Masimo sues Apple over Apple Watch patents, alleged theft of trade secrets

AppleInsider

Medical technology company Masimo on Thursday filed a legal complaint claiming Apple infringes on 10 owned patents with its Apple Watch device, and stole vital trade secrets through the hiring of key personnel.

Lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the suit alleges Apple Watch, including the latest Apple Watch Series 4 and Series 5 models, leverages technology covered by ten Masimo patents. Specifically noted in the case is intellectual property detailing Apple Watch health features like heart rate monitoring.

According to the filing, Masimo is a pioneer of non-invasive physiological monitoring techniques having developed a wide range of technologies to track patients' pulse rate, arterial oxygen saturation and other parameters using nothing more than transmitted light.

In particular, Masimo invested heavily in the evolution of photoplethysmograph, or PPG, technology. While exact methodologies differ, PPGs at their most basic level sample readings from light transmitted into, and subsequently reflective off of, body tissue. Results can then be obtained by calculating attenuation of light from constituents in the human body, specifically blood.

The company's Signal Extraction Technology (Masimo SET) solved a variety of problems that plagued traditional PPG hardware, improving reliability and accuracy of reporting of physiological signals derived from the PPG, the suit reads. Masimo went on to develop other non-invasive technologies measuring total hemoglobin, carboxyhemoglobin, and methemoglobin.

In 2013, prior to the launch of the original Apple Watch, Apple approached Masimo with a potential deal that would integrate the medical firm's technology into an as-yet-unreleased product. Following what appeared to be fruitful initial talks, Apple stepped back and in 2014 began to hire key Masimo personnel including former Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs Michael O'Reilly and Cercacor CTO Marcelo Malini Lamego. The tech giant has adopted identical strategies in the past.

Cercacor is an offshoot of Masimo, having been spun out from the main company in 1998 as "Masimo Labs" and later renamed. While the two companies share a cross-licensing agreement, Masimo does not own Cercacor.

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.

In addition to infringement and trade secrets claims, plaintiffs seek correction of inventorship on five patents, the subject matter of which Lamego allegedly obtained from discussions with Masimo or Cercacor employees Ammar Al-Ali, Mohamed Diab and Walter Weber. The suit claims Al-Ali, Diab and Weber are inventors of the IP "regardless of patentability."

Masimo seeks an injunction against Apple Watch Series 4 and Series 5, damages for patent infringement and theft of trade secrets, and court fees, among other relief.

Masimo v Apple by Mikey Campbell on Scribd

CloudTalkin

This one is going to be interesting.  There's no specter of "patent troll" here.  

markbyrn

Did a check on this company and in 2014, Law.com reported that, "Knobbe Martens partner won a $466.8 million verdict for Masimo Corp. over infringement of patents related to blood-oxygen monitoring technology."  The lawsuit was against Netherlands-based Royal Philips Electronic and it was upheld in 2015.   I'm wagering that Cook and Co. will settle out of court.  

applesauce007

markbyrn said:

Did a check on this company and in 2014, Law.com reported that, "Knobbe Martens partner won a $466.8 million verdict for Masimo Corp. over infringement of patents related to blood-oxygen monitoring technology."  The lawsuit was against Netherlands-based Royal Philips Electronic and it was upheld in 2015.   I'm wagering that Cook and Co. will settle out of court.  

Non-sense.  Apple's products are based on Apple patented technologies.  The technologies are different enough to be patented by Apple.
It is not illegal to hire engineers from other companies and if they don't bring your patented IP to the hiring company, you have no case.

Masimo's only hope is to argue that the Apple patents are invalid but they would likely lose.

radarthekat

From the article:

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.
——

There’s nothing wrong with ‘aping,’ other than the term being a bit Victorian.   An inventor of technology obviously has deep knowledge of the subject matter, it’s his area of expertise.  If Cercacor and/or Masimo had non-competes in play with Lamego and he went to Apple to work on competing technology during the period when those non-compete agreements were in effect, then pursue that legal avenue.  But otherwise he has the right to make a living utilizing his area of expertise.  And ‘aping’ as they refer to it may be exactly how patented technology advances.  You start with a great idea, that someone else has patented, and you modify it to both make it better and to change the method utilized sufficiently to avoid infringing the patent.  Done all the time.  

