprised.

The patents cover specific hardware designs for the sensors. The ITC opposition document lays out what is covered.

Nothing short of a complete redesign of the Apple Watch hardware would fix anything.

That is Masimo's view, but even if accurate, invalidating the patents would fix the problem. That is the main approach Apple is taking with some success.
 
Will this impact current devices that have already been sold? Anyone know?

It won't impact devices already sold which is why Apple is still selling them. The only impact will be to Apple is it loses its case in court. Apple will then have to pay damages.
 
I see only one problem here - repairing actual working S9 +
Ultras will lead to being given new AW without functional Blood Oxygen sensor.

Or am I wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glideslope
Only if Apple would admit fault and pay their dues for using someone else’s technology.

At least it’s not a patent troll that’s giving them grief.
It is for the US Patent Office and the courts to determine whether or not Apple is using somebody else technology. Apple has had some success at both the US Patent's Office and the Courts arguing the patents should not have been issued. You are right though that it isn't a patent troll giving Apple trouble. However, it doesn't make much difference because seeking an import ban was a strategic decision in hopes of pressuring Apple to settle the court action seeking to invalid the patents and get Apple to license the technology. The is a similar approach that a patent troll would take.
 
Long before Apple put this feature in their latest watches, I bought a pulse oximeter from Amazon on the advice of my brother who owns a company that prototypes medical instruments and has developed several oxygen level instruments for labs and research. I have tried several times and always get a 98% reading, so it sits in the drawer next to me. I agree with the doctor, it should removed from watch and move on. Anyone that wants that feature, get one from Amazon.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR and Chuckeee
I love how patent trolls and lawyers prioritize money over possibly saving human lives. Apple should just pay the ransom and settle.
Ransomeware operators used to avoiding targeting hospitals and other medical institutions for "ethical" reasons (can't call ransomware operators ethical). No longer. They actively target hospitals now due to poor security in a lot of cases as well as the victim's extreme need to keep their systems operational.
 
Sure makes one curious back on 10.1 when many (that had it on the watch face) lost the O2 complication on our watches. Then had it restored in 10.1.1. 😉

Maybe! It could also be like when Lego Mario toys started to promote buying Luigi. They knew it was coming so might as well add them upfront.
 
It’s not like this is an important feature. How often do you check your oxygen levels?

That's not a great excuse. If you buy a product with a feature you expect to get that feature, regardless if you use it or not. Imagine buying a car with 500 hp and turns out it just had 350, "but you never use the last 150 anyway".
 
  • Wow
Reactions: xgman
I'm probably wrong, but I swear I read that the patents in questions expire in 2025 or 2028, is this correct?
 
So Apple can just bring that feature back then, correct?
Technically yes, after the patents expire they are in the public domain for anyone to use. What Apple ends up doing is still unclear but I'd bet they will come to some arrangement with the patent owner before then, if that becomes necessary, or redesign the watch so these patents are no longer an issue, rather than disabling the feature for the next four or five years.
 
Technically yes, after the patents expire they are in the public domain for anyone to use. What Apple ends up doing is still unclear but I'd bet they will come to some arrangement with the patent owner before then, if that becomes necessary, or redesign the watch so these patents are no longer an issue, rather than disabling the feature for the next four or five years.
That's what I was thinking. Thanks again.
 
FWIW appendix from Apple's brief filed with the court yesterday 1/15.

stanford_watch.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.