President Biden upholds potential Apple Watch ban

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 30
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,077member
    davidw said:
    AppleZulu said:
    The spin on this report is making me dizzy. 

    The actual facts of the case appear to be this:

    AliveCor held patents in the area of ECG reader tech. Apple built ECG tech into the Apple Watch. AliveCor claims Apple has violated its patents, and took two parallel actions. They 1) filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, and 2) asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. 

    Three things have resulted so far. 1) The courts invalidated AliveCor’s patents. 2) The ITC approved the import ban that would go into effect if AliveCor wins its infringement cases. 3) The President did not exercise his option to overrule the FTC. 

    This is not the same thing as suggested by this headline and article, that Joe Biden somehow sided with AliveCor to “uphold” a ban. 

    This whole thing is moot unless AliveCor turns everything around and wins the infringement case on appeal, which is unlikely. So why, other than cynical click bait, run a headline that makes it sound like Joe Biden is personally going to take your Apple Watch away?

    Not quite. Not that it matters, except for getting the detail of the facts right.

    AliveCor did not .... "asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases." It was the ITC that decided not to enforce any ban on the US imports of Apple Watch unless AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. The ITC has the power to ban Apple Watch imports before the outcome of the trial but AliveCor would have to post a bond to cover Apple losses during the ban, in case AliveCor don't win their infringement case against Apple. AliveCor would never be able to afford to post such a bond. But you never know if some scumbag like Sweeney (CEO of Epic Games) might post the bond for AliveCor.

    And it was not the courts that invalidated AliveCor patents, it was the US Patent Office own patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found the patents invalid. This makes it a lot harder, if not near impossible, for Alivecor to have their patents made valid again, on appeal. They are arguing their appeal case to the PTAB patent judges, not to a judge in a court of law. The courts must abide by the PTAB rulings and have no power to overturn any PTAB rulings on patents.

    But you're right about the headline. It makes it seem as though there's a "potential" that the ITC will ban Apple Watch imports, when in reality at this point, there's almost no chances at all.

    It's a win-win for POTUS Biden to say that he would not veto the ITC "potential" ban on Apple Watch as this shows his progressive supporters that he is not on the side of big tech but he also knows that the outcome of the ITC case is almost certain to be in Apple's favor anyway. Thus no harm done. If there was a real "potential" that the ITC could ban Apple Watches, he would surely had waited until the ITC made such a ban, to decide on any veto. He still have the power to veto a ban, even after the ITC makes the decision to ban Apple Watches.

     






    The USITC suspended enforcement of the exclusion order (as well as the cease and desist order and the $2 per unit bond against Apple) pending the ultimate resolution of the PTAB's invalidation. It did not suspend that order pending the outcome of the infringement trial. Indeed, if the PTAB's invalidation is ultimately upheld the infringement case likely won't go to trial.

    Also, the courts - namely the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court - do have the authority to overturn the PTAB's invalidation determination in this case. The Federal Circuit is where AliveCor is appealing that determination. I'd say it's an uphill battle for AliveCor, but I wouldn't say that it's nearly impossible to get a PTAB invalidation reversed (and a patent's validity re-established). The Federal Circuit does sometimes do just that. It could reverse the invalidation determination outright or it could overturn the PTAB's decision and send the matter back to the PTAB to be reconsidered based on certain guidance it provides.

    That said, I'd agree - for a number of reasons - that there's very little chance that an import ban on Apple Watches will ever go into effect based on these AliveCor patents.

    But I'd also note that, if the President was going to disapprove of this import ban, he'd likely have done it during the 60-day window following notice of the exclusion order. The provision of the law which grants him the power to effectively veto such exclusion orders doesn't seem to give him that authority once that window has closed. He and/or his advisors probably don't think the import ban will go into effect anyway. But I'm not sure that he'd be able to stop it at this point if, e.g., AliveCor ultimately wins on appeal.
    muthuk_vanalingamFileMakerFellergatorguy
  • Reply 22 of 30
    As I have a patent on a product I invented if another company was stupid enough to put my invention without checking to see that I had a patent on it already then that company I would sue. Apple is shown here to be a lawless company. I hope not only for a ban but for them to get sued to high water for this theft if it so happens to be true.
  • Reply 23 of 30
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    carnegie said:
    davidw said:
    AppleZulu said:
    The spin on this report is making me dizzy. 

