Apple Watch Sales Ban Reinstated in U.S. Effective Tomorrow

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Maximo doesn’t seem to want to settle. They are out for blood.

Presumably to measure its oxygen content.

Masimo already said multiple times they would be more than happy to settle. All they want is their patents back that Apple stole and a royalty fee. It really is not that complicated. Apple decided NOT to go that route and would rather take the hard way.

Masimo keen to get a settlement, but Apple won't call

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claims the medical device company is open to a settlement discussion over the upcoming U.S. Apple Watch sales ban, but Apple allegedly hasn't made any moves to do so.

appleinsider.com

 

[jbachandouris]

Best Buy shows sold out and unavailable for online purchase. So much for 3rd parties being able to sell until they run out of stock.

Was looking possibly to buy an Ultra 2 and sell my SS AW9.

 

[uecker87]

Best Buy shows sold out and unavailable for online purchase. So much for 3rd parties being able to sell until they run out of stock.

Was looking possibly to buy an Ultra 2 and sell my SS AW9.

I'm only seeing select models are sold out via Best Buy - the same models that were already sold out a few days ago. I see a handful of Ultra 2 models available for same day pickup and shipping. Obviously it is probably based upon your region.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Masimo already said multiple times they would be more than happy to settle. All they want is their patents back that Apple stole and a royalty fee. It really is not that complicated. Apple decided NOT to go that route and would rather take the hard way.

Masimo keen to get a settlement, but Apple won't call

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claims the medical device company is open to a settlement discussion over the upcoming U.S. Apple Watch sales ban, but Apple allegedly hasn't made any moves to do so.

appleinsider.com

Sure...Masimo is willing to settle for about $5 Billion a year. It's not a serious attempt to settle. But if you want to believe it, against all logic, go right ahead.

 

[ronntaylor]

So then can you list these facts that everyone is missing if they’re so important?

Apple infringed on a patent that was rightfully held by a much smaller company. They blatantly stole it, used it in one of their key products, and didn’t bother to pay royalties. This is what a court has found.

So what are we missing here? Educate us, oh wise one.

No court has found Apple has infringed. The ITC is not a court, but a commission that solely looks at imports. The only case to make it to trial ended with a hung jury. The jurors sided with Apple 6 to 1 after most of Masimo's patents were invalidated.

Apple has a case pending in Delaware that may knock Masimo to its knees before a new trial in the hung jury case gets a 2nd chance. And experts theorize that Apple may be able to implement blood oxygen monitoring that doesn't rely on Masimo's patent shortly.

 

[jarman92]

Why isn’t this a question? The current interim injunction is only a sales ban, for now. In case they keep winning they will also claim damages for the already sold watches. In this case the court will define what apple will have to pay in damages. If apple does not want to pay, they have to remove the function. There are enough other cases out there where it went that way.

Well the point is moot now because Apple already announced it won't affect already sold Watches. But a court ordering a company to remotely disable a feature on millions of products that are already in the hands of consumers, many of whom purchased the product expecting that feature to work, would be unprecedented and likely beyond the authority of any court (with the possible exception of SCOTUS).

Further, courts bend over backwards to avoid ordering specific performance—that is, they don't try to force a party to take or refrain from taking an action. They much prefer ordering damages.

 

[jarman92]

Masimo already said multiple times they would be more than happy to settle. All they want is their patents back that Apple stole and a royalty fee. It really is not that complicated. Apple decided NOT to go that route and would rather take the hard way.

Masimo keen to get a settlement, but Apple won't call

Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claims the medical device company is open to a settlement discussion over the upcoming U.S. Apple Watch sales ban, but Apple allegedly hasn't made any moves to do so.

appleinsider.com

Putting aside the fact that Masimo has offered zero evidence they're willing to settle at all, let alone for a reasonable amount of money, patents are not "stole[n]." The tradeoff of the patent system is that an inventor gets a limited monopoly on their invention in exchange for publishing it publicly and contributing to the state of the art. Patents, by definition, are public. They can be infringed, but cannot be stolen.

 

[onenorth]

Putting aside the fact that Masimo has offered zero evidence they're willing to settle at all, let alone for a reasonable amount of money, patents are not "stole[n]." The tradeoff of the patent system is that an inventor gets a limited monopoly on their invention in exchange for publishing it publicly and contributing to the state of the art. Patents, by definition, are public. They can be infringed, but cannot be stolen.

I keep seeing the word "stolen" in these threads, but you are correct that the tech in the patents is public information.

It is also worth noting that the Apple Watch did not infringe these two patents until they were granted in 2021 after the fact. Those patents show the fingertip sensor design and do not explicitly describe the wrist-worn design of the Apple Watch. There is some vague language in the patents that the sensor can be worn anywhere on the body, but it is not clearly describing how to do it on the wrist. However, the claims are still broad enough to cover the wrist-worn design, and this is what Apple is facing today.

