Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I never understood the timing of all of this either. The ITC isn't a body that rules on patents right? So why would they be ruling on this without any clarity on the infringement part?

The ITC hears patent disputes under section 337, which was designed to protect US industry from outside violations.

The only reason they are involved is because Apple manufactures the watches outside the US and ships them here. If they were produced in the US, the ITC wouldn't be involved.

 
Anyone has a link to the Masimo patent the Apple Watch is supposed to infringe on?

(posted this also on an earlier article but so far no answer)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleWes
Anyone has a link to the Masimo patent the Apple Watch is supposed to infringe on?

(posted this also on an earlier article but so far no answer)

One of the following:

D883,279
D947,842
D962,936
D735,131


Edit: Nevermind...those are Apple patents in a counter-suit to Masimo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost31 and gank41
As expected, the ITC should have waited until courts could sort out the patent issues.

The courts arguably had - they invalidated three of Massimo's five patents and failed to invalidate the other two due to a hung juror.

I could see Massimo feeling they were in trouble pursuing the matter through the courts based on how their patents were being invalidated and went to the ITC to see if they could get relief via an import ban, presumably to put pressure on Apple to settle.
 
This is a major MAJOR flaw in patent law.

To be clear, I have no idea about this particular patent. I have no idea if Apple is at fault or not, though the facts seems to indicate they wronged.

The issue is as follows:

Company A, is a small to mid-size company. They invest significantly in a product and then further spend lots of money to ensure it is properly patented. Company B is a major company with two dozen in-house lawyers and a top law firm on retention. Company B knowing and intentionally violates the patents of Company A. Company A sues, at great expense, limiting cash-flow and funds for to R&D.

In the end, Company A runs out of money and they loose millions in patent licensing during the years, or decades, it takes to run through the court.

Company B goes on vacation in their private jets, fully-staffed yachts with mistresses in toe, high-fiving each other, knowing they just stole millions without repercussions thus reinforcing the nefarious behavior.

Again, I'm not saying this is Apple or not. I'm saying the system is broken.
my point is how many lawyers Company A has to hire in order to find such flaw? I never knew you could "ban" the "ban" temporarily. Can Company B file try to ask ITC or cournt to unban the ban of the ban? lift the ban of the ban so Company A can be banned as they expected? I am so confused about all these rules, can't believe our legislators and lawyers in the United States are doing nothing but benefit themselves and know how to play around the rules they created and leave all the back doors for themselves. Who is going to protect us? didn't Company B's CEO said he believes even the world largest company is under such broken law? lol... what a drama
 
So you think Apple is going to have two different versions of watchOS based on date of sale?
Very easy to do based on serial number, where sold etc. They did this for years with the EKG sensor based on country. I don't think they will disable it for the ones sold etc or they would have a legal mess on their hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost31
yea, I was wondering about that, they might think that stopping, starting and potentially stopping again an a couple weeks might look more ridiculous, who knows
Maybe get all stock they can to retailers. They are not banned if starts again.
 
The courts arguably had - they invalidated three of Massimo's five patents and failed to invalidate the other two due to a hung juror.

I could see Massimo feeling they were in trouble pursuing the matter through the courts based on how their patents were being invalidated and went to the ITC to see if they could get relief via an import ban, presumably to put pressure on Apple to settle.

Most of the time companies do both at the same time.


ITC is the big hammer generally to force a company like Apple to the table as big companies can tie up things in court for so long that the company suing is bankrupt or the case is no longer relevant. ITC is more like a stop bleeding to the company’s who patents they feel is used with out permission and faster.

The regular courts need to be faster option instead of taking years like it does now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace
That what I'm thinking but some on here think Apple will release an update to disable for all.
Yea, I know, in case that were to happen, I’d be one of the first to sue Apple for disabling a feature I paid for, and all of those who say this feature is “minimal” and “I don’t use it anyway” will be right there too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToyoCorollaGR
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.