I can only guess that their attempt for a "SW fix" isn't working out ...
and yea, this could be a Apple TV+ show, I might even subscribe then to watch it
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 Working on Software Fix to Avoid U.S. Apple Watch Import Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and yea, this could be a Apple TV+ show, I might even subscribe then to watch it
TOTALLY. I might just rent that show to see WTH is going onI can only guess that their attempt for a "SW fix" isn't working out ...
and yea, this could be a Apple TV+ show, I might even subscribe then to watch it
Apple will file an appeal and ask the court to stay the exclusion order pending appeal. If the stay is granted, that will give Apple enough time to come out with the next version of the watch and keep selling the current version until then. Maybe that's the plan.
If the phone and watch are turned off there's no reason for GPS to be on. If I own the device it should be MY choice to enable or disable. Cell companies can triangulate based on the last call or calls made.
This was public back in January.
Apple Watch Infringed Masimo's Pulse Oximetry Patent, US Judge Rules
Apple infringed on one of medical technology company Masimo's pulse oximeter patents when it launched Apple Watch models that use light sensors...
www.macrumors.com
I was being a bit facetious but I think the assumption at this point is that consumer devices used to measure/monitor human data are primarily to satisfy a curiosity and shouldn't be relied on for medical decisions. We're really not even sure the value of continuous human monitoring of many measures as we haven't had this data before. Some trials have shown continuous monitoring actually makes things worse in practice.
Note the 21st century cures act specifically excludes devices "for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle and is unrelated to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition" (hence the disclaimer language all these devices use) from traditional FDA oversight of devices. Though depending on the situation other FDA powers may apply and it is left to interpret exactly where is the line between maintaining a healthy lifestyle and prevention of a disease or condition.
Agree the FDA has historically used its discretion as far as regulating health apps running on smartphones. They saw the issue coming at least 10 years ago but also knew they didn't want to get into trying to regulate every smartphone and/or app in the app store. They are starting to revisit the issue especially in the age of AI/ML but also because they see companies crossing the line farther into the medical arena. Which frustrates the companies investing to go through the regular process. And signs are that the latter have gotten sloppier as well and that is reenergizing the FDA to look at all these things.
All of which is why I wonder if Apple know what it is getting itself into as it wades further into the ultracomplex arena of healthcare. It has largely been spared the FDA and most medical industry regulations up until now but I suspect that sooner or later we'll see a "bad event" that is traced back to a flaw in their product (or a similar competitor) or an app built on it. At which point the government response will be unavoidable and then their entire company will be very different.
Jumping from McDonalds to Burger King - yes, but in the real world, non-compete agreements etc. exist and some employees willingly sign them.
Fast food chains have tried non-competes because turnover is so high.
When a company invests in an employee and that employee gains skill and experience, and then jumps to a direct competitor, it creates a competitive disadvantage for that company.
The FTC announced earlier this year that they were going to ban all non-competes, but that is on hold now and if it happens it will be challenged.
Non-competes are already illegal in California, where both companies are located.
Turnover is high in the medical fields, where I work, but I've never seen a non-compete.
It's very possible that by that "bad event" – maybe a mass endemic type screw up with a device/tech leading to multiple bad outcomes – Apple will have moved corporate headquarters to our moon, or Mars, or a private space station and then jurisdiction issues will join the fray. Or not.
True. They were expecting the presidential veto but had to move since the deadline came too close.
I don't know why they would think that. There was another ITC ruling against the ECG from AliveCor on the Apple Watch earlier this year, and Biden said he wouldn't veto a ban. This isn't different.
Biden won’t save the Apple Watch from potential ban
No veto means ITC’s patent infringement ruling stands.
arstechnica.com
Yes, non-competes are generally disfavored. In theory a better way to promote competition is through trade secrets and patents. However, once a trade secret is revealed it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. With patents there is public notice of one's enforceable IP rights, but it is crazy expensive to enforce those rights. So some people prefer non-competes as a way of reducing the damage caused by losing a skilled employee to a competitor.
Yeah I should clarify they don’t seem to just want a cash payout to go away. They seem to want something Apple doesn’t want to give. Probably ongoing licensing agreements. As you say it’s all about the money, they are probably arguing about percentage.
Non compete is one thing but on can not take trade secrets to a competitor and the trade secrets thing does not require you to sign anything to get in major trouble for it. Plus dependign on the level you have NDA's you are under.
Apple's hiring in how they did it gets a lot of attention and has the risk looking at trade secert stealing. There is a reason when a company hires someone from a competor they try to make sure they do not direclty work on somethign that is exactly the same to prevent that.
Not always the case. Look at bylaws of a company you can often see multiple things preventing sell. For example one place I worked at in the bylaws that 34% of the company could block all a sell. That 34% also lined up with the CEO's family ownership. Basically if they did not want to sell the company it was not going to happen. Often times those little pills are in the bylaws and then even have massive strings attach to them prevent the removal of that restriction. Someone in my above example could even get control of 50% of the company and they could not get that changed and removed
Couldn't they just disable the sensor via software based on serial numbers for all going forward to the USA after a certain date? This would not impact AWs already purchased. Apple could change the Ads not to show the O2 capability. This way they can still sell the watches while they work on a solution. If it's a SW solution, they could activate it for all. this would be similar to how they rolled out the EKG feature to various countries that allowed it.
Massive class action if they did that and it would be a massive class action Apple would lose hard.