And to think Apple would hire away a patented inventor and then NOT take pains to ensure that his work for them builds on but doesn’t violate the patents held by his former employer?  That’s a stretch.  Of course Apple was aware of his inventions and the associated patents owned by his employer when they hired him away.  That’s the valuable deep knowledge they hired him to acquire.  So of course they would have taken great pains in this situation to ensure his work with Apple, while based upon his previous work, would be sufficiently modified to avoid infringement.   I’ll be surprised if the plaintiffs succeed on a single infringement count.  

linuxplatform

What about all the other wearable heart rate monitors on the market today and those that pre-existed the Apple Watch? Normally I am suspicious of the "everyone is a lying thieving crook but Apple who can do no wrong" crowd but even if the Apple Watch has "the best" heart rate monitor on the market among wearables there are plenty that are quite good. Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung and even Fossil are reported to have good ones in their watches and bands by the various consumer review sites and a good percentage of them even rate Garmin's as better. It may not be an open standard like, say, bluetooth but it still appears to have been a common and widely implemented technology for years.

CloudTalkin

radarthekat said:

From the article:

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.
——

There’s nothing wrong with ‘aping,’ other than the term being a bit Victorian.   An inventor of technology obviously has deep knowledge of the subject matter, it’s his area of expertise.  If Cercacor and/or Masimo had non-competes in play with Lamego and he went to Apple to work on competing technology during the period when those non-compete agreements were in effect, then pursue that legal avenue.  But otherwise he has the right to make a living utilizing his area of expertise.  And ‘aping’ as they refer to it may be exactly how patented technology advances.  You start with a great idea, that someone else has patented, and you modify it to both make it better and to change the method utilized sufficiently to avoid infringing the patent.  Done all the time.  

And to think Apple would hire away a patented inventor and then NOT take pains to ensure that his work for them builds on but doesn’t violate the patents held by his former employer?  That’s a stretch.  Of course Apple was aware of his inventions and the associated patents owned by his employer when they hired him away.  That’s the valuable deep knowledge they hired him to acquire.  So of course they would have taken great pains in this situation to ensure his work with Apple, while based upon his previous work, would be sufficiently modified to avoid infringement.   I’ll be surprised if the plaintiffs succeed on a single infringement count.  

Not sure how you came to the conclusions you did.  They aren't based on any facts.  Your missive reads like hopeful fan-fic.  There is all kinds of wrong with aping ← that's copying by the way.  Not really sure what you seem to think it means.  Infringement -copying, aping, stealing; however you phrase it- is the primary accusation.  You're making logic leaps that are unsupported by logic.  Lamego and others do have a right to make a living.  They do not have a right to share trade secrets - which is what they're being accused of here, and Masimo is pursuing that legal avenue... along with infringement.  If you're suggesting they pursue legal action against Lamego instead of Apple, well that's crazy talk.  No one in their right or wrong mind would waste time doing that. 

There's so much supposition following "You start with a great idea..." I can't even begin to address any of it.  Seems to be a fair bit of unreality. 

seanismorris

I don’t think “trade secrets” has any meaning, unless someone left with files/data that was then given to Apple.

If Apple was issued patents, and products were made off those patents... Masimo is going to have to prove those patents were invalid.

CloudTalkin

linuxplatform said:

What about all the other wearable heart rate monitors on the market today and those that pre-existed the Apple Watch? Normally I am suspicious of the "everyone is a lying thieving crook but Apple who can do no wrong" crowd but even if the Apple Watch has "the best" heart rate monitor on the market among wearables there are plenty that are quite good. Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung and even Fossil are reported to have good ones in their watches and bands by the various consumer review sites and a good percentage of them even rate Garmin's as better. It may not be an open standard like, say, bluetooth but it still appears to have been a common and widely implemented technology for years.

They're suing Apple because they claimed to have met with Apple, shared info with Apple, and Apple subsequently hired away key employees and deployed tech that Masimo thinks infringed on Masimo tech.  I don't think Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung, or Fossil meet any of those thresholds for being sued.

