Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

jz0309

Contributor
Sep 25, 2018
10,191
26,679
SoCal
And it was only hung because one juror sided with Masimo, the rest all went for Apple. I expect on appeal they'll manage to get all of them.
Thing is, appeals, trials are not really predictable and take time.
When customers don’t get their out if warranty AWs (6,7,8,9, Ultra/2) repaired anymore it will hurt Apple much more than Masimo…
Sure, the financial impact not selling these AWs is not significant for Apple…
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR

MNGR

Contributor
Sep 17, 2019
304
418
This is what happens when you have a leader that only understands money and not technology.

I mean, when is the board going to stand up and say, "You mean we can't sell a product that you spent $100 million developing because you forgot to check the patents?"
No. Despite the ruling Apple does not use Masimo's technology. And reportedly the demands are for an obscene amount.
But IMO, the principle is don't give 8n to extortion.
 

raythompsontn

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2023
592
792
While I don't like patent battles either, patent battles affirm the value of patents as legal instruments to protect inventions while at the same time publish them.
I understand the need for patents as the vehicle to protect the ideas of companies and people. You stated patents are good for the consumer. Perhaps, but patent battles are never good for the consumer.

However, in this case the consumer loses. The watches are not for sale. Watches out of warranty cannot be fixed. The consumer loses.

If the company owning the patent wins, the consumer will be faced with higher costs. The costs paid in penalties, royalties and legal fees are never paid by the company losing the patent battle. The costs are paid by the consumer. The consumer will no longer has a useful feature or the prices for the products are higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jz0309

Naraxus

macrumors 68020
Oct 13, 2016
2,105
8,545
I wasn't aware companies owned their employees for all time. That's a new one for me.
You know perfectly well what he was refering to so just stop with obfuscation. He never said companies owned their employees, nor did he imply such. He said Apple was caught poaching, which, in and of itself isn't illegal and then suddenly comes out with tech similar to what the poached employees were working on.
 

Xavier

macrumors demi-god
Mar 23, 2006
2,802
1,545
Columbus
I got series 9 a couple days ago.

I was planing to change my cell plan to have a cellular Apple Watch, but needed a new watch. Glad i got it just in time
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleWes

GMShadow

macrumors 68000
Jun 8, 2021
1,814
7,436
You know perfectly well what he was refering to so just stop with obfuscation. He never said companies owned their employees, nor did he imply such. He said Apple was caught poaching, which, in and of itself isn't illegal and then suddenly comes out with tech similar to what the poached employees were working on.

Were they supposed to work in housekeeping?

There was a trial on that claim which Masimo didn't win, and only managed to convince one dim juror enough for a mistrial.
 

bsolar

macrumors 68000
Jun 20, 2011
1,535
1,751
I understand the need for patents as the vehicle to protect the ideas of companies and people. You stated patents are good for the consumer. Perhaps, but patent battles are never good for the consumer.

However, in this case the consumer loses. The watches are not for sale. Watches out of warranty cannot be fixed. The consumer loses.

If the company owning the patent wins, the consumer will be faced with higher costs. The costs paid in penalties, royalties and legal fees are never paid by the company losing the patent battle. The costs are paid by the consumer. The consumer will no longer has a useful feature or the prices for the products are higher.

That's only if you take "patent battles" and evaluate them in a vacuum, but patent battles are intrinsically bound to the patent protections offered by the legal instrument so you need to evaluate the bad together with the good. You cannot have a legal protection without a way to enforce said protection, otherwise the protection would be moot.

Take this case: without patents would you even have the technology in question available? It might not even exist without a way for companies to protect their investment in the research required to discover it.

The alternative to the legal battle would not necessarily be a cheap smartwatch with the invention in it, because that exists only due to the patent system functioning the way it does and you cannot have the latter without the former.
 

bsolar

macrumors 68000
Jun 20, 2011
1,535
1,751
There was a trial on that claim which Masimo didn't win, and only managed to convince one dim juror enough for a mistrial.

While the hung jury means Masimo failed to prevail, it still also means the jury did not side unanimously with Apple either. Whether it's the single juror who sided with Masimo the "dim" one or all the others, who knows? There is a reason that kind of verdict requires an unanimous jury and anything else is not enough for either verdicts.

I don't know whether Masimo will retry the case, but it would be in front of a different jury with potentially different evidence and potentially using different arguments. It would be entirely possible for them to prevail even though they didn't in the original case.

Remember: hung jury means you didn't win, but also that you didn't lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR

CarAnalogy

macrumors 601
Jun 9, 2021
4,270
7,876
This just seems like more reason to move as much manufacturing as possible into the United States. ITC can’t ban it if it’s not an import.

Obama asked Steve Jobs about this fifteen years ago and he was told it would take at least ten years to ramp up. Well, nobody did anything and ten years passed and here we are.
 

Kierkegaarden

macrumors 68020
Dec 13, 2018
2,380
4,034
USA
"Finally, Masimo will not suffer any cognizable harm, as it does not sell a competing product in the United States in any meaningful quantities (if at all)," continues Apple's filing. "Tellingly, the Commission's decision acknowledged that Masimo would not suffer any significant monetary harm from a stay."

This is why the ITC decision (and the lack of action by the current administration) is puzzling. Consumers aren’t deciding between Apple and Masimo for a smartwatch purchase — most probably haven’t even heard of Masimo. They work in different markets, so a stay is the very least that should happen. The harm is against Apple and consumers, not Masimo.
 

IIGS User

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2019
1,101
3,084
Well, this is awkward.

Like hosting a Christmas Eve party with your new girlfriend after the divorce became final and your ex showing up because your adult children are all there and she wanted to say merry Christmas kinda awkward…
 
  • Wow
Reactions: gusmula

Sanlitun

macrumors 6502a
Sep 19, 2014
553
565
127.0.0.1
This is what happens when you have a leader that only understands money and not technology.

I mean, when is the board going to stand up and say, "You mean we can't sell a product that you spent $100 million developing because you forgot to check the patents?"

Executive heads should be rolling over this. But they are not. And that sends a weird and slightly unsavory message.
 

ACHD

macrumors regular
Jul 28, 2015
192
332
This is an insane response to a finding of infringement for some minimally important feature that most users probably don’t even know exists. Require a royalty, require Apple to disable the blood ox by software, but don’t ban sales of the entire device. IP law run complexly amok.
Thats because apple refused to do all of them...... Since apple refused all available fixes an import ban is next.

Apple literally caused the import ban
 
  • Like
Reactions: Someyoungguy
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.