Lawsuit alleges Apple feigned partnership with Valencell to glean key Apple Watch heart rate sensor

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    adrayven said:
    jfc1138 said:
    Suing over information openly available off a publicly accessible website?

    That part, at least, seems dubious.
    yeah, and absolutely no way to tie to WHO accessed it from Apple. For all they know, they were doing what competitors always do, check out competition and viable partners. Sounds more like they are just pissed Apple decided to go in on it's own and blocked out of what is now the largest smartwatch manufacture in the world. /shrug
    No way to tie an individual down, I really doubt that, in fact Apples employees would have to go well out of their way to avoid being connected to the downloads. Apple could have very well been doing exactly what you implied but we don't know that for sure. The only way to really tell is to have access to Apples design documents and see if the techniques they used infringed on the patents this company holds. By the way guys patents are public documents by nature of how the system works. That doesn't mean you can copy the techniques outlined in a patent and get away with it. Now given that, it is possible that Apple simple engineered a work around for the patents in question. We won't know if Apple is guilty until we see them in court. It sounds like they are pissed because they feel their IP was stolen by a massive company that will be very difficult for them to engage. That feeling may be justified or maybe not, the reality is that the courts will now have to decide.
    afrodri
  • Reply 22 of 39
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    maestro64 said:
    I think what happen here is Apple learned everything they could about this companies technology and designed around it so they did not have to license it. This has been done before, and it perfectly legal to do so. I find it interesting this company took over a year after Apple showed off the watch to finally file suit. If they really felt they were ripped off they would have jumped all over it immediate.
    Actually a year isn't an unreasonable amount of time to research to see if you have a case.
    cnocbuiicoco3afrodri
  • Reply 23 of 39
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    eightzero said:
    "This is all Cook's fault." -SOG
  • Reply 24 of 39
    Valencell waits to see which companies succeed in the wearables market and then sue.

    Their patents may get voided and they won't get a cent.

  • Reply 25 of 39
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    If this company cannot produce a non-compete agreement or evidence of a violated NDA, they're spitting into the wind.
    An NDA means nothing in the case.   The right to use a given technology rests with the patent holder and as such you can't just steal it.   That is if they actually stole something which we have no evidence one way or the other at the moment.

    What is interesting here though is that they did not run off to a favorable court district to increase their chances of success.    At this point I actually think that the company management believes apple ripped them off.    This is what generated the lawsuit.
  • Reply 26 of 39
    Why publish white papers if you don't want the public to read them?

    Can you publish a white paper and then sue someone for reading it?  What a joke.


  • Reply 27 of 39
    buzdotsbuzdots Posts: 452member


    Hell hath no fury like a patent holder scorned. /s
  • Reply 28 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    hmm said:
    jfc1138 said:
    Suing over information openly available off a publicly accessible website?

    That part, at least, seems dubious.


    ETA: I suppose the litigation will further illuminate the issue as at the moment there's just the one side and taking everything one side says as truth is often the path to error.
    It depends whether something is patented. If it's patented, it's already in the public domain. You can find the patents online. You could be sued if you create something that may overlap with some of its claims. The parts about downloading white papers and other things are supporting evidence, not the claims themselves.
    I'm skeptical that it would be either accepted or useful against a company the size of Apple.
    Precisely my point. Apple has no need to sign NDAs.
  • Reply 29 of 39
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Why publish white papers if you don't want the public to read them?

    Can you publish a white paper and then sue someone for reading it?  What a joke.


    The article doesn't claim that.

    First off white papers often discuss technology. They don't mention trade secrets, but they may mention things with restricted use. The explanations may help engineers at other companies understand how this technology might be used.

    In this case they claim that Apple violated patents that belong to them. They mentioned that white papers were accessed from IP addresses that belong to Apple with falsified user identities. That's a piece of supporting evidence that was introduced, and the author of the AI article felt it was relevant. It is not the basis of the claim, because white papers aren't patents.

    You can actually read patents online. That doesn't mean you are free to use them before their expiration. They are not secrets.
    afrodri
  • Reply 30 of 39
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,195member
    wizard69 said:

    If this company cannot produce a non-compete agreement or evidence of a violated NDA, they're spitting into the wind.
    An NDA means nothing in the case.   The right to use a given technology rests with the patent holder and as such you can't just steal it.   That is if they actually stole something which we have no evidence one way or the other at the moment.