Or 1. They could be waiting to sue those guys later (like Sonos suing Google instead of Goggle and Amazon because they can only afford to sue one at a time)
Or 2. The other guys could have licensed Masimo IP
Or 3. Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung, and Fossil secretly formed a Cabal and are secretly bankrolling Masimo's lawsuit against Apple in the hopes of gaining an embargo on the Apple Watch so their smartwatches have a chance of gaining a foothold.  Moments before the judge renders a verdict in favor of the cAbal, the trial is interrupted with the bombshell info that the entire trial has been a conspiracy against Apple and the Apple Watch.  As the judge rules against the caBal, a Samsung Ballie rolls slowly into the courtroom and shoots darts into the necks of the cabAl members so they can't turn against each other.  Which means someone was controlling the cabaL. dun-dun-duuuuuunnnnn.

Not gonna lie.  Sort really hoping for option 3.

13485

cy_starkman said:

...
said same will scream and froth at my comment. sad, no better than people yelling “kill the rag heads” or “kill the infidels” or “kill the republicans” or “kill the Ford owners”
....

I’m in complete agreement. Except for the Ford owners, of course.   

radarthekat

CloudTalkin said:

radarthekat said:

From the article:

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.
——

There’s nothing wrong with ‘aping,’ other than the term being a bit Victorian.   An inventor of technology obviously has deep knowledge of the subject matter, it’s his area of expertise.  If Cercacor and/or Masimo had non-competes in play with Lamego and he went to Apple to work on competing technology during the period when those non-compete agreements were in effect, then pursue that legal avenue.  But otherwise he has the right to make a living utilizing his area of expertise.  And ‘aping’ as they refer to it may be exactly how patented technology advances.  You start with a great idea, that someone else has patented, and you modify it to both make it better and to change the method utilized sufficiently to avoid infringing the patent.  Done all the time.  

And to think Apple would hire away a patented inventor and then NOT take pains to ensure that his work for them builds on but doesn’t violate the patents held by his former employer?  That’s a stretch.  Of course Apple was aware of his inventions and the associated patents owned by his employer when they hired him away.  That’s the valuable deep knowledge they hired him to acquire.  So of course they would have taken great pains in this situation to ensure his work with Apple, while based upon his previous work, would be sufficiently modified to avoid infringement.   I’ll be surprised if the plaintiffs succeed on a single infringement count.  

Not sure how you came to the conclusions you did.  They aren't based on any facts.  Your missive reads like hopeful fan-fic.  There is all kinds of wrong with aping ← that's copying by the way.  Not really sure what you seem to think it means.  Infringement -copying, aping, stealing; however you phrase it- is the primary accusation.  You're making logic leaps that are unsupported by logic.  Lamego and others do have a right to make a living.  They do not have a right to share trade secrets - which is what they're being accused of here, and Masimo is pursuing that legal avenue... along with infringement.  If you're suggesting they pursue legal action against Lamego instead of Apple, well that's crazy talk.  No one in their right or wrong mind would waste time doing that. 

There's so much supposition following "You start with a great idea..." I can't even begin to address any of it.  Seems to be a fair bit of unreality. 

If you want to convey the concept of stealing, you use the word ‘stealing.’  It’s pretty commonly understood that aping means imitation.  You perform
a move in from of the monkey cage and the monkey imitates that move.  There’s no theft involved.   

Also, my comment is not based in facts - those will come out in trial - but in experience.  What I write is what happens, often.  And truth be told, yes, it’s the employee and not his new employer who should be pursued for violation of a non-compete, if that’s the situation.  What you’re suggesting is that the plaintive should not do that right thing, but instead go after the money.  Isn’t that part of what’s wrong with the world?  But you suggest it’s what’s normal, which implies it’s okay. 

 If there’s patent violation then they should sue Apple, and I’m suggesting that that’s so incredibly obvious that Apple would have known about that eventuality and would very likely have conducted itself to avoid infringing.  Why is that so hard to believe?  That’s all I’m saying, not that they did, conduct themselves to avoid infringing, but that they would very likely see the potential for this coming when they hired away the deep domain knowledge and therefore likely would Have taken measures to avoid infringement.  To think otherwise would expect Apple to be incompetent.  And so very often those who imagine Apple to be incompetent are eventually proven wrong.  I just hope they all shorted the stock based on their faith that Apple is surely an incompetent and doomed organization.  Because I’ve been long with 7000 shares for 8 years.  

One final note.  You accuse me of supposition.  Is that an issue, that I’m using supposition to outline my theory?  So what?  It’s a perfectly valid means of expressing thought.   Supposition just means “an uncertain belief.”  It says nothing about bias (fanboyism); it’s just a way to think through a possibility.  You’re muddy in your thinking that aping and stealing and copying all have the same meaning.  My guess is you use the term supposition as a derogatory term (also muddy thinking).  It’s not.   Words have meaning.  

ktappe

radarthekat said:

Done all the time.  

