You guys need to be mindful that the blood oxygen feature is only disabled in the USA. It works everywhere else in the world, and Apple Watches are being sold with the feature today.
Thank you! This article is just another example of the US media forgetting the rest of the planet exists!
Now has it actually been removed from new watches or just disabled for USA? I doubt AppleInsider will be finding out before or after the launch!
It is only disabled. If Apple gets the go ahead, they can reenable it.
Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.
The US Trade Court said the Apple Watch violated a Masimo patent for a blood oxygen sensor that is housed in a convex surface with a chamfer. This patent was filed after Apple started selling watches with a blood oxygen feature.
Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
I think the patent you're referring to has a priority date of 7/3/2008. That's way before the Apple Watch was even a thought. Am I mistaken? If so, what's the patent number for the one you're talking about?
EDIT: I think you're getting confused by the grant date, which can be years after the patent application was filed. Those are two different things; Apple wasn't submarined.
What is this 2008 patent and what is the dependent claim number for the chamfer in this 2008 patent.
The USITC is claiming that the Apple Watch violates the last dependent claim, which claims a chamfer on a convex sensor housing. This dependent claim was filed later in the same month that Apple announced the blood oxymetry feature on Watch 6 (I think that was the model). Prior patent claims did not include those sensor housing features. It wasn't granted until 4 months later or so.
Perhaps I'm wrong, as patents are obtuse by design, as well as interpretations of patents being overly broad.
I won’t pretend to have medical knowledge but my doctor detected my sleep apnea when he saw a characteristic effect on an ECG and that was confirmed by a sleep study. It’s possible the Apple Watch could do likewise with its ECG feature.
You are correct and thanks for adding this.
I do know from five experiences with in-lab sleep studies they look at ECG, EEG, pulse oxygen, and oxygen saturation. They place several sensors in various places around your head and torso. You end up looking like Medusa when it’s all set up.
The key thing they are looking for In the case of obstructive sleep apnea is how many stopped-breathing events you are having, typically expressed as events per hour. Measurements like oxygen saturation, changes in heart rhythm, abnormal ECG, abnormal EEG (sleep architecture issues), are all consequences of the stopped-breathing events, I.e., the negative impacts on your heart and brain.
While in-lab sleep studies are very comprehensive they expensive and insurance companies hate paying for them, especially when patients diagnosed with sleep apnea do not comply with the most common treatment, CPAP etc. What more insurers are doing to reduce these costs is to prescribe in-home self administered sleep studies that require far less data capture equipment. The last at-home study I did only used a pulse oxygen sensor connected to a cell phone sized capture and storage device.
If the Apple Watch had a working oxygen level function at-home studies and monitoring could take place every night. But it sounds like Apple could be using the ECG sensor to detect the predictable impact the stopped-breathing events have on the heart. This is good enough to tell you to talk to your doctor about sleep apnea, but having oxygen saturation data is easier imho to understand the damage that’s being done. Having both sensors available would be even better.
It does seem like it will be difficult to detect sleep apnea without pulse oximetry because low oxygen sat levels are one of the most important indicators of sleep apnea. I suppose they may be able to detect breathing interruptions, snoring, and wearers gasping to breathe.
Like many others I believe the standoff with Masimo is definitely hurting Apple's customers regardless of who is right or who is wrong at the legal level. We are the ones caught in the middle as long as the lawyers keep fighting. I have no doubt that both parties know very well that real people are losing out here. However, at the end of the day they are both firmly committed to placing profits and principles over people. That's just the way the world actually works.
Blood Ox is available for customers outside the US.
Blood Ox is available for customers outside the US.
So can I pick up an Apple Watch while traveling (say, to Canada) and bring it back with the feature intact? I presume it will be disabled when activated by my US-based Apple ID.
Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.
If the situation was reversed you would be in here encouraging the non Apple entity to fight the good fight. Just admit you have a hatred for all things Apple and move on.
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
Another health element users will miss out on is blood oxygen sensing. Following Masimo's legal fight and the successful ban on Apple using the technology, Apple stripped it out of the Apple Watch.
However, as Apple CEO Tim Cook previously implied that Apple wouldn't license Masimo's patents, blood oxygen sensing won't be making a return anytime soon.
This is wrong. Blood oxygen sensing isn’t missing from Apple Watch.
The only people „missing out“ on blood oxygen sensing are customers in the United States of America.
Maybe some day, Americans will finally grasp this „global“ concept and understand the whole internet thing.
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
It’s a sales ban, not an import ban. Imports are affected because you can’t import something with intent to sell that you’re not actually allowed to sell.
Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.
The US Trade Court said the Apple Watch violated a Masimo patent for a blood oxygen sensor that is housed in a convex surface with a chamfer. This patent was filed after Apple started selling watches with a blood oxygen feature.
Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
I think the patent you're referring to has a priority date of 7/3/2008. That's way before the Apple Watch was even a thought. Am I mistaken? If so, what's the patent number for the one you're talking about?
EDIT: I think you're getting confused by the grant date, which can be years after the patent application was filed. Those are two different things; Apple wasn't submarined.
