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.
Google sued Uber over the theft of trade secrets, stolen by former engineer Anthony Levandowski. Uber decided to settle with them for a monetary and stock award along with a promise not to use any of the stolen IP rather than risk a bigger award in a court trial.
As for Levandowski he's been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on charges of trade secret theft from Google, 33 counts of it in total. Isn't the situation somewhat similar to this Apple case, other than Uber never invited Google to show them their trade secret tech for possible inclusion in an Uber product as Apple did with Masimo?
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.
Bud, you can respond to any you'd like. Not sure why you're trying to remind me I introduced fan-fic into the conversation. I know I did. Intentionally, and nothing you've written subsequent has changed my opinion. What you've written reads like fan fiction: an elaborate scenario where the good guy Apple is being pursued by the bad guy Masimo when the bad guy should be after the real mastermind Lamego. And in your story, the good guy Apple couldn't have possibly done anything wrong because they would have done everything in their power to avoid it. That pollyannic viewpoint seems - going full circle - like fan fiction.
So no one is trying to stop you from using supposition. No one is against the use of supposition. Not sure why you think I am. If I gave you the impression I was against supposition, then I sincerely apologize. That was never my intent. What I am trying to get you to see is that I don't think what you're supposing is worthy of discourse. That's why I said it reads like fan-fic. That's entirely different from not wanting supposition used. Again, apologies for the confusion.
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.
Everyone knows aping means imitating, often clumsily. Aping is used derogatorily, but it isn’t the same as outright theft, say of copyrighted works or patent protected inventions. That’s just what the words mean.
As for patents and inventions, copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not basic ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently. If Apple does things a little bit differently they will likely win.
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.
Bud, you can respond to any you'd like. Not sure why you're trying to remind me I introduced fan-fic into the conversation. I know I did. Intentionally, and nothing you've written subsequent has changed my opinion. What you've written reads like fan fiction: an elaborate scenario where the good guy Apple is being pursued by the bad guy Masimo when the bad guy should be after the real mastermind Lamego. And in your story, the good guy Apple couldn't have possibly done anything wrong because they would have done everything in their power to avoid it. That pollyannic viewpoint seems - going full circle - like fan fiction.
So no one is trying to stop you from using supposition. No one is against the use of supposition. Not sure why you think I am. If I gave you the impression I was against supposition, then I sincerely apologize. That was never my intent. What I am trying to get you to see is that I don't think what you're supposing is worthy of discourse. That's why I said it reads like fan-fic. That's entirely different from not wanting supposition used. Again, apologies for the confusion.
Except you completely misread me. I’m not trying to change your opinion. I simply stated that you introduced the notion of fanboyism and that means I get to respond to that charge. Where are you losing that plot?
And your theory that my position on this is not based on logic but on fanboy bias continues when you characterize my view as an elaborate scenario where there is a good guy and a bad guy. I was VERY SIMPLY putting forth a logical case. Put yourself in the position of any company (take Apple out of this mind experiment) that is about to hire away an employee responsible for patented IP. You know absolutely well that you can’t simply have that employee duplicate his patented work for you (you’ll get sued, and rightfully so), but you can certainly have him elucidate for your engineering team everything about those patented inventions. The patents themselves do that. And then you can go about the very legal business of modifying the patented process to come up with a process that doesn’t infringe. Which is done all the time. So why is it Apple fan fiction to suggest that a smart company like Apple wouldn’t do exactly that? Why is that characterized as some elaborate theory, just because you prefer a theory that casts Apple as the bad guy who did a cost analysis and decided to infringe? Do you read your own writing?
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.
Copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not general ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently.
Try again.
This one involves primarily trade secrets doesn't it, with a side helping of patents?
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.
Bud, you can respond to any you'd like. Not sure why you're trying to remind me I introduced fan-fic into the conversation. I know I did. Intentionally, and nothing you've written subsequent has changed my opinion. What you've written reads like fan fiction: an elaborate scenario where the good guy Apple is being pursued by the bad guy Masimo when the bad guy should be after the real mastermind Lamego. And in your story, the good guy Apple couldn't have possibly done anything wrong because they would have done everything in their power to avoid it. That pollyannic viewpoint seems - going full circle - like fan fiction.
So no one is trying to stop you from using supposition. No one is against the use of supposition. Not sure why you think I am. If I gave you the impression I was against supposition, then I sincerely apologize. That was never my intent. What I am trying to get you to see is that I don't think what you're supposing is worthy of discourse. That's why I said it reads like fan-fic. That's entirely different from not wanting supposition used. Again, apologies for the confusion.
Except you completely misread me. I’m not trying to change your opinion. I simply stated that you introduced the notion of fanboyism and that means I get to respond to that charge. Where are you losing that plot?