Doesn't mean it's right or legal. People cheat on their taxes and speed in their cars all the time too, and both of those are illegal.

The fact that this one was filed in CA (as opposed to TX) and that warnings were sent over half a decade ago indicate there is high likelihood for merit to this case. The fact that Apple was engaged in talks, then broke them off, then poached numerous people who had valuable IP in their heads means the courts are unlikely to look favorably on Apple here. Tim Cook & Co probably have an uphill climb here.

ivanh

Is it fair to employees? 

Is the employment a life-time employment?
How can an employee get another job without mentioning his/her experience and knowledge?
What’s the line?

CloudTalkin

radarthekat said:

CloudTalkin said:

radarthekat said:

From the article:

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.
——

There’s nothing wrong with ‘aping,’ other than the term being a bit Victorian.   An inventor of technology obviously has deep knowledge of the subject matter, it’s his area of expertise.  If Cercacor and/or Masimo had non-competes in play with Lamego and he went to Apple to work on competing technology during the period when those non-compete agreements were in effect, then pursue that legal avenue.  But otherwise he has the right to make a living utilizing his area of expertise.  And ‘aping’ as they refer to it may be exactly how patented technology advances.  You start with a great idea, that someone else has patented, and you modify it to both make it better and to change the method utilized sufficiently to avoid infringing the patent.  Done all the time.  

And to think Apple would hire away a patented inventor and then NOT take pains to ensure that his work for them builds on but doesn’t violate the patents held by his former employer?  That’s a stretch.  Of course Apple was aware of his inventions and the associated patents owned by his employer when they hired him away.  That’s the valuable deep knowledge they hired him to acquire.  So of course they would have taken great pains in this situation to ensure his work with Apple, while based upon his previous work, would be sufficiently modified to avoid infringement.   I’ll be surprised if the plaintiffs succeed on a single infringement count.  

Not sure how you came to the conclusions you did.  They aren't based on any facts.  Your missive reads like hopeful fan-fic.  There is all kinds of wrong with aping ← that's copying by the way.  Not really sure what you seem to think it means.  Infringement -copying, aping, stealing; however you phrase it- is the primary accusation.  You're making logic leaps that are unsupported by logic.  Lamego and others do have a right to make a living.  They do not have a right to share trade secrets - which is what they're being accused of here, and Masimo is pursuing that legal avenue... along with infringement.  If you're suggesting they pursue legal action against Lamego instead of Apple, well that's crazy talk.  No one in their right or wrong mind would waste time doing that. 

There's so much supposition following "You start with a great idea..." I can't even begin to address any of it.  Seems to be a fair bit of unreality. 

If you want to convey the concept of stealing, you use the word ‘stealing.’  It’s pretty commonly understood that aping means imitation.  You perform
a move in from of the monkey cage and the monkey imitates that move.  There’s no theft involved.   

Also, my comment is not based in facts - those will come out in trial - but in experience.  What I write is what happens, often.  And truth be told, yes, it’s the employee and not his new employer who should be pursued for violation of a non-compete, if that’s the situation.  What you’re suggesting is that the plaintive should not do that right thing, but instead go after the money.  Isn’t that part of what’s wrong with the world?  But you suggest it’s what’s normal, which implies it’s okay. 

 If there’s patent violation then they should sue Apple, and I’m suggesting that that’s so incredibly obvious that Apple would have known about that eventuality and would very likely have conducted itself to avoid infringing.  Why is that so hard to believe?  That’s all I’m saying, not that they did, conduct themselves to avoid infringing, but that they would very likely see the potential for this coming when they hired away the deep domain knowledge and therefore likely would Have taken measures to avoid infringement.  To think otherwise would expect Apple to be incompetent.  And so very often those who imagine Apple to be incompetent are eventually proven wrong.  I just hope they all shorted the stock based on their faith that Apple is surely an incompetent and doomed organization.  Because I’ve been long with 7000 shares for 8 years.  

