Stealing ideas is legal. This is a different dispute. Tiny company claims something else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Pausing Sales of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in U.S. Due to Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$6 billion a year in revenue is hardly a tiny company. It’s not Apple sized, no, but it is an entrenched dominant player in the medical devices category (and merits additional scrutiny as a result). There are no “little guys” in this situation.
Come to think of it, if Masimo is so certain their former employees brought Masimo IP to Apple (the crux of their argument that Apple “stole” IP), then why aren’t they filing lawsuits against the specific employees in addition to this? If they’ve got a slam dunk case against Apple, they’d have a slam dunk case against those employees (and it’s pretty common to sue former employees for violating NDAs and stealing trade secrets). I suspect their case isn’t as strong as they present it as.
The patent troll company (I will refuse to call the company by its name since its patent troll) will probably go after the fix Apple made. They just want competition gone. (The Apple Watches)
Apple has never in its history been so concerned about any court ruling that it voluntarily halted sales of any of its products.
The only time in its history of selling iOS based products that any sort of ban was ever temporarily enforced was back in 2012 when the Seoul Central District Court ordered Apple to remove the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 from store shelves in South Korea, ruling that the products infringed on two of Samsung’s telecommunications patents.
Those weren’t even current generation products at the time and the ruling only affected sales of the product in Korea.
The same court also ruled that Samsung had infringed on one of Apple’s patents related to the screen’s bounce-back ability and banned sales of the Galaxy S2 and other products in South Korea. So it wasn’t a simple one sided victory for Samsung either.
Masimo’s case against Apple must be very, very strong for them to voluntarily halt sales of their current generation Apple Watches.
This is, no joke, a big deal.
The only time in its history of selling iOS based products that any sort of ban was ever temporarily enforced was back in 2012 when the Seoul Central District Court ordered Apple to remove the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 1 and iPad 2 from store shelves in South Korea, ruling that the products infringed on two of Samsung’s telecommunications patents.
Those weren’t even current generation products at the time and the ruling only affected sales of the product in Korea.
The same court also ruled that Samsung had infringed on one of Apple’s patents related to the screen’s bounce-back ability and banned sales of the Galaxy S2 and other products in South Korea. So it wasn’t a simple one sided victory for Samsung either.
Masimo’s case against Apple must be very, very strong for them to voluntarily halt sales of their current generation Apple Watches.
This is, no joke, a big deal.
Doesn’t benefit Masimo in any tangible way to go after its former employees. They don’t have enough money to address the damages and it was always Apple’s responsibility to vet any technology they are producing to ensure they are not in violation of any patents.
I founded and ran patent review committees at multiple Fortune 500 companies. This is very routine business for anyone in software development or manufacturing.
At Samsung we would always review proposed patents internally among our most knowledgeable subject matter experts to identify any possible conflicts and that was before we would send the proposed patents to legal for a formal patent discovery search.
That process would take a little while but it ensured that we were safe from infringement.
Apple being caught with their pants down on this wreaks a bit of novice behavior as a hardware manufacturer. And to be fair they really haven’t been for most of their existence.
Designed in Cupertino usually applies to the selection and assembly of components but not the components themselves. This would usually put the burden on the component suppliers to get all necessary patent applications performed. But with the Apple Watch heart rate sensor and of course their A and M series processors (as well as their Bluetooth, WiFi and 5G chips) Apple is both responsible for the components manufactures which is a deeper level of engineering commitment than they have historically had.
This was bound to happen and likely is or will result in serious reforms in their component design approaches going forward.
Like why don't they sell Apple Watches without the Blood Oxygen Sensors instead, and think of a better alternative for the Blood Oxygen Sensor, from like an Different Company, that is willing to work with them, also allowing to use their patents also without causing any lawsuits in the near future
Someone in the other thread found the specific patents and the contested claims, the patent number is 10,945,648 (contested claims are #24 and #30). The reason Apple doesn’t just find another company is because the patent is overly broad. It’s a patent on the idea of using LEDs and photodiodes to non-invasively measure health factors. It’s basically a patent on the very idea of a pulse oximeter.