    What is interesting here though is that they did not run off to a favorable court district to increase their chances of success.    At this point I actually think that the company management believes apple ripped them off.    This is what generated the lawsuit.
    My first thoughts too. Not lodged in east texas, maybe it's legit?
  • Reply 31 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    entropys said:
    My first thoughts too. Not lodged in east texas, maybe it's legit?
    But maybe they anticipated that it would be seen as a false claim which made them choose a different district, so clearly I can't choose the poison in front of me.
    studiomusic
  • Reply 32 of 39
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,195member
    Soli said:
    entropys said:
    My first thoughts too. Not lodged in east texas, maybe it's legit?
    But maybe they anticipated that it would be seen as a false claim which made them choose a different district, so clearly I can't choose the poison in front of me.
    Inconcievable!
    edited January 2016 Soliafrodri
  • Reply 33 of 39
    Soli said:
    Should companies be held to ethical standard, or only calculate based on risk and reward?
    should accusations be assumed true whenever they're leveled?
    You've probably noticed that accusations are assumed true when they're made against Apple, but few other tech companies. Apple is "too big," have "too much money" and they "charge too much for their products." Therefore guilty? This isn't the railroad tycoon days, so I'll take the wait and see stance.
  • Reply 34 of 39
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Soli said:

    lkrupp said:
    So Apple is guilty by accusation alone? Are you assuming Apple is guilty? Why?
    Your first question you infer I have stated Apple is guilty.
    Your second question you ask if I'm assuming Apple is guilty, despite having already proffered a rebuttal that infers that I think Apple is guilty
    Your third question doesn't use a qualifier like, "If so, … ," but instead just asks "Why?," which is now asking for my reasons for believing Apple is guilty, despite my lack of implication.

    I think it's a legitimate question. Not that offered the two opposing, general answers, as well as asked about companies, not Apple. I feel Apple holds themselves to a higher standard than other companies, but my opinion of Apple (or inefficient information regarding this lawsuit to be able to create a specific option for or against Apple), does mean I think Apple should be held to a different standard than any other company. Most interesting are that all replies to my query assumed I felt Apple was guilty. Did any of you even consider that I might think that those filing a lawsuit may be acting unethically?

    For how many years have we been reading each other's comments on this board and Slack? Over a decade, I believe. If I had to come to such a conclusion don't you think I'd 1) state it as a statement, and 2) back up my statement with how I arrived at my opinion, likely with additional details or links other sites to support my position? I'm pretty sure I would.
    When you just toss a question out there like that without offering any opinion of your own it's very easy for people to read into it whatever they want, usually derived from their own biases.   These folks may know you and each other very well, but asking a rhetorical question (or a leading one, if it wasn't rhetorical) is often a recipe for misunderstanding.
    afrodri
  • Reply 35 of 39
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    If this company cannot produce a non-compete agreement or evidence of a violated NDA, they're spitting into the wind.
    Not true at all.    You don't need an NDA or non-compete agreement to protect your patents, which describe methods and are publicly available for all to see (and hopefully license or avoid).  In some sense, a patent is the opposite of an NDA.  It reveals to everybody that you are interested in doing something (whether you end up doing it or not) and how you would accomplish it.  Then others are not supposed to use your tech to compete with you.  No other agreement required.

    If this company can produce proof that they have a patent along with evidence that Apple violated it, then they have a case.  All of the documentation they provided about meetings and/or downloads is only there to prove that Apple was aware of and interested in the tech.  (Willful violation could lead to triple damages.)  Now they still have to prove that Apple actually built something that violates the patent.  And they need to hope that their patent isn't deemed invalid during the process.
    edited January 2016 nemoeac
  • Reply 36 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    thompr said:
    When you just toss a question out there like that without offering any opinion of your own it's very easy for people to read into it whatever they want, usually derived from their own biases.   These folks may know you and each other very well, but asking a rhetorical question (or a leading one, if it wasn't rhetorical) is often a recipe for misunderstanding.
    I made a point to neither state an opinion or write my question in a way that was leading. Even if my question was suggestive to one of the two positions asked, I still would have to state if I was for or against the plaintiff or defendent in this particular case.