    The actual facts of the case appear to be this:

    AliveCor held patents in the area of ECG reader tech. Apple built ECG tech into the Apple Watch. AliveCor claims Apple has violated its patents, and took two parallel actions. They 1) filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, and 2) asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. 

    Three things have resulted so far. 1) The courts invalidated AliveCor’s patents. 2) The ITC approved the import ban that would go into effect if AliveCor wins its infringement cases. 3) The President did not exercise his option to overrule the FTC. 

    This is not the same thing as suggested by this headline and article, that Joe Biden somehow sided with AliveCor to “uphold” a ban. 

    This whole thing is moot unless AliveCor turns everything around and wins the infringement case on appeal, which is unlikely. So why, other than cynical click bait, run a headline that makes it sound like Joe Biden is personally going to take your Apple Watch away?

    Not quite. Not that it matters, except for getting the detail of the facts right.

    AliveCor did not .... "asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases." It was the ITC that decided not to enforce any ban on the US imports of Apple Watch unless AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. The ITC has the power to ban Apple Watch imports before the outcome of the trial but AliveCor would have to post a bond to cover Apple losses during the ban, in case AliveCor don't win their infringement case against Apple. AliveCor would never be able to afford to post such a bond. But you never know if some scumbag like Sweeney (CEO of Epic Games) might post the bond for AliveCor.

    And it was not the courts that invalidated AliveCor patents, it was the US Patent Office own patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found the patents invalid. This makes it a lot harder, if not near impossible, for Alivecor to have their patents made valid again, on appeal. They are arguing their appeal case to the PTAB patent judges, not to a judge in a court of law. The courts must abide by the PTAB rulings and have no power to overturn any PTAB rulings on patents.

    But you're right about the headline. It makes it seem as though there's a "potential" that the ITC will ban Apple Watch imports, when in reality at this point, there's almost no chances at all.

    It's a win-win for POTUS Biden to say that he would not veto the ITC "potential" ban on Apple Watch as this shows his progressive supporters that he is not on the side of big tech but he also knows that the outcome of the ITC case is almost certain to be in Apple's favor anyway. Thus no harm done. If there was a real "potential" that the ITC could ban Apple Watches, he would surely had waited until the ITC made such a ban, to decide on any veto. He still have the power to veto a ban, even after the ITC makes the decision to ban Apple Watches.

     






    The USITC suspended enforcement of the exclusion order (as well as the cease and desist order and the $2 per unit bond against Apple) pending the ultimate resolution of the PTAB's invalidation. It did not suspend that order pending the outcome of the infringement trial. Indeed, if the PTAB's invalidation is ultimately upheld the infringement case likely won't go to trial.

    Also, the courts - namely the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court - do have the authority to overturn the PTAB's invalidation determination in this case. The Federal Circuit is where AliveCor is appealing that determination. I'd say it's an uphill battle for AliveCor, but I wouldn't say that it's nearly impossible to get a PTAB invalidation reversed (and a patent's validity re-established). The Federal Circuit does sometimes do just that. It could reverse the invalidation determination outright or it could overturn the PTAB's decision and send the matter back to the PTAB to be reconsidered based on certain guidance it provides.

    That said, I'd agree - for a number of reasons - that there's very little chance that an import ban on Apple Watches will ever go into effect based on these AliveCor patents.

    But I'd also note that, if the President was going to disapprove of this import ban, he'd likely have done it during the 60-day window following notice of the exclusion order. The provision of the law which grants him the power to effectively veto such exclusion orders doesn't seem to give him that authority once that window has closed. He and/or his advisors probably don't think the import ban will go into effect anyway. But I'm not sure that he'd be able to stop it at this point if, e.g., AliveCor ultimately wins on appeal.
    The refinement of the details is helpful, and still leads to the point that the spin of the original article, that Biden is poised to personally ban Apple Watches, is bizarre and unfounded. 
    ronnradarthekat
  • Reply 24 of 30
    Apple won. It was the right decision. 