One final note.  You accuse me of supposition.  Is that an issue, that I’m using supposition to outline my theory?  So what?  It’s a perfectly valid means of expressing thought.   Supposition just means “an uncertain belief.”  It says nothing about bias (fanboyism); it’s just a way to think through a possibility.  You’re muddy in your thinking that aping and stealing and copying all have the same meaning.  My guess is you use the term supposition as a derogatory term (also muddy thinking).  It’s not.   Words have meaning.  

Bud, let's not play the semantic game because you're not doing it well and it's beneath you.  I clearly stated that aping meant copying.  It's exactly what I wrote. It's also what you tried not to write by subbing in another synonym: imitate or imitation which is the same as copies or copying.  Your monkey example; sub in copying and copies and the sentence never changes.  Theft was mentioned in relation to infringement.  The sentence is right there.  We're talking about infringement.  Whatever descriptor you want to use, that's what Masimo is claiming.

They're suing for infringement... on 10 patents.  You trying to reframe it as if the employee issue is the focus doesn't even make sense.  So no, I'm not suggesting someone not do the right thing.  I am suggesting you should probably refrain from trying to shift the focus to the ancillary issue.

You're making assumptions and building elaborate narratives around them.  Can't really argue against your imaginings.  You're wrong by the way.  There's a ton of fanboyism in your supposition.  You even get so fanboy'd that you go off on a tangent about shorting stock and doomed organization and your position on AAPL   All three of those are classic fanboy staples. I don't even wanna...

In all your musings, it never seemed to occur to you that Apple could have simply calculated a cost/benefit analysis that an infringement verdict would cost less than the gains in using the IP. If it ever even came to that. That's something companies do all the time.   

We agree that words have meaning.  That's why I chose the ones I chose and more importantly, placed them where I did.  Please don't remix my words.

EsquireCats

1. it's hard to prove a case such as this, especially as one company can't actually steal employees and another can't own them. People in tech shop their skills around like any other field.
2. It's based on technology that neither company originally invented, and if the challenges are universal, then there would also be prior art.
3. Apple's own implementation would have likely delivered its own implementation challenges which would provide uniqueness against existing patents

radarthekat

ktappe said:

radarthekat said:

Done all the time.  

Doesn't mean it's right or legal. People cheat on their taxes and speed in their cars all the time too, and both of those are illegal.

The fact that this one was filed in CA (as opposed to TX) and that warnings were sent over half a decade ago indicate there is high likelihood for merit to this case. The fact that Apple was engaged in talks, then broke them off, then poached numerous people who had valuable IP in their heads means the courts are unlikely to look favorably on Apple here. Tim Cook & Co probably have an uphill climb here.

Let’s not conflate imitation (sincerest form of flattery) with infringement.   I was referring to imitation as what’s done all the time. 

Let’s say you invented and patented a purely mechanical means of variable valve timing.  A mechanical system that responds to engine load, acceleration, etc to vary the valve timing in order to make an engine run more efficiently while delivering more power across its power band.

I see this and decide to ‘ape’ your patented work, but I’m going to do so using lightweight sensors and a computer controller to provide exactly the same valve timing under the same conditions.  Have I copied?  Or have I imitated (aped)?  And am I in infringement of your utility patent?  

Now I’ve got a system that’s controlled by software and sensors.  So now I can reprogram it to provide an economy mode, a cargo mode (when the vehicle is carrying excess weight compared to normal load conditions) and a sport mode.  I’ve advanced the invention.  Isn’t that what society would want, and would therefore not penalize?  

It was the plaintive who used the word ‘aping’ and I looked it up.  It means, exactly, to imitate.  Copy has a different meaning.  It means, in context of patent infringement, to duplicate.  If that’s what Apple did, then that’s infringement.  But to merely imitate, hopefully by means of a different or modified method, that’s not going to be infringement.  And all I was communicating is that Apple is likely not dense in these matters.  I’m confident they looked hard at this when they hired away the intellectual talent, and went their own way to achieve the same or a similar result.  We shall see whether my supposition is correct.   