    Personally, I believe strongly in capitalism, so that would suggest that I feel companies should work toward their best interests. That indicates something I don't consider ethical, yet is completely legal, should only result in laws being change to close loopholes. As Prof. Peabody starts his reply, companies were given the same rights as man, which tells me I should hold the companies themselves to an ethical standard. Although, I can't see how anyone can beholden a company to that, expect to support or not support their products, which may not always be possible. The only way I can see ethics playing a part in a company directly, is through its human employees, which we can hold responsible on an individual level.

    If the US wants companies to be given human rights perhaps we should put them in a category of a dependent child, which would put legal responsibility directly on their executives for any misdeeds the company might have, either criminal or civil.
    edited January 2016 muppetry
  • Reply 37 of 39
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Soli said:
    thompr said:
    When you just toss a question out there like that without offering any opinion of your own it's very easy for people to read into it whatever they want, usually derived from their own biases.   These folks may know you and each other very well, but asking a rhetorical question (or a leading one, if it wasn't rhetorical) is often a recipe for misunderstanding.
    I made a point to neither state an opinion or write my question in a way that was leading. Even if my question was suggestive to one of the two positions asked, I still would have to state if I was for or against the plaintiff or defendent in this particular case.
    Oh believe me, I understand you.  You did nothing wrong with your question.  I was just trying to explain to you why it evoked a knee-jerk response.  Not everyone stays completely logical like you and Mr. Spock.  Communicating with emotional people is hard enough, especially via the written word while using brief questions.  As long as you've been posting here, I daresay this isn't the first time you were completely misunderstood.  More like the millionth and first.
    edited January 2016 Soli
  • Reply 38 of 39
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    wizard69 said:
    maestro64 said:
    I think what happen here is Apple learned everything they could about this companies technology and designed around it so they did not have to license it. This has been done before, and it perfectly legal to do so. I find it interesting this company took over a year after Apple showed off the watch to finally file suit. If they really felt they were ripped off they would have jumped all over it immediate.
    Actually a year isn't an unreasonable amount of time to research to see if you have a case.
    Correct...I supported a group in the licensing division and they bought items to inspect for infringement including dissecting an entire car once.  Walked into the office once and a whole pallet of electronic things were on the floor.

    They also employed an expert in electronic circuitry who sat and examined circuits under a microscope looking for infringement.  It was not always found but sometimes it was a blatant copy.

    1 year is reasonable to buy watches and examine the tech plus do other research to prepare for a case.  Big companies are not beyond making nice with someone to get information then but their big budgets to work in order to design around something.  May be legal but would still smell unethical to me.  Will have to wait on the facts being presented before we conclude what when on.
    afrodri
  • Reply 39 of 39
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    icoco3 said:
    wizard69 said:
    Actually a year isn't an unreasonable amount of time to research to see if you have a case.
    Correct...I supported a group in the licensing division and they bought items to inspect for infringement including dissecting an entire car once.  Walked into the office once and a whole pallet of electronic things were on the floor.

    They also employed an expert in electronic circuitry who sat and examined circuits under a microscope looking for infringement.  It was not always found but sometimes it was a blatant copy.

    1 year is reasonable to buy watches and examine the tech plus do other research to prepare for a case.  Big companies are not beyond making nice with someone to get information then but their big budgets to work in order to design around something.  May be legal but would still smell unethical to me.  Will have to wait on the facts being presented before we conclude what when on.
    I agree that a year is not an unreasonable to spend the time to decide whether to litigate, and if so, then how so.

    On the other hand, I don't smell anything unethical about reviewing other companies' patents, white papers, even gadgets if you can get your hands on them and then "designing around" the IP (provided you really DO avoid the IP, of course).  This is one of the risks of patenting stuff in the first place: you provide someone a better starting point than if they had to reverse engineer your product from scratch.  Sure, they still have to find a design that stays clear of the actual unique contributions of your IP, but a "black box" is not always easy to copy.  So sometimes, depending on the circumstances and the thing you are patenting (how unique is your solution anyway?) it is better to not patent something and seize first mover advantage than to deliver nothing but a patent for someone to design around.  It all depends on the details.
    Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.