Last week the Federal Circuit issued four decisions where Apple prevailed on two and Masimo prevailed on the other two. So it seems like a tit-for-tat situation going on.

 

[lanceuppercut47]

He implies that the only difference is pulse oximeter in the 6. The 6 cost $120 more than the SE when they were released. He's laying the foundation that the value of the pulse ox to Apple is $120.

"Alwaysondisplay PLC" has just entered the chat.

 

[lxmeta]

Well the point is moot now because Apple already announced it won't affect already sold Watches.

Well, they made clear that removing the function to avoid the sales ban does not affect already sold watches. Also, not outside of the USA because their was never a sales ban because Masimo also did not go to trail there. Your conclusion that after a possible final court ruling Apple would not either have to pay or remove this on all watches is simply wrong.
Apple cannot make any announcement on what loosing that case in future would mean today.
Your connection makes no sense!

But a court ordering a company to remotely disable a feature on millions of products that are already in the hands of consumers, many of whom purchased the product expecting that feature to work, would be unprecedented and likely beyond the authority of any court (with the possible exception of SCOTUS).

And you know no case where a company is remotely updating existing devices with new firmware to remove an implementation that is infringing a patent?
Huawei v. AVM The latest on the latter is that AVM is updating all devices to remove the infringing part of the firmware.
Sonos wins patent lawsuit against Google In this case now, users will need to adjust individual volumes of all units in a Speaker Group separately... Feel free to look for other cases where features were removed remotely.

Further, courts bend over backwards to avoid ordering specific performance—that is, they don't try to force a party to take or refrain from taking an action. They much prefer ordering damages.

Not sure what you mean. I never wrote that a court would order Apple to remove the function. A court might (and there is no final decision yet) rule that Apple has to pay a license fee for the patent and Masimo can claim damages for every device sold... which might lead to Apple implementing a version that does not infringe, pay for the patent, or remove the function... etc.

 

[lxmeta]

<snip>

Last week the Federal Circuit issued four decisions where Apple prevailed on two and Masimo prevailed on the other two. So it seems like a tit-for-tat situation going on.

It is not tit-for-tat at all!
If you are getting 4 bullets fired at you and "just" two hit you, would that also be tit-for-tat? I'm one of the fewer here not claiming to know what the final court decision should or would be, but if Apple is catching just one of these bullets it might be enough to either have to pay a royalty for every single of their watches out there with that function, or remove or implement a non infringing alternative. We just don't know yet how this will end. But, just the fact that Apple is now actually removing that function on all US devices so they can keep selling is pretty far away from tit-for-tat in my world. This is a fricking disaster for them!

 

[ronntaylor]

It is not tit-for-tat at all!
If you are getting 4 bullets fired at you and "just" two hit you, would that also be tit-for-tat? I'm one of the fewer here not claiming to know what the final court decision should or would be, but if Apple is catching just one of these bullets it might be enough to either have to pay a royalty for every single of their watches out there with that function, or remove or implement a non infringing alternative. We just don't know yet how this will end. But, just the fact that Apple is now actually removing that function on all US devices so they can keep selling is pretty far away from tit-for-tat in my world. This is a fricking disaster for them!

It is tit-for-tat as two of the bullets (patents) were deemed to still be invalidated. Therefore, they weren't fired at all. The two bullets (patents) remaining may be declared duds at a later date (invalidated).

 

[jarman92]

And you know no case where a company is remotely updating existing devices with new firmware to remove an implementation that is infringing a patent?
Huawei v. AVM The latest on the latter is that AVM is updating all devices to remove the infringing part of the firmware.
Sonos wins patent lawsuit against Google In this case now, users will need to adjust individual volumes of all units in a Speaker Group separately... Feel free to look for other cases where features were removed remotely.

Your first example is a German case and thus not relevant. The second example involves purely software features and appears to have been entirely voluntary on Google's part.

But regardless, this discussion is moot. As I said, Apple has confirmed they are not changing anything about previously purchased Watches, and no court is going to order Apple to remotely remove the feature from consumers' property. There's a chance Apple could do so voluntarily, but I find that extremely unlikely and it wouldn't happen until the conclusion of the court case (i.e. years down the line) in any event.

 

[lxmeta]

It is tit-for-tat as two of the bullets (patents) were deemed to still be invalidated. Therefore, they weren't fired at all. The two bullets (patents) remaining may be declared duds at a later date (invalidated).

Great crystal ball you are having here! I guess that's why they decided on that sales ban, right? Because that's what you do when you already know the duds. Guess our conversation reached the level of diminishing returns.