MacPro

I see their stock is up.  With a Market cap of $8.7B not a tiny company but worse case Apple could buy them with lunch money if there is anything there worth buying, if not I guess we'll see this play out.

radarthekat

CloudTalkin said:

radarthekat said:

CloudTalkin said:

radarthekat said:

From the article:

Masimo and Cercacor warned Apple about potential legal violations, but the iPhone maker went on to pursue patent applications covering topics similar to those already patented by the medical technology firms. Lamego, named as an inventor on many of these patents, was "intimately involved" in the development of corresponding technologies at Cercacor and Masimo, suggesting the executive aped the sensitive IP on behalf of Apple.
——

There’s nothing wrong with ‘aping,’ other than the term being a bit Victorian.   An inventor of technology obviously has deep knowledge of the subject matter, it’s his area of expertise.  If Cercacor and/or Masimo had non-competes in play with Lamego and he went to Apple to work on competing technology during the period when those non-compete agreements were in effect, then pursue that legal avenue.  But otherwise he has the right to make a living utilizing his area of expertise.  And ‘aping’ as they refer to it may be exactly how patented technology advances.  You start with a great idea, that someone else has patented, and you modify it to both make it better and to change the method utilized sufficiently to avoid infringing the patent.  Done all the time.  

And to think Apple would hire away a patented inventor and then NOT take pains to ensure that his work for them builds on but doesn’t violate the patents held by his former employer?  That’s a stretch.  Of course Apple was aware of his inventions and the associated patents owned by his employer when they hired him away.  That’s the valuable deep knowledge they hired him to acquire.  So of course they would have taken great pains in this situation to ensure his work with Apple, while based upon his previous work, would be sufficiently modified to avoid infringement.   I’ll be surprised if the plaintiffs succeed on a single infringement count.  

Not sure how you came to the conclusions you did.  They aren't based on any facts.  Your missive reads like hopeful fan-fic.  There is all kinds of wrong with aping ← that's copying by the way.  Not really sure what you seem to think it means.  Infringement -copying, aping, stealing; however you phrase it- is the primary accusation.  You're making logic leaps that are unsupported by logic.  Lamego and others do have a right to make a living.  They do not have a right to share trade secrets - which is what they're being accused of here, and Masimo is pursuing that legal avenue... along with infringement.  If you're suggesting they pursue legal action against Lamego instead of Apple, well that's crazy talk.  No one in their right or wrong mind would waste time doing that. 

There's so much supposition following "You start with a great idea..." I can't even begin to address any of it.  Seems to be a fair bit of unreality. 

If you want to convey the concept of stealing, you use the word ‘stealing.’  It’s pretty commonly understood that aping means imitation.  You perform
a move in from of the monkey cage and the monkey imitates that move.  There’s no theft involved.   

Also, my comment is not based in facts - those will come out in trial - but in experience.  What I write is what happens, often.  And truth be told, yes, it’s the employee and not his new employer who should be pursued for violation of a non-compete, if that’s the situation.  What you’re suggesting is that the plaintive should not do that right thing, but instead go after the money.  Isn’t that part of what’s wrong with the world?  But you suggest it’s what’s normal, which implies it’s okay. 

 If there’s patent violation then they should sue Apple, and I’m suggesting that that’s so incredibly obvious that Apple would have known about that eventuality and would very likely have conducted itself to avoid infringing.  Why is that so hard to believe?  That’s all I’m saying, not that they did, conduct themselves to avoid infringing, but that they would very likely see the potential for this coming when they hired away the deep domain knowledge and therefore likely would Have taken measures to avoid infringement.  To think otherwise would expect Apple to be incompetent.  And so very often those who imagine Apple to be incompetent are eventually proven wrong.  I just hope they all shorted the stock based on their faith that Apple is surely an incompetent and doomed organization.  Because I’ve been long with 7000 shares for 8 years.  

One final note.  You accuse me of supposition.  Is that an issue, that I’m using supposition to outline my theory?  So what?  It’s a perfectly valid means of expressing thought.   Supposition just means “an uncertain belief.”  It says nothing about bias (fanboyism); it’s just a way to think through a possibility.  You’re muddy in your thinking that aping and stealing and copying all have the same meaning.  My guess is you use the term supposition as a derogatory term (also muddy thinking).  It’s not.   Words have meaning.  

Bud, let's not play the semantic game because you're not doing it well and it's beneath you.  I clearly stated that aping meant copying.  It's exactly what I wrote. It's also what you tried not to write by subbing in another synonym: imitate or imitation which is the same as copies or copying.  Your monkey example; sub in copying and copies and the sentence never changes.  Theft was mentioned in relation to infringement.  The sentence is right there.  We're talking about infringement.  Whatever descriptor you want to use, that's what Masimo is claiming.