And your theory that my position on this is not based on logic but on fanboy bias continues when you characterize my view as an elaborate scenario where there is a good guy and a bad guy. I was VERY SIMPLY putting forth a logical case. Put yourself in the position of any company (take Apple out of this mind experiment) that is about to hire away an employee responsible for patented IP. You know absolutely well that you can’t simply have that employee duplicate his patented work for you (you’ll get sued, and rightfully so), but you can certainly have him elucidate for your engineering team everything about those patented inventions. The patents themselves do that. And then you can go about the very legal business of modifying the patented process to come up with a process that doesn’t infringe. Which is done all the time. So why is it Apple fan fiction to suggest that a smart company like Apple wouldn’t do exactly that? Why is that characterized as some elaborate theory, just because you prefer a theory that casts Apple as the bad guy who did a cost analysis and decided to infringe? Do you read your own writing?
“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
You're trying to reason with a guy who has a narrative to peddle.
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.
Copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not general ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently.
Try again.
This one involves primarily trade secrets doesn't it, with a side helping of patents?
From the way the AI story is written it sounds like you have it backwards, it’s mostly about the 10 patents and a side of trade secrets by poaching.
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.
Copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not general ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently.
Try again.
This one involves primarily trade secrets doesn't it, with a side helping of patents?
From the way the AI story is written it sounds like you have it backwards, it’s mostly about the 10 patents and a side of trade secrets by poaching.
It is you who has it backwards. You might try reading the lawsuit itself rather than a summation on a blog before pointing fingers in my direction.
From the lawsuit, page one: "This action seeks relief from the theft of Plaintiff's highly confidential information and trade secrets, and infringement of Masimo's patents by defendant, and ownership of patents to or filed by Apple on subject matter that belongs to Masimo."
The essence of the case builds around the theft of trade secrets. Masimo wants Apple to stop using their IP, be compensated for what has already occurred, and want any patents that Apple filed for or obtained based on those "stolen trade secrets" transferred to Masimo ownership.
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.
Copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not general ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently.
Try again.
This one involves primarily trade secrets doesn't it, with a side helping of patents?
From the way the AI story is written it sounds like you have it backwards, it’s mostly about the 10 patents and a side of trade secrets by poaching.
It is you who has it backwards. You might try reading the lawsuit itself rather than a summation on a blog before pointing fingers in my direction.
From the lawsuit, page one: "This action seeks relief from the theft of Plaintiff's highly confidential information and trade secrets, and infringement of Masimo's patents by defendant, and ownership of patents to or filed by Apple on subject matter that belongs to Masimo."
The essence of the case builds around the theft of trade secrets. Masimo wants Apple to stop using their IP, be compensated for what has already occurred, and want any patents that Apple filed for or obtained based on those "stolen trade secrets" transferred to Masimo ownership.
“Trade secrets” will depend specifically on the information disclosed when Apple was receiving information under the terms of the disclosure agreement(s) it had. That’s squishy without further detailed information.
Apple will presumably fight this or not, depending on their interpretation of “winnable”. We can’t possibly know that.
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.
Bud, you can respond to any you'd like. Not sure why you're trying to remind me I introduced fan-fic into the conversation. I know I did. Intentionally, and nothing you've written subsequent has changed my opinion. What you've written reads like fan fiction: an elaborate scenario where the good guy Apple is being pursued by the bad guy Masimo when the bad guy should be after the real mastermind Lamego. And in your story, the good guy Apple couldn't have possibly done anything wrong because they would have done everything in their power to avoid it. That pollyannic viewpoint seems - going full circle - like fan fiction.
So no one is trying to stop you from using supposition. No one is against the use of supposition. Not sure why you think I am. If I gave you the impression I was against supposition, then I sincerely apologize. That was never my intent. What I am trying to get you to see is that I don't think what you're supposing is worthy of discourse. That's why I said it reads like fan-fic. That's entirely different from not wanting supposition used. Again, apologies for the confusion.
You don’t have logic on your side, CloudTalkin. I suggest you cut your losses.
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.
Copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not general ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently.
Try again.
This one involves primarily trade secrets doesn't it, with a side helping of patents?
From the way the AI story is written it sounds like you have it backwards, it’s mostly about the 10 patents and a side of trade secrets by poaching.
It is you who has it backwards. You might try reading the lawsuit itself rather than a summation on a blog before pointing fingers in my direction.
From the lawsuit, page one: "This action seeks relief from the theft of Plaintiff's highly confidential information and trade secrets, and infringement of Masimo's patents by defendant, and ownership of patents to or filed by Apple on subject matter that belongs to Masimo."
The essence of the case builds around the theft of trade secrets. Masimo wants Apple to stop using their IP, be compensated for what has already occurred, and want any patents that Apple filed for or obtained based on those "stolen trade secrets" transferred to Masimo ownership.
“Trade secrets” will depend specifically on the information disclosed when Apple was receiving information under the terms of the disclosure agreement(s) it had. That’s squishy without further detailed information.
Apple will presumably fight this or not, depending on their interpretation of “winnable”. We can’t possibly know that.
Essentially correct, with the addition of unlawful disclosure of any "trade secrets" to Apple (see Vicarious Liability) from former engineers/executives/employees of Masimo. That's how Uber would have been held liable for an engineers "theft" of Google trade secrets .