They? Who? Masimo isn’t little guy, they bought companies Willy Molly and let go people who have kids and have to pay mortgages. As per the patent trolls who never make any products, I don’t have any sympathy.
According to X Apple has a problem
quote
”Apple is a real bully. Apple + Maximo met for partnership/acquisition talks but Apple had a secret plan (Project Everest) to steal the tech without paying. They even recruited 20 of Masimo’s team, doubling their salaries…. Apple paid their CTO $4M to come over, and in his 1st 2 weeks he filed 12 patents for sensors at Apple that were Masimo trade secrets… the worst part is that Apple fumbled the ball and the product doesn’t really work and Apple didn’t get FDA approval like Masimo did.”
“Joe Kiani, the immigrant electrical engineer CEO of Masimo seems to be fighting this as a vendetta - he’s spent >$60M fighting Apple so far & preliminarily seems to have won… most companies would not keep fighting.”
quote
”Apple is a real bully. Apple + Maximo met for partnership/acquisition talks but Apple had a secret plan (Project Everest) to steal the tech without paying. They even recruited 20 of Masimo’s team, doubling their salaries…. Apple paid their CTO $4M to come over, and in his 1st 2 weeks he filed 12 patents for sensors at Apple that were Masimo trade secrets… the worst part is that Apple fumbled the ball and the product doesn’t really work and Apple didn’t get FDA approval like Masimo did.”
“Joe Kiani, the immigrant electrical engineer CEO of Masimo seems to be fighting this as a vendetta - he’s spent >$60M fighting Apple so far & preliminarily seems to have won… most companies would not keep fighting.”
I did, apparently for you Masimo is a little guy. Not sure how you came up with that conclusion after reading the facts.
I understand that, but the principles of oximetry are well known. We shouldn't have patents for obvious ideas like nails. However, I am no engineer, so I guess my question is what innovative non-trivial invention has formed the basis for the patent? I am quite happy to entertain the possibility that there is such an invention, but the story seems incomplete without knowing what the invention is.
I guess I've seen a lot of damage from drug companies patenting chemical structures (I am a neuroscientist). Once such a patent is granted, all research into making the synthesis less expensive dies on the vine. It is only when the patent runs out that generic drug companies start focusing on efficient manufacture that drives down the cost. I wonder if something similar happens in consumer electronics - patents might actually be reducing competition and innovation.
This is very true with pharma since the drugs don't become obsolete very quickly if at all. By the time a consumer electronics patent expires, the tech is obsolete. Usually it is obsolete within five years of applying for the patent and it can take a year or two to get the patent granted so the patent may only have a few years of value. Keep in mind that most non-pharma patents just collect dust in a drawer and only a few get asserted or licensed.
Yes. Reducing competition (or profiting from it) is very specifically what patents are for. It's a contrived reward for going first. Though, as indicated by other (wiser) posters here, the Patent system itself is kinda patchy when it comes to more modern life-tech-workflows.
I'm not a neuroscientist. I'm a capitalistpig. However I wish Healthcare was incentivized some way other than industrialization. I'd be perfectly happy to redirect investment to Mining, Oil and Munitions. And Porsche.
It may not have been mentioned here yet, but it is worth noting that ITC investigations are administrative not judicial (and in the U.S. everyone is entitled to due process in the courts). The outcome in federal court could be different including the expected appeal, which uses a different standard of review for administrative tribunals.
I think Apple is not ready to pay Masimo yet because there is still a chance the patent claims could be invalidated in court and/or the court could determine that the product does not infringe. Whether that is a sound business decision or not I am in no position to assess.
I think Apple is not ready to pay Masimo yet because there is still a chance the patent claims could be invalidated in court and/or the court could determine that the product does not infringe. Whether that is a sound business decision or not I am in no position to assess.