They're suing for infringement... on 10 patents.  You trying to reframe it as if the employee issue is the focus doesn't even make sense.  So no, I'm not suggesting someone not do the right thing.  I am suggesting you should probably refrain from trying to shift the focus to the ancillary issue.

You're making assumptions and building elaborate narratives around them.  Can't really argue against your imaginings.  You're wrong by the way.  There's a ton of fanboyism in your supposition.  You even get so fanboy'd that you go off on a tangent about shorting stock and doomed organization and your position on AAPL   All three of those are classic fanboy staples. I don't even wanna...

In all your musings, it never seemed to occur to you that Apple could have simply calculated a cost/benefit analysis that an infringement verdict would cost less than the gains in using the IP. If it ever even came to that. That's something companies do all the time.   

We agree that words have meaning.  That's why I chose the ones I chose and more importantly, placed them where I did.  Please don't remix my words.

I believe if you read it back you’ll find you’re the one who introduced fan-fic (fan fiction?) into the conversation.  But you don’t want me to respond to that?  Too late. 

And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with making suppositions and then weaving a narrative based upon them.  Are you unaware that this is exactly what detectives, when all the facts are not yet in hand, do in order to develop a theory of a case?  They make suppositions, develop a theory and then follow leads to either prove or disprove that theory.  I’m sorry you aren’t either familiar with, or comfortable with, that particular intellectual process.  Your discomfort doesn’t make it less useful a tool for developing a theory of what’s going on here.  Or are you saying (a) you have facts I don’t or (b) you just prefer to side with the plaintives in the same manner you believe you see me siding with the defendants?  You can’t eat your cake and have it too.   

And you’ve made your own supposition when you put forth your alternate theory of cost/benefit analysis, which may also be the case.  We don’t yet know.  But I won’t tell you you don’t have a right to your suppositions and theory of the case.  

GeorgeBMac

Actually, I am waiting for Apple to walk away from this optical technology and start measuring heart rate electronically as chest bands have done for athletes for decades.  It not only requires far less power but is also more accurate -- and likely far cheaper to build.

Obviously the electronic signal from the heart travels to the wrist, otherwise the Apple Watch would not be able to do EKGs.

I'm not sure what the hang-up is.  But I'm sure there is something otherwise Apple (and others) would have already implemented it.

gatorguy

seanismorris said:

I don’t think “trade secrets” has any meaning, unless someone left with files/data that was then given to Apple.

Trad secrets are legally protected under US law. There are times in fact where they are preferable to a patent. Not sure that would be so in the case of Masimo and health monitoring tech but that's their claim, trade secrets were illegally disclosed.  

jcs2305

CloudTalkin said:

linuxplatform said:

What about all the other wearable heart rate monitors on the market today and those that pre-existed the Apple Watch? Normally I am suspicious of the "everyone is a lying thieving crook but Apple who can do no wrong" crowd but even if the Apple Watch has "the best" heart rate monitor on the market among wearables there are plenty that are quite good. Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung and even Fossil are reported to have good ones in their watches and bands by the various consumer review sites and a good percentage of them even rate Garmin's as better. It may not be an open standard like, say, bluetooth but it still appears to have been a common and widely implemented technology for years.

They're suing Apple because they claimed to have met with Apple, shared info with Apple, and Apple subsequently hired away key employees and deployed tech that Masimo thinks infringed on Masimo tech.  I don't think Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung, or Fossil meet any of those thresholds for being sued.

Or 1. They could be waiting to sue those guys later (like Sonos suing Google instead of Goggle and Amazon because they can only afford to sue one at a time)
Or 2. The other guys could have licensed Masimo IP
Or 3. Garmin, Fitbit, Samsung, and Fossil secretly formed a Cabal and are secretly bankrolling Masimo's lawsuit against Apple in the hopes of gaining an embargo on the Apple Watch so their smartwatches have a chance of gaining a foothold.  Moments before the judge renders a verdict in favor of the cAbal, the trial is interrupted with the bombshell info that the entire trial has been a conspiracy against Apple and the Apple Watch.  As the judge rules against the caBal, a Samsung Ballie rolls slowly into the courtroom and shoots darts into the necks of the cabAl members so they can't turn against each other.  Which means someone was controlling the cabaL. dun-dun-duuuuuunnnnn.

Not gonna lie.  Sort really hoping for option 3.

Hahahaha  ..great post.