Apple's Trade Secret Battle With Masimo Over Pulse Oximetry Technology Ends in Mistrial

[RickDEGH]

For whatever reason I’m glad the Apple Watch is rather a success. I’ve just looked at the Masimo W1 - looks terrible, costs too much for such cheap-looking device, and you need an expensive subscription to use it. Looks like a ‘milker’ company.

 

[pankajdoharey]

If Apple stole masimo's technology why is Masimo's sensors so poor? Why their oxymetry detection is so substandard and at par with local Chinese sensors?

 

[cgs1xx]

Hmm not sure how a jury works in US courts. Shouldn’t the majority win?

 

[Solomani]

We don’t have a jury and I cannot „judge“ which system is better but I always wonder how these things work out anyway like isn’t the point of a jury member to have an opinion that they believe in? Seems to be like „we just keep trying until the jury members get tired of staying late so eventually one of them is going to flip their vote even though they don’t really believe in that decision, just to get home“

I totally agree. The current system of a majority of jurors trying to BULLY a contrarian jurist.... is dishonest and idiotic. The majority is trying to pressure the holdouts to change their minds, and having the entire jury locked inside a room for many many hours.... until they are all HANGRY and upset, eventually someone is forced to cave in.

Discourse and debate is fine. But forcing a holdout juror to change their conviction is a dumb system.

If an American citizen honestly believes in something with conviction.... the justice system should NOT force them to change their minds. Doing so is tantamount to brainwashing or re-education camp.... something that is typical in dictatorships.


In my previous post, I said:

Because (federal) US jury trial is stupid. It dictates that a jury consensus must be 100% unanimous, with not a single holdout.

That's how many so many criminals (and crimes) don't get prosecuted, due to hung jury.

I would prefer (a justice system revamp to) a larger jury pool... like say 15 jurors, which gives you a statistically more "fair" and balanced sampling rate. And then you simply need come up with a two-thirds consensus (supermajority) to make a decision. Say 10 out of 15 vote "innocent" .... and thus that majority consensus becomes the binding verdict.

 

[entropys]

Because US jury trial is stupid. It dictates that a jury consensus must be 100% unanimous, with not a single holdout.

That's how many so many criminals (and crimes) don't get prosecuted, due to hung jury.

I would prefer (a justice system revamp to) a larger jury pool... like say 15 jurors, which gives you a statistically more "fair" and balanced sampling rate. And then you simply need come up with a two-thirds consensus (supermajority) to make a decision. Say 10 out of 15 vote "innocent" .... and thus that majority consensus becomes the binding verdict.

No, as some silly old dead revolutionary white guy said,
”it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer” (Americans do suffer a bit of hyperbole). But I think he copied it from an even deader English judge who said “it is better ten guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should be convicted” (hence “Blackstone’s ratio), although it is said that it was actually Alfred The Great who originally said it when setting up early English Law “it was better that four guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged” (One of the reasons he was Alfred The Great).

the truth is majority juries will increase the number of innocents in Gaol. Especially highly public ones.

as for hung juries, if they can’t reach agreement, it is a mistrial, the end (for the jury). it is up to the prosecutor to decide if a retrial with a different jury is justified. All the jury needs to tell the judge is agreement can’t be reached and unlikely to be.

 

[Crowbot]

If Apple stole masimo's technology why is Masimo's sensors so poor? Why their oxymetry detection is so substandard and at par with local Chinese sensors?

Which sensors are you talking about? Masimo's medical grade sensors are considered quite good.

 

[robbietop]

Not a very good sign for Massimo if 6/12 were already against you and it was one person who wouldn't budge. Not a very good sign.

 

[_Spinn_]

Apple should just buy Masimo 😅

 

[sdf]

I would say this is an another win for Apple.

Indeed. Public statement aside, Masimo would be fools to push this case again.

 

[mwickens]

Bob Mansfield called the Apple Watch "a mess"

Maybe I'm being picky, but I think he called the in-progress work on a new sensor a mess, not the Apple Watch.

 

[farmboy]

I totally agree. The current system of a majority of jurors trying to BULLY a contrarian jurist.... is dishonest and idiotic. The majority is trying to pressure the holdouts to change their minds, and having the entire jury locked inside a room for many many hours.... until they are all HANGRY and upset, eventually someone is forced to cave in.

Discourse and debate is fine. But forcing a holdout juror to change their conviction is a dumb system.

If an American citizen honestly believes in something with conviction.... the justice system should NOT force them to change their minds. Doing so is tantamount to brainwashing or re-education camp.... something that is typical in dictatorships.


In my previous post, I said:

Where did it say the majority were trying to bully a contrarian? Your post is dishonest and ill-informed as to the American legal system. By the way, jurors get to go home either way, guilty, not guilty, or hung jury. Nobody is "forcing" anybody to change their mind, even though that is common on TV shows.

 

[sracer]

Sounds like one juror might have some Apple stock... doesn't make sense when it's swayed that much.

Edit: My mistake; I misread it. Same idea but opposite. Seems like one juror hates Apple. But hey, jurors don’t have to be rational…

So the only reason to find against Apple is Apple hatred? And has to be irrational hatred to boot? 🙄

 

[DrV]

No, as some silly old dead revolutionary white guy said,
”it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer” (Americans do suffer a bit of hyperbole). But I think he copied it from an even deader English judge who said “it is better ten guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should be convicted” (hence “Blackstone’s ratio), although it is said that it was actually Alfred The Great who originally said it when setting up early English Law “it was better that four guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged” (One of the reasons he was Alfred The Great).

the truth is majority juries will increase the number of innocents in Gaol. Especially highly public ones.

as for hung juries, if they can’t reach agreement, it is a mistrial, the end (for the jury). it is up to the prosecutor to decide if a retrial with a different jury is justified. All the jury needs to tell the judge is agreement can’t be reached and unlikely to be.

One important thing to understand is that criminal cases and civil cases are rather different in this sense.

The traditional western world view of criminal law is such that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must be able to provide compelling evidence so that the accused is guilty only if there cannot be a reasonable doubt. Innocent people must not be declared guilty, erring is allowed only to the other direction as shown above. (In practice, the definition of "reasonable doubt" depends on the severity of the crime; the requirement is lower for petty crimes than for serious offenses. Also, legislation such as Florida's SB 450 can bee seen as not being completely aligned with the western legal culture. While the main principles are clear, there are quite different views and practical applications.)

Civil cases, on the other hand, must be decided one way or another. Of course, the system can be constructed so that the plaintiff loses unless the evidence is compelling. This is not necessarily a good idea, as enforcing agreements becomes quite difficult in such legal environment.

Many legislations allow majority (or supermajority) verdicts to avoid hung juries. Federal cases like this one, however, require a unanimous jury. As it was not reached, the case ends with a mistrial. As far as I understand, civil cases may be retried with a different jury if the plaintiff so wishes (and wants to pay).

 

[Crowbot]

We don’t have a jury and I cannot „judge“ which system is better but I always wonder how these things work out anyway like isn’t the point of a jury member to have an opinion that they believe in? Seems to be like „we just keep trying until the jury members get tired of staying late so eventually one of them is going to flip their vote even though they don’t really believe in that decision, just to get home“

I don't know if you've ever been on a jury but I've been on several, civil and criminal. We had holdouts but the job of the rest of us was to discuss and convince the holdouts to change their vote. Or have them convince us. It was all very civil and non-confrontational.

 

[CapitalIdea]

Does the juror that held out happen to run Epic, Spotify, Tile or Twitter?