152
Apple is now banned from selling its latest Apple Watches in the US
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
152 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
37702 readers
57 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The trolling comes from stuff like this:
"Non-invasive physiological sensor cover"
US US11779247B2 Abraham Mazda Kiani Masimo Corporation
They were fine with selling their own watch in a "patent pending" state over 10 years after having filed a provisional application, but the moment Apple announced their own watch, they hurried to write a final application after the fact worded in a way that would make Apple infringe on it thanks to having a 10+ year old priority on it.
They've been pulling the same stunt a bunch of times:
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Masimo&oq=Masimo&sort=new
Several 2023 patents, have a priority as far back as 2006!
Why does this constitute trolling, though? That means they actually did invent and produce the tech for that whole period, doesn't it? I could understand filling a provisional patent and then only pulling the trigger on the whole shebang when you actually have to protect it.
It doesn't, you're 100% correct. Apple fanboys gonna fanboy.
Also this whole thing is stupid. Apple literally refused to come to an agreement for the patent and was literally hinging its hopes on the Biden administration blocking the injunction, which made sense when it was a US company vs a non-US company, but of course doesn't make sense when it's two US companies. Apple probably could have bought out the entire company for less money than these 10 years of court cases cost but they thought they could bully the little guy with their market position.
I will kindly ask you to retract that insult. I have never owned, paid for, rented, or otherwise let any Apple products into my life, don't own any AAPL, and definitely are not a fan of Apple's shenanigans.
What are you talking about?
Okay so it wasn't 10 years of court cases (this is what they said on the Vergecast but that apparently was incorrect) however the saga HAS been going on for 10 years:
So 10 years ago, Apple reached out to Masimo about the technology, didn't license it, proceeded to hire several of their engineers and its Chief Medical Officer, and then used the technology anyway after not licensing it and clearly poaching their engineers and CMO for the purposes of copying Masimo's IP. And that's what was proven in this court case, that Apple has been infringing on Massimo's patents because of these facts.
I'll retract that "insult" when you explain why you're still defending apple after several people have responded to you with objective information that this is not a patent trolling case and that Massimo was using the technology but you're still defending Apple while having no counter-argument to the fact that it's clearly not a patent trolling situation.
This is not a vote, these are facts you can check yourself:
There is no counter-argument.
You're missing the part where Apple initially wanted to partner with Masimo and when they refused, decided to poach several employees from Masimo to develop the competing product.
Masimo seems to have a legitimate case here, and Apple is definitely in the wrong, as they knowingly attempted to copy Masimo's product. The late publication of the patents could be due to literally anything, but it doesn't seem to be done willfully to 'trap' Apple into this lawsuit. Because of that, I'd argue that this is a bit of a fault in the broken patent system, but that Masimo is not deliberately patent trolling here.
If Masimo hadn't finalized the patent, Apple would have filed it's own similar one and the reverse would have happened. It was literally their only option when confronted with a tech giant who is notoriously litigious. If that happened, Apple would have shut down an actual medical device company through constant legal battles Masimo couldn't afford to win.
This isn't trolling because Masimo is actually using the patent and the patent is specific. Patent trolling is filing a bunch of broad patents and hoarding them, often with no intent to develop a product, for the express purpose of either filing law suits or to stifle competition. Apple is often considered a troll for that latter reason.
Masimo would likely allow Apple to license the patent. But Apple tried to bypass paying licensing fees entirely and it's still doing so. Masimo was well within it's rights to protect itself from Apple, though. Unfortunately, this is what a smaller company protecting itself from a larger one looks like in the US.
That is trolling.
Patents are intended as a social contract:
Filing claims and keeping them hidden, then rewording them for publication when "you actually have to protect it", is trolling.
Patent trolling is buying up patents from their actual inventors for the purpose of suing and extorting money from companies that actually make use of the tech, while not actually doing anything productive with them.
Two facts here: 1) they invented the tech, and 2) they used the invention to legitimately produce items for sale.
Trolling is not a fit for this.
They kept provisional filings on hold for over 15 years, released their own product without filing for the actual patent, and only did so after a competitor announced their own product.
If you don't want to call it "trolling", what do you call "abusing the patent process to keep competitors unaware of pending patents that can be used against them retroactively"? What would be a shorter word for that?