Interesting. Apple had a jury rule that Masimo had infringed two patents (meaning they stole tech belonging to Apple), but in Masimo’s case against Apple 6 of 7 jurors voted that Apple did not infringe, and the 7th thought they did, ending in a hung jury, so what makes you so sure that Apple is guilty?
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 Legal Battle Among Masimo's Rising Litigation Costs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, it must be nice to be so sure of your self with no actual evidence on your side. In the actual infringement case, 7 jurors revised the evidence and 6 agreed with Apple, while the 7th refused to accept that. I am guessing that you have not even read the evidence and yet are sure Apple is in the wrong.
Given the fees, I'm remind of the old saying...
If a town has one lawyer, he starves. If it has two, they both get rich.
If a town has one lawyer, he starves. If it has two, they both get rich.
When Masimo loses Apple will sue them for lost revenue due to the ban.
Who are the thieves in this case? Masimo will most likely lose based on all but one of the patents have been already tossed and the last one is the weakest one of all and most likely will also get tossed.
As a friend of mine said when I was about to have a divorce inflicted on me...
"You're going to pay for the best lawyer in town. It's just a question of whether he'll be working for you, or working for her."
It’s called 8 years of law school I couldnt afford… or have the grades to get into!
I wish Apple would get this thing buttoned up so I can feel better about upgrading my Watch Ultra at some point.
My old company got sued for patent infringement, even though we weren't infringing and our solution was better, but after research, it was cheaper to just settle and license the patent in question.
It depends on the feature. Internal Apple polling supposedly says that hardly anyone uses the O2 app. And I tend to believe that since anecdotally, the only times I ever open it up are when I read an article about it on MacRumors. And then it stays dormant for 6 months until the next article pops up.
So if that is true, why would they spend up to $100 per watch that they were supposedly being asked for a feature that isn’t factoring into almost anyone’s decision to buy the product?
Source for that statement I bolded please.
Funny, I rarely ever launch the O2 app, why? Because it runs in the background and takes measurements throughout the day, and I look at the readings every day...
I do open that app when I'm at my doctor and get vitals taken so I can compare results.
So, clearly, Apple doesn't want to pay for a licensing fee that is as exorbitant as rumored, no question. But, using the argument that very few "open the app" when it runs automatically in the background is very flawed...
Now, let's just say Matsumoto and Apple would agree on a $1 license fee, Marino could make some real nice money while the patent is still valid...
Do you have some particular condition where you blood oxygen levels vary a lot?
What action do you take when it is different than you expect?
Again, what would you do if they were different?
My bet is that since they have not come up with anything actionable for 99% of users, they do not think it is important.
You really think this is worth 1/300 of the price of their lower end watches? That seems unreasonably high. In addition, given that Masimo was unable to convince a jury that Apple was infringing, why would Apple do this after winning that case and while their other case was still under appeal (that has no possibility of monetary damages)?
It’s amazing to see all the people blasting Masimo….. yet in another thread defending Apple going after the small movie theater chain (Apple Cinemas)
It really is just defending Apple, always, isn’t it?
I can’t believe people are this in the bag for a $3 trillion corporation.
It really is just defending Apple, always, isn’t it?
I can’t believe people are this in the bag for a $3 trillion corporation.
I do have health conditions that want me to monitor my blood oxygen, and I review those with my doctor.
The readings of the doctor's device and my U2 have always been within 1%, good enough for me.
"My bet is that since they have not come up with anything actionable for 99% of users, they do not think it is important." don't know who "they" is in this context.
And as for the $1 license fee, I chose that as an example for math simplicity, not as what I "think" it is worth (I used the words 'let's just say ...', so if that were agreed upon by the parties and Apple sells 25M AWs between now and eo patent, that would make $25M for Masimo ...
just as amazing as seeing people blasting Apple - no matter what ...
I can get dizzy spells from low Blood Oxygen and I check using the Ultra 2 watch program. Ended up in ER once for this issue. I use probably once per day to see where the levels are as we reside at 6,600 feet in the mountains for the summer. Usual altitude is 2,100 feet. I have a small O2 bottle to give me a boost if the level is below 90.
This sensor I use is always with me in the watch and on hand when needed. So will use Ultra 2 as long as my Apple care will take care of it.
Age 80 does seem to bring new challenges to me.
This sensor I use is always with me in the watch and on hand when needed. So will use Ultra 2 as long as my Apple care will take care of it.
Age 80 does seem to bring new challenges to me.
lol. Apple stole someone's tech and you want your shiny things?
I always felt like the SpO2 feature was mostly useful for those worried about covid affecting their blood oxygen levels, and it came out a little late in the game for that purpose. I have one of the fingertip SpO2 devices, and rarely use either. When I have had covid, it never dropped below 95%, and my personal normal range seems to be 95-98%. My current S8 was sold before the feature was removed, but I use it very rarely, and probably wouldn't miss it at all if it were gone.
My read on the whole situation is that Masimo likely wants to hurt Apple enough to extort some sort of licensing deal from them, but Apple is pretty stubborn when it comes to those tactics. I don't blame Apple for that - once you open the floodgates, watch out!
The claims that Apple "stole" the tech are baseless and absurd, as Masimo was unable to convince a jury or any judges of such. They ran to the regulators at the ITC, who are less informed about the relevant patent laws, and convinced them to enact an import ban based on who knows what arguments.
My read on the whole situation is that Masimo likely wants to hurt Apple enough to extort some sort of licensing deal from them, but Apple is pretty stubborn when it comes to those tactics. I don't blame Apple for that - once you open the floodgates, watch out!
The claims that Apple "stole" the tech are baseless and absurd, as Masimo was unable to convince a jury or any judges of such. They ran to the regulators at the ITC, who are less informed about the relevant patent laws, and convinced them to enact an import ban based on who knows what arguments.
Indeed. Tim Cook is a miser. Tightwad Tim seeks to maximize profits even if it harms the most important thing in the entire world, which is people's health.
Brilliant idea. Keep your old watch that has the O2 monitor. Keep Apple Care on it and it has to be supported for 7 years from the date of the last Ultra 2.
Heck , 7 years is a long time at 80 and I can hope to last that long
Heck , 7 years is a long time at 80 and I can hope to last that long