    The appeal is for alivecor. 

    Apple has another shot after that. 

    They’ll win again. This is just dragging things out. 

    Alivecor just wants money from apple on every watch sold for s vague idea thst they somehow got through the patent system - which actually makes me feel bad for alivecor. They are not wrong in feeling that they are owed royalties - because they genuinely own the associated patents.ileeose, Apple is not wrong for completing a machanism not followed through on alivecor’s patent. 

    when someone patents something, they should be respected snd upheld snd not able to be challenged or invalidated - so long as they e provided very specific mechanisms for accomplishing the goal. 

    I. E. You can’t just patent something and use scattershot, incomplete methodologies for accomplishing it. That way, the developer
    y of a lightbulb can’t block the developer of an LED light etc. otherwise the patent system is just a game of who can file the most vague idea first. 

    As it is, the patent office needs more accountability. Alivecor should never been put in the position where they have patents for vague mechanisms. 

    Apple was aware of the patents when developing these features. They must have felt comfortable moving ahead without a royalty agreement. 

    Be interesting to see if anything worthwhile is revealed in the appeal. Unfortunately for alivecor, I feel the only thing that will be revealed is that the patent office owes them a public apology and quite possibly reimbursement of their legal bills. 

    If the patent office grants you a patent, they should be on the line when you’re defending that patent. 


    edited February 2023 FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 25 of 30
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    Apple should just say they are now an Ukrainian company , then president Biden of Ukraine will not be doing this to them 

    How about  just protecting Americans and American companies for once? I voted for you and thought I was getting a pro business center Democrat like Bill Clinton….God help me
    edited February 2023
  • Reply 26 of 30
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    There are far more important issues on which the president should be spending his time. This is bullshit. 
  • Reply 27 of 30
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    Fred257 said:
    As I have a patent on a product I invented if another company was stupid enough to put my invention without checking to see that I had a patent on it already then that company I would sue. Apple is shown here to be a lawless company. I hope not only for a ban but for them to get sued to high water for this theft if it so happens to be true.
    Not all patent infringement claims are valid. Often a parent holder will believe their patent has been infringed only to have the patent board invalidate the patent altogether.  This happens because there’s just not enough time during the patent application review process to absolutely ascertain that each and every claim within every patent have merit and represent new and novel inventions.  So patents are granted on sort of an honor system, to be dived deeply into only if challenged.  Apple did challenge the validity of these patents and the patent board took that deeper look and determined the patented claims do not warrant protection as new and novel inventions.  This is a normal result; nothing underhanded or devious going on.  

    Even if a challenged patent is upheld as valid, there’s still a possibility that the accused infringer did not actually infringe any of the patents claims.  This is also sometimes the result of a patent infringement trial.  

    And a third possibility that comes to mind is that a patent can be indirectly infringed.  That would be the case where a company like Apple incorporates into their product some technology developed by one of its suppliers and that technology (maybe firmware on a chip) infringes some other entity’s patent.  In this case Apple would be liable to the patent holder, but would surely have in its contract with the technology supplier an indemnification clause requiring the maker of the infringing chip (or other technology) to cover Apple’s liability to the patent owner.  In this case it would not be fair to label the indirect infringer (Apple, for example) as evil.

    It’s not as cut as dry as you portray, you see?  
    edited February 2023 ronn
  • Reply 28 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    Madbum said:
    Apple should just say they are now an Ukrainian company , then president Biden of Ukraine will not be doing this to them 

    How about  just protecting Americans and American companies for once? I voted for you and thought I was getting a pro business center Democrat like Bill Clinton….God help me
    Imagine thinking protecting Western democracies from autocratic aggressor nations isn't protecting Americans or American businesses.
    ronn
  • Reply 29 of 30
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    mac_dog said:
    There are far more important issues on which the president should be spending his time. This is bullshit. 
    And he does, obviously. You think this particular issue is eating up a lot of time? Weird.
    muthuk_vanalingamronngatorguy
Sign In or Register to comment.