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 Updates Website to Highlight Removal of Apple Watch Blood Oxygen Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm surprised that so many people still need help understanding the fundamentals despite it being a much-discussed topic.
Apple has no choice for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, Apple can't license the patent from Masimo. Masimo isn't interested in licensing the patent; they're only interested in a proper shakedown.
Masimo doesn't outright license its patents. Ever.
Masimo only licenses its patents if you also agree to a supply agreement in which they supply the components for you to use and with the strict terms that you use their components and only their components for implementing their patented technology.
Masimo's CEO euphemistically calls this “work[ing] with them to improve their product.”
Apple is not interested in that at all. It would be bad enough if they had to purchase a mountain of components that would collect dust in a warehouse; it's an entirely different thing to have to use those components that, from Apple's perspective, are not only inferior but not even suitable for the Apple Watch's small form factor.
Apple also can only do something once the pending cases have been resolved. Yes, you've read that right; there are multiple cases.
There is a pending case in the District Court for the Central District of California that was going on before the ITC case, Masimo was getting their ass handed to them in that court, and all but one juror was in favor of Apple. But you need a unanimous decision, so it was declared a mistrial with the intent to retry it. Massimo saw the writing on the wall, so they initiated a case with the ITC to try their luck there, stating that "it took too long" to do it through the regular court.
There's also a case Apple started against Masimo for stealing and using trade secrets to create their competing smartwatch product. These trade secrets were gleaned from internal documents Apple had to provide during the discovery of Masimo's case against Apple in California.
Now, there's also the appeal of the ITC decision. The ITC isn't a regular court; it's more like an arbitration process run by a federal agency.
Until (some) of these cases have been resolved, Apple's hands are tied.
There's also the matter of Masimo acting like a patent troll. Masimo consistently sues companies, usually competitors in the same field, while getting numerous patents invalidated to extract payment with the patent + component scheme.
I've lost track of the exact number, but in their efforts to go after Apple, they've lost some odd 16 invalidated patents. In 2023, Masimo got a patent invalidated while going after their competitor, Sotera Wireless; this is after Sotera went after Masimo in 2020, which was in response to Masimo going after Sotera in 2019. Every step along the way, Masimo lost a handful of patents.
Apple has no choice for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, Apple can't license the patent from Masimo. Masimo isn't interested in licensing the patent; they're only interested in a proper shakedown.
Masimo doesn't outright license its patents. Ever.
Masimo only licenses its patents if you also agree to a supply agreement in which they supply the components for you to use and with the strict terms that you use their components and only their components for implementing their patented technology.
Masimo's CEO euphemistically calls this “work[ing] with them to improve their product.”
Apple is not interested in that at all. It would be bad enough if they had to purchase a mountain of components that would collect dust in a warehouse; it's an entirely different thing to have to use those components that, from Apple's perspective, are not only inferior but not even suitable for the Apple Watch's small form factor.
Apple also can only do something once the pending cases have been resolved. Yes, you've read that right; there are multiple cases.
There is a pending case in the District Court for the Central District of California that was going on before the ITC case, Masimo was getting their ass handed to them in that court, and all but one juror was in favor of Apple. But you need a unanimous decision, so it was declared a mistrial with the intent to retry it. Massimo saw the writing on the wall, so they initiated a case with the ITC to try their luck there, stating that "it took too long" to do it through the regular court.
There's also a case Apple started against Masimo for stealing and using trade secrets to create their competing smartwatch product. These trade secrets were gleaned from internal documents Apple had to provide during the discovery of Masimo's case against Apple in California.
Now, there's also the appeal of the ITC decision. The ITC isn't a regular court; it's more like an arbitration process run by a federal agency.
Until (some) of these cases have been resolved, Apple's hands are tied.
There's also the matter of Masimo acting like a patent troll. Masimo consistently sues companies, usually competitors in the same field, while getting numerous patents invalidated to extract payment with the patent + component scheme.
I've lost track of the exact number, but in their efforts to go after Apple, they've lost some odd 16 invalidated patents. In 2023, Masimo got a patent invalidated while going after their competitor, Sotera Wireless; this is after Sotera went after Masimo in 2020, which was in response to Masimo going after Sotera in 2019. Every step along the way, Masimo lost a handful of patents.
What i mean is apple has planned counter strategy should involved Masimo patents considered invalid, thus the resulting import ban and removal of oxygen meter causes Apple lots of damage, later on Apple can sue Masimo for damage compensation, crippling Masimo.
Apple doesn’t determine if a patent is invalid. However, Apple could benefit from an invalid patent.
Apple can hire anyone they want, and Apple looked at this tech and realized it wasn't anything special. O2 sensors are not coved under a patent anymore. Massimo is claiming to own a patent for putting O2 sensors on a wrist device...
There IS an impact to older watches: If you have a series 6 or later that is not under warranty or covered by AppleCare+, Apple is currently refusing to replace a failed battery.
I suspect the reason is they can't disable the sensor and thus would violate the ban. It seems to be over cautious and thus puts customers in a bad spot if they need a battery.
What I don’t understand why is it acceptable to replace a battery with AppleCare but not if you pay out of warranty? Also how will it work using one with the sensor as a trade in for a newer watch will they not accept with the sensor or lower the value for trade in?
and they will do what they can, within the legal boundaries, to invalidate the remaining patents, only time will tell if they succeed
Does Apple replace just the battery or the entire watch? Because Apple is only allowed to replace the watch if it is under warranty. But under the ITC exclusion order Apple is permitted to service and repair the watch out of warranty. Do we have a definitive statement from Apple about the battery replacement policy?
Under warranty Apple I not selling you anything and can provide a fully functional watch. However, battery replacement is a sale and might run afoul of the ban if they replace the watch under an express replacement since you are getting a new watch and not a repair of yours. My guess is they are being careful not to open themselves up to further claims by Massimo of violating the ban ruling.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know any of the details of this dispute. However I strongly suspect this other company (whoever they are) is demanding an unreasonably large payout if they back off. "What's another billion dollars to Apple?" Yes everyone always roots for the underdog and likes to see the rich guy lose. But maybe Apple has paid way too many billions out to vexatious lawsuits before and they're tired of writing these checks. Let's wait and see if this other company can indeed prove their case in court. I suspect they can't, and they're ultimately going to sell their patent to Apple for a fraction of what they're demanding now. Hopefully setting a precedent for similar annoyance suits in the future.
So if my Ultra 2 or series 9 breaks, I can still Applecare+ it and still have my oxygen sensor working?