So it is ok to steal if the results are really useful?
So it is ok to steal if the results are really useful?
If it is in the public interest, the courts have said "yes" to this question before in other contexts. Like it or not. And yes, that is one of Apple's arguments here (they also have technical arguments that the Watch doesn't infringe and that the patents are invalid).So it is ok to steal if the results are really useful?
See, that is the thing about patents. You don’t have to steal to violate a patent. Independent work is still covered by a patent.So it is ok to steal if the results are really useful?
And they’ll continue to sell the watch at the same price as the one that has the functionality enabled because the hardware is the same?
This is so true.See, that is the thing about patents. You don’t have to steal to violate a patent. Independent work is still covered by a patent.
Usually when there are patent conflicts the companies negotiate and reach a settlement. For some reason that hasn’t happened here.
Tyler Durden would be so proud of you.I just bought a condo. And across the street, the same development firm built new condos with just slightly faster elevators. That’s so stupid! I’m not selling my unit just to move across the street for faster elevators and a slightly nicer lobby! 😉 /sarc
Pretty much.And they’ll continue to sell the watch at the same price as the one that has the functionality enabled because the hardware is the same?
Yes they are all affected.Can anyone tell me if there is a difference in the blood oxygen sensor in my Titanium S7 vs my U2?
Seems the exact same to me. Have the sensors changed at all since they were first introduced in the S6??
Is the media only focused on the S9 and U2 because they are the current watches sold by Apple, but technically there are 4 generation of watches that are affected by the same patent issues?
I am not sure how a feature is classified as a 'key part of marketing', but the SpO2 measurement is listed as a feature of Apple watches on the Apple web site (at least in the UK) as one of five 'Powerful health features'. The population is ageing and us older folk like having systems that could detect health problems before they get out of hand. Would a non-functioning SpO2 sensor be a deal-breaker for me? Yes. Smartwatches from Garmin, Corros, etc. have SpO2 monitoring....
Third, blood oxygen monitoring was never a key part of the Apple Watch's marketing, so I don't see watch sales being materially impacted by this.
...
As far as we know, all Apple Watches use the same blood oxygen sensor. So far, the court case is focusing only on the current models.Does the original Ultra use the same sensor and technology? Or am I using a different technology on my Ultra?
Is the software "fix" in firmware or the OS? Far as I know, there are dozens of pulse oximeters that use a firmware, part of which is licensed from Maismo. Looks like Cuppertino is all about their profit margins and won't bend at all. And here I was contemplating buying one of their watches... but NOOOOOOOO.
Apple’s US website has been updated to explain that “Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 no longer include the Blood Oxygen feature.” We later discovered that the revised models without the feature have part numbers ending in “LW/A.” But is Apple really shipping new hardware without the blood oxygen sensor?
Apparently not. 9to5Mac found out that Apple remotely updated a system file responsible for managing the availability of health features by region. The update disables the blood oxygen feature for any Apple Watch models with the identifier “LW/A,” which probably means that Apple could reverse this in the future.
I'll be pissed if they make a software update that disables the capability on my ULTRA 2 after I already bought it. There is a Steve Jobs precedent for them doing this many years ago. There was a "simple, unimportant bug fix" Steve said. It removed the capability of downloading MP3 files from Napster.
Previous models which have the technology will still retain the blood monitoring functionality. Only new Apple Watch devices in sold the US are prohibited from using the tech. Someone wrote though, that if your earlier devices are not covered by applecare or warranty, they may not be able to repair them, but that doesn’t make sense to me. e aSo 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 functionalitySo 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
Previous models which have the technology will still retain the blood monitoring functionality. Only new Apple Watch devices in sold the US are prohibited from using the tech. Someone wrote though, that if your earlier devices are not covered by applecare or warranty, they may not be able to repair them, but that doesn’t make sense to me. e a
Like, I have an Apple Watch 7 with the blood sensor, I don’t expect that to change.
Ditto for the new Ultra 2 I bought over the holidays. If you did want to get one, other stores can still sell their remaining stock WITH the sensor enabled. But that clock is running down…
You are right, that could happen, and everyone with a series 9 - 7 watch could lose this functionality. I don’t think that is what Apple will do, as it would certainly result in mass consumer outcry and likely class action lawsuits. LOL. I’m sure they’re carefully considering next steps, especially as someone(plural someones) really f**cked up on this.But if what is being reported is correct, the switch for this is in the OS, which makes it probable that the new S9s being sold could have it switched on at any time; or conversely, the next OS update could switch the others off, just by enabling an IF or CASE statement around the model numbers. That's why the next OS release will tell a lot about what will happen with not only the previous models, but the S9 and U2 models bought before the bans went into effect.
BL.
No, they have always had the option to license the patented technology that Apple allegedly infringed. If they made a deal on the fee, they could resume selling watches with the SPO2 tech again in a blink.End of the day they will have to disable it …..Probably this year Apple Watch won’t even have the sensor. …..
That’s not true. A holder of a patent is under no obligation whatsoever to license their technology.No, they have always had the option to license the patented technology that Apple allegedly infringed. If they made a deal on the fee, they could resume selling watches with the SPO2 tech again in a blink.