The two patents I looked up had a „priority date“ of 2008 and actual application dates of 2020, two years after the AW4 was released. The grant date was 2021, a year after application.
Does the priority date — the effective date of the claim of novelty — require extra proof, or is this legally clarified as the original date of patent validity, even if the actual application wasn’t submitted until twelve years later?
Does the patent office keep track of priority dates before an actual patent application, so that a potential violator (like Apple) has the chance to look them up when creating their own products?
Apple is more interested in profits than helping their customers lead healthier lives. The licensing fee they would have to pay for O2 levels is a pittance in the overall scheme of finances at Apple. They got caught violating a patent and their ego is preventing them from admitting it which is preventing existing and future customers from the health benefits of monitoring O2 saturation.
The US Trade Court said the Apple Watch violated a Masimo patent for a blood oxygen sensor that is housed in a convex surface with a chamfer. This patent was filed after Apple started selling watches with a blood oxygen feature.
Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
I think the patent you're referring to has a priority date of 7/3/2008. That's way before the Apple Watch was even a thought. Am I mistaken? If so, what's the patent number for the one you're talking about?
EDIT: I think you're getting confused by the grant date, which can be years after the patent application was filed. Those are two different things; Apple wasn't submarined.
The two patents I looked up had a „priority date“ of 2008 and actual application dates of 2020, two years after the AW4 was released. The grant date was 2021, a year after application.
Does the priority date — the effective date of the claim of novelty — require extra proof, or is this legally clarified as the original date of patent validity, even if the actual application wasn’t submitted until twelve years later?
Does the patent office keep track of priority dates before an actual patent application, so that a potential violator (like Apple) has the chance to look them up when creating their own products?
I don't know enough about patent law to answer. I would note the wording "This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application (fill in the blank)" and referring to filings done years earlier, which is common.
But as far as "having a chance to look them up" it would be an effort in frustration. Patents are applied for with claims as general and all-encompassing as they believe the patent office allows, and getting the wording correct may take months or it may take years. Even then, deciphering whether the patent may apply to an unforeseen future product is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
We just had an article here with one of these broad and unspecific patent grants reported. Some claim(s) in it might apply to a plethora of control devices from many sources yet to come. How would they know for certain until the claim were adjudicated in court? So patents can serve as wonderful scare tactics to discourage all but the biggest, baddest, and most deep-pocketed companies. https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3456177/#Comment_3456177 ; BTW, I think that particular Apple patent already has another filing with "this application is a continuation" and referencing applications from a few years earlier.
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
That would really increase the price of the watch. The only Apple product made in the US is the Mac Pro.
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
That would really increase the price of the watch. The only Apple product made in the US is the Mac Pro.
Except doesn't a somewhat recent change in labeling now say “Product of Thailand” ?
I am disappointed that the hypertension feature missed out on this go round. I have an Ultra 2 and absolutely love it 🥰. So I will not upgrade this time around. When Apple figures out the hypertension and glucose feature. It will make the Apple Watch the ultimate health monitor. I do not diabetes. But! I have hypertension that I need to keep track of. This feature will be a game changer for me.
Maybe some day, Americans will finally grasp this „global“ concept and understand the whole internet thing.
You're going far beyond the scope and context of the feature in question. If an Apple Watch buyer lives in the US and buys any Apple Watch that is impacted by the ongoing legal dispute the oxygen sensor is inaccessible. Whether the oxygen sensor is still present in the device or whether the US-banned feature is available in other countries does not matter at all. Knowing that one of my German, Canadian, or Singaporean colleagues has that feature activated in the same Apple Watch model that I own doesn't help me in any way. That's just a fact.
This topic has nothing at all to do with American's perspectives about global markets, global economies, or other countries. US citizens, just like citizens of all other countries, have individual perspectives, individual understanding of different concepts, and we don't necessarily buy into the nonsense that our public facing "leaders" or "wannabe leaders," especially the weird ones, project. We, just like you, can't control what others think or assume about us either.
It's perfectly okay not to pick sides in a disagreement between two others. All I know is that a bunch of Apple customers are being denied a feature that they want, a feature that was already built into the device and previous versions of the device. We are caught in the middle of a disagreement that we had nothing at all to do with. I simply want the issue resolved. How and when they reach an agreement is up to the parties who are involved. Until it is resolved, Apple Watches that fall under US jurisdiction are suffering from collateral damage. Those of us who bought an Apple Watch knowing that the feature in question was disabled don't have very solid of ground to stand on, but we still want the feature turned back on nonetheless because we recognize the value that it brings.
spheric said: Maybe some day, Americans will finally grasp this „global“ concept and understand the whole internet thing.
You're going far beyond the scope and context of the feature in question. If an Apple Watch buyer lives in the US and buys any Apple Watch that is impacted by the ongoing legal dispute the oxygen sensor is inaccessible. Whether the oxygen sensor is still present in the device or whether the US-banned feature is available in other countries does not matter at all. Knowing that one of my German, Canadian, or Singaporean colleagues has that feature activated in the same Apple Watch model that I own doesn't help me in any way. That's just a fact.
