Sidebar Sidebar
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

no_idea said:
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.
Click to expand...
what the ITC material will show that they believe there is a patent violation.
what it will NOT show is that Apple willfully talked that employee into revealing proprietary information in that patent he apparently was issues while working at Masimo, and that needs evidence. I find your username interesting ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor
Kierkegaarden said:
I don’t know how this played into the decisions made, but interesting nonetheless:

nypost.com

Apple Watch ban will boost Biden mega-donor whom president calls ‘one of my closest friends’

Tech CEO Joe Kiani has hosted Hunter Biden at his $50m vineyard. The White House has backed the ban he wants on the newest Apple Watches.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
This is BS. As I wrote elsewhere (and probably here, so many articles on this particular case), there have been only two vetoes of ITC bans in the last 36 years: in 1987 by the Reagan Administration, and in 2013 by the Obama Administration. The most recent veto was based on a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) wielded by Samsung. And IIRC, they were accused by Apple of tying an agreement with Apple for it's non-SEP portfolio.
 
ronntaylor said:
This is BS. As I wrote elsewhere (and probably here, so many articles on this particular case), there have been only two vetoes of ITC bans in the last 36 years: in 1987 by the Reagan Administration, and in 2013 by the Obama Administration. The most recent veto was based on a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) wielded by Samsung. And IIRC, they were accused by Apple of tying an agreement with Apple for it's non-SEP portfolio.
Click to expand...
The article doesn’t appear to be BS, especially when the contributions to Biden from the Masimo CEO can be easily verified as well as the quote from Biden calling him “one of my closest friends”.

Do you know what actually is BS? The fact that 6 out of 7 jurors ruled in favor of Apple in the US District Court lawsuit and that this appeared to have no bearing on the decision by the ITC to ban the sale of a product based on an infringement claim that is still being contested. What harm would Masimo experience with a stay? None. This should have all been taken into consideration.
 
Kierkegaarden said:
The article doesn’t appear to be BS, especially when the contributions to Biden from the Masimo CEO can be easily verified as well as the quote from Biden calling him “one of my closest friends”.

Do you know what actually is BS? The fact that 6 out of 7 jurors ruled in favor of Apple in the US District Court lawsuit and that this appeared to have no bearing on the decision by the ITC to ban the sale of a product based on an infringement claim that is still being contested. What harm would Masimo experience with a stay? None. This should have all been taken into consideration.
Click to expand...
The civil case had no bearing on the ITC determination. It only concerns itself with whether or not there is infringement in the case before it. At least three of six judges must agree to hear the case. After an administrative judge makes an initial determination, the full commission will issue a final ruling. Unfortunately for Apple the case was decided in Masimo's favor based on the currently valid patent claim. There is very little history of a veto once the ITC calls for an exclusion. It has nothing to do with donations. With friendships. The New York Joke Post's continuing Biden-bashing is pure Grade-A Male Bovine Fecal Matter.
 
sw1tcher said:
Sadly though not surprisingly, yes, many people here do feel that way.

Cult/herd mentality.

And if the situation was reversed and Masimo were the ones who took and used Apple's IP without paying for it, they'd attack Masimo.
Click to expand...
Some people actually want to see the court system decide whether Apple violated a properly issued patent before Apple being punished. The ITC is not a court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor, iOS Geek and DevyniColiai
themachugger said:
The ITC is about as useful as a judge in East Texas for determining actual patent infringement. It's why companies love to use it in the hopes of forcing other companies to settle. IMO it's the best argument for building tech in the States rather than having everything made in China/Taiwan/Vietnam, etc. and then facing these silly import bans.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. If companies like Apple manufactured the product in the US it could be subject to a ITC import ban.
 
Happy to see that it is back in sale now. Hope all the disputes are settled soon and the watch continues to be available.
 