I am one of a few hundred thousand folks who has a lung disease and need to have access to a Oximeter frequently to monitor our blood saturation of O2. Many of us have been hoping that the Apple watch would release that ability on the Apple Watch as we expect it would be reliable and certainly handy.
So we really hope and pray that this disagreement gets resolved quickly so Apple can implement the necessary software to measure our O2 saturation quickly.
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.
1. If that were the case they would have said so. 2. Extremely unlikely. 3. Except that Samsung already has a foothold. They have a 12% market share, are #3 overall (with #2 making very cheap bands sold primarily in China) and - more important - a 150% year increase YoY in sales. Garmin meanwhile has a 7% market share, quite good for what was always a small company to begin with (their primary product before smartphones with Google Maps and later Apple Maps essentially chased them out of that business was GPS navigators). They have done a pretty good job for themselves rebounding as they are probably selling more watches than they did GPS devices. Fitbit ... they are owned by Google now.
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.
1. If that were the case they would have said so. 2. Extremely unlikely. 3. Except that Samsung already has a foothold. They have a 12% market share, are #3 overall (with #2 making very cheap bands sold primarily in China) and - more important - a 150% year increase YoY in sales. Garmin meanwhile has a 7% market share, quite good for what was always a small company to begin with (their primary product before smartphones with Google Maps and later Apple Maps essentially chased them out of that business was GPS navigators). They have done a pretty good job for themselves rebounding as they are probably selling more watches than they did GPS devices. Fitbit ... they are owned by Google now.
FWIW Masimo does license their tech to a number of companies, tho the specific ones mentioned above aren't listed as licensees. https://www.masimo.com/oem/partners/
Comments
As for Levandowski he's been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on charges of trade secret theft from Google, 33 counts of it in total.
Isn't the situation somewhat similar to this Apple case, other than Uber never invited Google to show them their trade secret tech for possible inclusion in an Uber product as Apple did with Masimo?
So no one is trying to stop you from using supposition. No one is against the use of supposition. Not sure why you think I am. If I gave you the impression I was against supposition, then I sincerely apologize. That was never my intent. What I am trying to get you to see is that I don't think what you're supposing is worthy of discourse. That's why I said it reads like fan-fic. That's entirely different from not wanting supposition used. Again, apologies for the confusion.
Everyone knows aping means imitating, often clumsily. Aping is used derogatorily, but it isn’t the same as outright theft, say of copyrighted works or patent protected inventions. That’s just what the words mean.
As for patents and inventions, copying ideas is generally legal because patents protect implementations, not basic ideas. This is why in nearly all product categories you have similar products from multiple competitors doing things a little differently. If Apple does things a little bit differently they will likely win.
Try again.
And your theory that my position on this is not based on logic but on fanboy bias continues when you characterize my view as an elaborate scenario where there is a good guy and a bad guy. I was VERY SIMPLY putting forth a logical case. Put yourself in the position of any company (take Apple out of this mind experiment) that is about to hire away an employee responsible for patented IP. You know absolutely well that you can’t simply have that employee duplicate his patented work for you (you’ll get sued, and rightfully so), but you can certainly have him elucidate for your engineering team everything about those patented inventions. The patents themselves do that. And then you can go about the very legal business of modifying the patented process to come up with a process that doesn’t infringe. Which is done all the time. So why is it Apple fan fiction to suggest that a smart company like Apple wouldn’t do exactly that? Why is that characterized as some elaborate theory, just because you prefer a theory that casts Apple as the bad guy who did a cost analysis and decided to infringe? Do you read your own writing?
You're trying to reason with a guy who has a narrative to peddle.
From the lawsuit, page one:
"This action seeks relief from the theft of Plaintiff's highly confidential information and trade secrets, and infringement of Masimo's patents by defendant, and ownership of patents to or filed by Apple on subject matter that belongs to Masimo."
The essence of the case builds around the theft of trade secrets.
Masimo wants Apple to stop using their IP, be compensated for what has already occurred, and want any patents that Apple filed for or obtained based on those "stolen trade secrets" transferred to Masimo ownership.
Apple will presumably fight this or not, depending on their interpretation of “winnable”. We can’t possibly know that.
"Trade secrets" are a legal definition and protected under the law. even against former employees and the companies that hire them.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2015/04/what-if-an-ex-employee-is-using-your-trade-secrets.html
2. Extremely unlikely.
3. Except that Samsung already has a foothold. They have a 12% market share, are #3 overall (with #2 making very cheap bands sold primarily in China) and - more important - a 150% year increase YoY in sales. Garmin meanwhile has a 7% market share, quite good for what was always a small company to begin with (their primary product before smartphones with Google Maps and later Apple Maps essentially chased them out of that business was GPS navigators). They have done a pretty good job for themselves rebounding as they are probably selling more watches than they did GPS devices. Fitbit ... they are owned by Google now.
https://www.masimo.com/oem/partners/