This topic has nothing at all to do with American's perspectives about global markets, global economies, or other countries.
My comment had to do with the fact that THE INTERNET is a global thing, and this website and its articles are being read OUTSIDE the United States of America, and have been for MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.
If you write that "Another health element users will miss out on is blood oxygen sensing. Following Masimo's legal fight and the successful ban on Apple using the technology, Apple stripped it out of the Apple Watch." then that's simply misinformation for the vast majority of people on the internet who have access to this article (who outnumber USAians about 10:1).
It is just a "health element AMERICAN users will miss out on". The US patent dispute between Apple and Masimo does not affect me or any Apple Watch I could buy in any way. They all have blood oxygen measurement. That's just a fact.
Blood Ox is available for customers outside the US.
So can I pick up an Apple Watch while traveling (say, to Canada) and bring it back with the feature intact? I presume it will be disabled when activated by my US-based Apple ID.
You can, and it will still work in the US. It's only disabled on watches sold in the US.
So yes, a quick trip to Canada is in order if you want a new watch.
For anyone else wondering, only Apple watches with a model number ending with LW/A, which denotes US, and sold after Jan. 18/24, have the feature disabled.
I won’t pretend to have medical knowledge but my doctor detected my sleep apnea when he saw a characteristic effect on an ECG and that was confirmed by a sleep study. It’s possible the Apple Watch could do likewise with its ECG feature.
If the Apple Watch had a working oxygen level function at-home studies and monitoring could take place every night. But it sounds like Apple could be using the ECG sensor to detect the predictable impact the stopped-breathing events have on the heart. This is good enough to tell you to talk to your doctor about sleep apnea, but having oxygen saturation data is easier imho to understand the damage that’s being done. Having both sensors available would be even better.
Thank you, I knew we would have some folks here are more knowledgeable about this than I am. I just want to add that I hadn’t complained about sleep apnea and the doctor wasn’t looking specifically for that when he ordered the ECG. I suspect that was just based on family history or having reached a certain age. He just saw signs of sleep apnea in the results and then ordered a sleep study. I am sure it’s better to have the oxygen sensors, but it seems possible to detect sleep apnea without them.
Comments
The USITC is claiming that the Apple Watch violates the last dependent claim, which claims a chamfer on a convex sensor housing. This dependent claim was filed later in the same month that Apple announced the blood oxymetry feature on Watch 6 (I think that was the model). Prior patent claims did not include those sensor housing features. It wasn't granted until 4 months later or so.
Perhaps I'm wrong, as patents are obtuse by design, as well as interpretations of patents being overly broad.
I do know from five experiences with in-lab sleep studies they look at ECG, EEG, pulse oxygen, and oxygen saturation. They place several sensors in various places around your head and torso. You end up looking like Medusa when it’s all set up.
The key thing they are looking for In the case of obstructive sleep apnea is how many stopped-breathing events you are having, typically expressed as events per hour. Measurements like oxygen saturation, changes in heart rhythm, abnormal ECG, abnormal EEG (sleep architecture issues), are all consequences of the stopped-breathing events, I.e., the negative impacts on your heart and brain.
If the situation was reversed you would be in here encouraging the non Apple entity to fight the good fight. Just admit you have a hatred for all things Apple and move on.
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
But as far as "having a chance to look them up" it would be an effort in frustration. Patents are applied for with claims as general and all-encompassing as they believe the patent office allows, and getting the wording correct may take months or it may take years. Even then, deciphering whether the patent may apply to an unforeseen future product is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
We just had an article here with one of these broad and unspecific patent grants reported. Some claim(s) in it might apply to a plethora of control devices from many sources yet to come. How would they know for certain until the claim were adjudicated in court? So patents can serve as wonderful scare tactics to discourage all but the biggest, baddest, and most deep-pocketed companies.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/3456177/#Comment_3456177 ;
BTW, I think that particular Apple patent already has another filing with "this application is a continuation" and referencing applications from a few years earlier.
This topic has nothing at all to do with American's perspectives about global markets, global economies, or other countries. US citizens, just like citizens of all other countries, have individual perspectives, individual understanding of different concepts, and we don't necessarily buy into the nonsense that our public facing "leaders" or "wannabe leaders," especially the weird ones, project. We, just like you, can't control what others think or assume about us either.
It's perfectly okay not to pick sides in a disagreement between two others. All I know is that a bunch of Apple customers are being denied a feature that they want, a feature that was already built into the device and previous versions of the device. We are caught in the middle of a disagreement that we had nothing at all to do with. I simply want the issue resolved. How and when they reach an agreement is up to the parties who are involved. Until it is resolved, Apple Watches that fall under US jurisdiction are suffering from collateral damage. Those of us who bought an Apple Watch knowing that the feature in question was disabled don't have very solid of ground to stand on, but we still want the feature turned back on nonetheless because we recognize the value that it brings.
It is just a "health element AMERICAN users will miss out on". The US patent dispute between Apple and Masimo does not affect me or any Apple Watch I could buy in any way. They all have blood oxygen measurement. That's just a fact.