 

[onenorth]

Great crystal ball you are having here! I guess that's why they decided on that sales ban, right? Because that's what you do when you already know the duds. Guess our conversation reached the level of diminishing returns.

The ITC made that decision and it is now being reviewed by the appeals court. There are many possible outcomes, including one where the court asks the ITC to re-open the investigation. Given the history of this case, no outcome is certain.

 

[1129846]

No court has found Apple has infringed. The ITC is not a court, but a commission that solely looks at imports. The only case to make it to trial ended with a hung jury. The jurors sided with Apple 6 to 1 after most of Masimo's patents were invalidated.

Apple has a case pending in Delaware that may knock Masimo to its knees before a new trial in the hung jury case gets a 2nd chance. And experts theorize that Apple may be able to implement blood oxygen monitoring that doesn't rely on Masimo's patent shortly.

Even if Apple does that they still risk paying Masimo billions as remember they will be paying for every single iWatch sold since iWatch 6 until tomorrow. plus all Masimo legal fees.

 

[ronntaylor]

Great crystal ball you are having here! I guess that's why they decided on that sales ban, right? Because that's what you do when you already know the duds. Guess our conversation reached the level of diminishing returns.

JFC! It's not a crystal ball. It's what has already happened (two patents previously ruled invalid have been reaffirmed as invalid) and what may happen if Apple's lawyers can get the two remaining patents also ruled invalid as they did for 15 other Masimo patents.

 

[Jimmy Bubbles]

Here's your answer according to NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/...-oximetry-international-trade-commission.html

 

[ronntaylor]

Even if Apple does that they still risk paying Masimo billions as remember they will be paying for every single iWatch sold since iWatch 6 until tomorrow. plus all Masimo legal fees.

Masimo has to keep the patents alive (valid). And then they have to win a court case. Thus far the only case to make it to jury deliberations resulted in a hung jury, with the jurors siding with Apple 6 to 1. Of course, a completely new jury could decide for Masimo. Or they could decide for Apple. In any event, the verdict must be unanimous. And Apple has a separate case in Delaware against Masimo. It may take years to be resolved unless the parties settle.

 

[mtbdudex]

I love my AW U2, it’s abilities, I use it MTB with crank arm power meter & BT wheel speed sensor dead nuts accuracy.

 

[1129846]

Masimo has to keep the patents alive (valid). And then they have to win a court case. Thus far the only case to make it to jury deliberations resulted in a hung jury, with the jurors siding with Apple 6 to 1. Of course, a completely new jury could decide for Masimo. Or they could decide for Apple. In any event, the verdict must be unanimous. And Apple has a separate case in Delaware against Masimo. It may take years to be resolved unless the parties settle.

No the jury does not have to unanimous in a civil try which this case is.

 

[msackey]

If they violated Massimo's IP, then yes - pay up the royalties. However, it's probably more nuanced than a straight copy of Massimo's technology, and they probably spent a good amount of R&D cash on this, so why just hand it over to Massimo?

I would love to see some good investigative journalism around this to get a good understanding what is actually going on. Too bad that most major publications of tech journalism (if not all) aren't really trained to do investigative journalism.

 

[MRxROBOT]

So then can you list these facts that everyone is missing if they’re so important?

Apple infringed on a patent that was rightfully held by a much smaller company. They blatantly stole it, used it in one of their key products, and didn’t bother to pay royalties. This is what a court has found.

So what are we missing here? Educate us, oh wise one.

Don’t waste your keystrokes. GMShadow always ignores these posts. Why? Because they have no leg to stand on. They regurgitate nonsense, not having a clue to what is actually going on.

 

[ronntaylor]

No the jury does not have to unanimous in a civil try which this case is.

Stories from Bloomberg, Fortune, Wall Street Journal, 9to5Mac, etc reports that the jury findings had to unanimous. And then there's this from FindLaw:

Federal Court Jury Verdicts: Must Be Unanimous​

There are two court systems in the United States: federal and state courts. Each covers different types of cases. In the federal system, whether the trial is criminal or civil, the jury must reach a unanimous verdict.

 

[lxmeta]

Your first example is a German case and thus not relevant. The second example involves purely software features and appears to have been entirely voluntary on Google's part.

Huawei and AVM makes this an international thing FYI. And the update has come to all devices.
Your sense of voluntary, when a court orders a sales ban is quite entertaining.

But regardless, this discussion is moot. As I said, Apple has confirmed they are not changing anything about previously purchased Watches, and no court is going to order Apple to remotely remove the feature from consumers' property. There's a chance Apple could do so voluntarily, but I find that extremely unlikely and it wouldn't happen until the conclusion of the court case (i.e. years down the line) in any event.

You win! I have no arguments against "Apple said" and voluntary actions after a sentencing.
Guess people voluntarily go to prison because running is so bloody exhausting!