The quote I was responding to insinuated that Apple was not found to infringe any patents. That is a false statement. That's all.
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 Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 Once Again Available to Purchase From Apple's Online Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Err they did. Apple sued them in 2022. Then their stock tanked. That was the point Masimo turned into a litigation company instead of a healthcare company.
This is true as of today. However, the ITC is not part of the judicial branch and everyone has a due process right for their legal claims to be adjudicated in court, which will have the final say.
The court will review the evidence as well as the process the ITC used to determine infringement to see if the ITC got it right or wrong.
So it is also true that an ITC decision (or a trial court decision) can be used as leverage for a settlement rather than prolonging litigation.
Because the ITC is a "quasi-judicial" tribunal, the appeals court will use a slightly different standard of review where the court gives the administrative agency's decision (the ITC) little or no deference and instead looks to see if the evidence itself (as opposed to the commission's independent findings) supports the outcome.
You question whether there was infringement, and at the same time you’re making the judgement that there was infringement — which is it?
Masimo is saying there was infringement and Apple is saying there was not — it is still being decided ultimately who is right and who is wrong.
The allegation of “stealing IP” seems to be centered around a particular employee, Marcelo Lamego, who joined Apple in 2014 and left after just a few months to start his own wearables company. Apple’s blood oxygen technology wasn’t featured in the Watch until 2020.
My corporation? I'm just stating what happened.
If someone is an expert at signal processing for pulseox, it would make sense that a future employer would hire them for that skill. Nothing nefarious about it, especially if the hiring company had decided that features like that were going to be critical for them in the future. And it also makes sense from Apple's standpoint that they would want development in house in an evolving field.
I don't know what the market is in CA for a senior level signal processing algorithm developer with PhD preferred, but Masimo had a job opening for 190k. Knowing what I hire run of the mill senior developers for not in CA, 190k seems super low for such a specialized skillset - even at Apple's salaries which are known to be low relative to other big-tech.
I'll say it again though, that this is the process the US patent system has setup. Patents have to be challenged before we know if they are valid. In this case the majority have already been tossed, and we'll see what happens with those that are left.
Will you change your opinion if Apple is found not to be infringing at all on appeal? You seem to be the one who has picked a side.
Going generic since no one knows if they actually infringe or not. Worked for companies big and small, had both sides of the fence.
First, there is a reason why bigger companies are secretive, don’t read or accept cold calls or letters or meeting for ideas: it’s easy for a small company to create a half baked letter of idea, scramble up to write some prior art, meet the big corp to present their « incredible idea », and then, it becomes some blurred lines whether the actual similar work of thousands of people in big corp actually knowingly infringe on little corp, even remotely. Work on the next big thing awesome tech for years, have someone bake a crappy version or letter of intent halfway, and you will get sued.
Then, the opposite is also true: instead of working with smaller studios, it’s much easier to redo the tech with hired engineers who know on what they are doing, for a few times more than market value, and simply screw the little player. Merely patents are horrendous: you get a great idea, you file a patent, you get it; big corp files hundred of small frivolous patents around side techs necessary for your idea to work, meaning you cannot ship your product, and you become a IP troll since you effectively cannot market or monetize your great idea.
So… not giving on any FUD by either sides, but I’ve been on both sides. And I wish the good side wins.
First, there is a reason why bigger companies are secretive, don’t read or accept cold calls or letters or meeting for ideas: it’s easy for a small company to create a half baked letter of idea, scramble up to write some prior art, meet the big corp to present their « incredible idea », and then, it becomes some blurred lines whether the actual similar work of thousands of people in big corp actually knowingly infringe on little corp, even remotely. Work on the next big thing awesome tech for years, have someone bake a crappy version or letter of intent halfway, and you will get sued.
Then, the opposite is also true: instead of working with smaller studios, it’s much easier to redo the tech with hired engineers who know on what they are doing, for a few times more than market value, and simply screw the little player. Merely patents are horrendous: you get a great idea, you file a patent, you get it; big corp files hundred of small frivolous patents around side techs necessary for your idea to work, meaning you cannot ship your product, and you become a IP troll since you effectively cannot market or monetize your great idea.
So… not giving on any FUD by either sides, but I’ve been on both sides. And I wish the good side wins.
Then why would they need a work-around? Their original patent was the work around, unless your saying it infringes on trade secrets?
This is what will be submitted as evidence to the jury for the claim of Apple willfully asking the employee to use their knowledge to produce the patent. It’s not going to be some letter where Time cook asks him to do it. Evidence does not equal proof.