Terrinb said:
That just means the ITC thinks a patent has been infringed. It doesn’t have the power to determine if the patent should have issued to begin with. That is being currently litigated.
Click to expand...
I understand how the entire system works. I was merely stating that the comment "Right now, we don't even know if the O2 sensor in the Apple Watch infringes on the patent, only that another company claims that it does." is incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR
Terrinb said:
Some people actually want to see the court system decide whether Apple violated a properly issued patent before Apple being punished. The ITC is not a court.
Click to expand...
That is not how the system works. Indeed, administrative law judges can revoke a patent, but cannot determine infringement, damages, etc... if they find a patent valid. Not everything goes before a court. Companies are fine with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR
FlyingDutch said:
Or maybe Masimo is not asking for “proper licensing fees” , and that’s the point of the problem.
Can’t believe haters siding with Masimo on this one without complete knowledge of the issue.
Click to expand...
As you side with Apple without complete knowledge of the issue....
JCCL said:
Hopefully this leads to Apple paying Masimo their proper licensing fees if indeed they infringed on their patents. No one should be allowed to just poach another's company employee to reproduce their IP. Can't believe people siding with Apple on this one. Do folks really think it's ok to steal a much smaller company's IP because it is their favorite company?
Click to expand...
They do if it's Apple...
 
Kierkegaarden said:
I don’t know how this played into the decisions made, but interesting nonetheless:

nypost.com

Apple Watch ban will boost Biden mega-donor whom president calls ‘one of my closest friends’

Tech CEO Joe Kiani has hosted Hunter Biden at his $50m vineyard. The White House has backed the ban he wants on the newest Apple Watches.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Of course, Tim stealing Mosimos technology is Bidens fault. Joe must have super powers to make Apple's CEO infringe on patents so his donors can profit. Hard to keep track of all the x's and o's involved to carry this out, but there you have it, the nypost said so, so it must be true. Right wing always up for conspiracy theories to deflect from their own..
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ronntaylor
onenorth said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Welcome to the U.S. International Trade Commission. We’re an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency that fulfills a range of trade-related mandates"
 
gaximus said:
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.

fortune.com

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 fortune.com

tons of other articles and you can find the patent and search the employee and see his work history too.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read your own source more carefully:
While the Lamego email was a key piece of evidence for Masimo’s lawyers, the effort didn’t make much headway with the judge after a senior Apple engineer testified that development of the blood-oxygen feature started in late 2014 — after Lamego had already left. Further, the judge threw out parts of the case relating to Apple’s practice of hiring Masimo employees, saying that “recruiting or hiring employees from another company, including from a competitor, does not on its own constitute improper means.” The judge also dismissed the idea that Apple stole trade secrets, and a jury sided with Apple 6-to-1.
Click to expand...



ITC doesn't deal with trade secrets but with patent infringement. The case before ITC didn't involve Apple's patents at all. ITC found Apple infringed on 5 claims spread across two patents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor
gaximus said:
Then why would they need a work-around? Their original patent was the work around, unless your saying it infringes on trade secrets?
Click to expand...

You're probably mixing two cases into one.

The case before ITC only deals with Masimo's patens and whether Apple infringed on them. ITC found Apple infringed on 5 claims spread across two patents.

If Apple can change the watches to not infringe on those 5 claims, they can ask US Customs not to enforce the important ban and it's also a good argument for the appeals court to side with Apple.

That's the workaround.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor
no_idea said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what's going on in the ITC case.

Here is the order from ITC: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1276_notice10262023sgl.pdf

There is nothing about trade secrets, hiring employees or anything about Apple's patents. It only deals with Apple's infringement on Masimo's patents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor
atomic.flip said:
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.
Click to expand...

The argument about both poaching employees and trade secrets were dismissed by the judge in the case, but it resulted in a hung jury (6-1 in Apple's favour).
 
flofixer said:
It's interesting to note that Masimo's CEO is a megadonor an a very close friend of the Biden family. The ITC ruling helped Biden's friend.
Click to expand...
Kierkegaarden said:
I don’t know how this played into the decisions made, but interesting nonetheless:

nypost.com

Apple Watch ban will boost Biden mega-donor whom president calls ‘one of my closest friends’

Tech CEO Joe Kiani has hosted Hunter Biden at his $50m vineyard. The White House has backed the ban he wants on the newest Apple Watches.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...
Apple is also a mega donor to Biden so it seems your attempt at a point failed miserably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back