Repairs on watches with the blood oxygen sensor still appear to be unavailable, probably because Apple wouldn't be able to guarantee that the watches could be returned before the next milestone date in this mess arrives.
I fully understand how this all works. I'm just saying that the initial post I was referring to was incorrect. That's all.
Understood. I read the initial post as saying "we" (as in the forum commentariat) don't really know, given that there are so many hypothetical discussions going on. The ITC's decision is binding until a court (or the ITC) says otherwise, but I think that it is fair for us to question the validity of that decision at this stage especially since it is not entirely in line with the administrative judge's conclusions.
Yeah, to be honest, I haven’t read the decision. I’m guessing they are going to settle and move on, especially if the injunction is reinstated pending appeal.
We shall see…
Thank you. Exactly correct. The ITC would not issue such a ruling on something like this if there wasn’t sufficient evidence to merit it.Apple met with Masimo to collaborate on adding the sensor to the Apple Watch, then month later offered their top employees double the pay and millions in Apple stock to co e work at Apple. Then created a “new” patent for the sensor with the lead designers name from Maximo signed on the patent (that’s Evidence, and very stupid of Apple, I mean come on Apple). That’s why there is enough in this case for the trade commission to ban the import until they figure out what’s going on.
Apple got caught with its 'hands in the cookie jar' over its Watch design and has been forced to temporarily pull the device off the market
Apple is racing to change the software algorithms and presentation of its blood-oxygen app to sidestep claims in a lawsuit.fortune.com
tons of other articles and you can find the patent and search the employee and see his work history too.
Regardless how political some may think the organization is it is ultimately a capitalist friendly organization and far fewer benefit from a ban of the Apple Watch than does anyone with a significant stake in Massimo tech. If the evidence weren’t very very strong the ITC would not have issued a ban.
Because they have to while challenging the validity of Masimo's patent: They may/will introduce a work-around to get around the ban and hope Masimo's patent is eventually invalidated.
The truth is that companies routinely sue one another for far more frivolous non-competition arrangements between them and their current or former employees. Corporate espionage is real it happens all the time. This recent effort by Apple was very sloppy or simply arrogant.
You make wide sweeping gestures like that and it’s bound to piss people off. And I promise you no one cares about Massimo’s patent. This whole affair is about the poaching of talent from a company while in negotiations to work with that company.
It’s a blatant violation of the most basic business ethics and rules of engagement.
I can confidently say that were I in Massimo’s position I’d be suing as well. So would many other companies.
However Massimo doesn’t want to settle and that’s why this is dragging on so long. Massimo’s CEO has taken this very personally and he has a vendetta against Apple. Right or wrong that’s basically what is going on. Apple should be more diplomatic with this stuff in the future.
to "buy" time to prove patents invalid. The workaround is to permanently stop the ban
Perhaps, although the appeals court may come to a different conclusion.
Keep in mind that the ITC serves as a form of economic protectionism against foreign-sourced goods. The ITC will not ban imports of a patented good unless the patent owner is also in the business of making the patented good (this is called the "domestic industry requirement"). It is not enough just to have a patent - the patent owner must be directly competing on the patented product. That is why Masimo decided to come out with their own smart watch - so they could go after Apple at the ITC. Otherwise, all Masimo would have is patent infringement in the federal courts, and so far they have not succeeded in stopping Apple there.
I think it's more than personal. Masimo sees Apple as an existential threat to parts of its business. Masimo was also able to enjoy paying medical device maker salaries until big tech turned its focus on providing some version of similar devices. Now those salaries have gone up - a lot. Also note that non-competes are mostly unenforceable in CA which is good for employees.
Finally, this is just business. I'm sure Masimo pulled people from other smaller companies on its rise, and Apple has had the same thing happen to it (though primarily people leaving for startups). Of course Masimo sued. It's the only business move they had left when big tech started encroaching into their market.
Go dig through the ITC ruling. Pretty sure you will find evidence there. Not ppls job on this forum to hand it to you on a silver platter.
Are apple salaries actually low relative to other companies? That surprises me. How do they attract top talent? Or maybe they don’t?
Masimo -- and by extension, Apple detractors -- keep using this charade of a claim. It was not convincing for six out of seven jurors in the hung jury trial that Masimo still has not moved forward with from May as it promised.
Lamego was contacted by Apple recruiters in early 2013. He emailed Tim Cook personally on October 2, 2013. Went to work for them months later in early 2014 and left their employ just months later as he was not a good fit for Apple. The tech Masimo is suing over wasn't introduced into an Apple product until several years afterwards (late 2020), well after Lamego left to start his own device company. This is the damning evidence that a judge and 6 of 7 jurors rejected by Masimo: