Doubt Apple can legally disable a feature in a "sold" item. They can not include that feature in the new ones coming off the line. That complies with what I can read.
Software update. They can use their rapid response too.
I am glad. Whether you like or dislike Apple, medical devices should have some exception to other product categories.
That being said, I hope Masimo gets reimbursed for their troubles.
Masimo has become a bit of a troll and it seems the ITC has over reached on their decision.
From iMore, Florian Mueller is a patent expert and legal expert has written, “Apple sometimes
engages in bullying, but the ITC’s attack is gratuitous, disingenuous
and irresponsible,” noting the ITC’s own record shows that Apple created
the disputed pulse oxymetry technology independently and that Masimo
“tactically designed the patents-in-suit after Apple’s independent
innovation, and more than 10 years after the original applications, in
order to read on the relevant Apple Watch feature.”
I think Masimo should get 'rewarded' for the trouble they have caused themselves and their shareholders LOL. They have spent 100 million on this and they only make 120 million a year in profit!
Likely, one component of the non-disclosed decision includes reimbursement of Masimo’s legal fees, since they legally prevailed. Apple will have done everything they could to make this process “not worth it” for Masimo to discourage them from trying to sue Apple for whatever solution they come up with.
I’m in the medical field. Masimo is high quality (if still overpriced) equipment. We have a couple of generic finger pulse-oximeters that are $15 each on Amazon. We recently got a similar one from Masimo that was well over $300 for the same functionality.
The difference? Masimo is sold as a medical device where the generic one is not. They are both accurate, but in the hospital, we are required to use the medically certified ones.
The Masimo one is very well made with high-quality materials, but I would rather replace the $15 unit a couple times that pay more than 20 times that cost for the “nice” one.
I love how an individual or company invests effort, time and money to develop a new technology and then has to spend more effort, time and money to patent their invention and when they try to protect their financial interests in the invention they automatically get labeled a “troll”. Propaganda 101.
Exactly right. This doesn't mean Masimo is on the right side of this case, necessarily, but they are anything but a patent troll in the pulse oximeter space. And honestly, it's pretty ironic to be calling anyone a patent troll vs Apple, considering that Apple is among the most litigious companies in the world when it comes to suing others if it believes they have infringed on Apple IP.
I wonder if this latest maneuver, which effectively neutralizes the import ban as a cudgel to used by Masimo, is a gambit by Apple to drive a deal on its own terms with Masimo. I can't imagine Apple really wants two versions of the same watch out there in the marketplace, so I would think the "right" deal would still be attractive to them, and by showing Masimo they're ready, willing and able to get around the import ban, it leaves Masimo in a much weaker negotiating position.
It's a fallback option for Apple. The US Court of appeals will be making a decision soon on whether to stay the ITC import ban until when the Masimo vs Apple court case winds down. If they stay the import ban, Apple sells Watches in the USA apace with the blood oxygen measurement feature.
If the Appeals Court says the ITC ban can go into effect, Apple can remove the blood oxygen measurement, and continue selling Watches in the USA without the feature. If the Appeals Court decides in Apple's favor, they can restore the feature.
The Masimo vs Apple patent and trade secrets trial ended in a mistrial due to the jury decision not being unanimous, with it ending in a 6-1 decision in Apple's favor. There is in an appeals process or a redo. Apple's patent appeals court suit is in an appeal process with 2 patents not invalidated. This is continuing. Apple has a countersuit against Masimo with their watches. No decision on this yet.
And in the meanwhile, since Watches are in a yearly upgrade cycle, they can design and implement the feature in a non-infringing way to surviving patents if so desired.
Paying for a patent license is the worst case scenario for Apple. They aren't going to do that for this feature imo. It's really not worth licensing.
And lastly, this is a US International Trade Commission action. The ITC's only powers are over tariffs and imports. They have no powers over any already sold product. If Apple made Watches in the USA, they can't ban the sales of Watches. Existing Watches in owners' wrists will be unchanged. Watches sold outside of the USA will not be impacted.
If the glucose measurement ships in an Apple Watch, the lawsuits are going to fly imo. Any and all medical features in an Apple Watch or AirPod will be patent challenged in one way or another.
Would the feature be disabled for everyone who's already bought one of the watches or only for watches sold after the disable date?
The latter. The feature will be unaffected on Apple Watches that have it now or are sold before the disable date in the US, and the rest of the world is completely unaffected by this entire dispute.
Doubt Apple can legally disable a feature in a "sold" item. They can not include that feature in the new ones coming off the line. That complies with what I can read.
Software update. They can use their rapid response too.
for what? They don't have to disable it in watches already sold...
The countersuit by Apple against Masimo W1 watches should have been expected, and may ultimately cost Masimo more than they gain from any licensing of the (so far) remaining valid patents. Guess it was quicker for Apple to disable the allegedly infringing process. Wonder if given more time, Apple can implement a software method that is independent of the (so far) remaining patents. Maybe Masimo will end up cross-licensing patents with Apple to prevent action against Masimo W1 watches. Cross-licensing usually does not involve much money changing hands. Apple claims Masimo copied design and functionality of Apple watches with the Masimo W1. This back and forth could go on for a long time, possibly making lawyers a tidy sum.
I am glad. Whether you like or dislike Apple, medical devices should have some exception to other product categories.
That being said, I hope Masimo gets reimbursed for their troubles.
Masimo has become a bit of a troll and it seems the ITC has over reached on their decision.
From iMore, Florian Mueller is a patent expert and legal expert has written, “Apple sometimes
engages in bullying, but the ITC’s attack is gratuitous, disingenuous
and irresponsible,” noting the ITC’s own record shows that Apple created
the disputed pulse oxymetry technology independently and that Masimo
“tactically designed the patents-in-suit after Apple’s independent
innovation, and more than 10 years after the original applications, in
order to read on the relevant Apple Watch feature.”
I think Masimo should get 'rewarded' for the trouble they have caused themselves and their shareholders LOL. They have spent 100 million on this and they only make 120 million a year in profit!
Likely, one component of the non-disclosed decision includes reimbursement of Masimo’s legal fees, since they legally prevailed. Apple will have done everything they could to make this process “not worth it” for Masimo to discourage them from trying to sue Apple for whatever solution they come up with.
I’m in the medical field. Masimo is high quality (if still overpriced) equipment. We have a couple of generic finger pulse-oximeters that are $15 each on Amazon. We recently got a similar one from Masimo that was well over $300 for the same functionality.
The difference? Masimo is sold as a medical device where the generic one is not. They are both accurate, but in the hospital, we are required to use the medically certified ones.
The Masimo one is very well made with high-quality materials, but I would rather replace the $15 unit a couple times that pay more than 20 times that cost for the “nice” one.
If you're in the medical field, which I have to doubt based on what you posted, I hope to never experience whatever facility you're in. You think the difference between Chinese sweatshop junk tech being sold on Amazon and medical grade equipment is that the latter is much more expensive because it's "nice?" The reason you're required to use approved medical devices in hospitals is because their accuracy and performance is certified, thereby generating data that can be trusted.... which is kind of essential in a hospital, no? Sure, that $15 SXHMZLY Pulse Oximeter you bought on Amazon "might" be accurate. Or it might not. Or it might sometimes be accurate and sometimes not. Inconsistency is a hallmark of cheap measuring devices. Whatever the case, the manufacturer sure isn't certifying anything. Meaning: you can never really trust the data it provides. And if you do trust an inaccurate reading, what's at stake could be a lot more than spending $15 for a new piece of junk... you could easily jeopardize a patient's health or their life. But you'd know this if you were in the medical field.
Why wouldn’t removing the offending tech be enough. That was the crux of the whole thing.
I doubt any of the hardware tech was removed. They simply disabled the feature in firmware. If they eventually win, they will simply turn it back on again.
"Apple claimed "its Redesigned Watch products definitely (1) do not contain pulse oximetry functionality,"
If the Masimo patents are related to hardware and software, then removing just the software might not avoid the violation.
After all, a device that still carries hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service could have that service reactivated at any subsequent software update.
In consequence a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service inevitably has a higher market value than the same device without such hardware (where such service cannot be simply turned on with a software update).
Such market value difference between a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service and one without such hardware would still be a violation of the patent holder exclusivity rights i.m.o..
If the Masimo patents are related to hardware and software, then removing just the software might not avoid the violation.
After all, a device that still carries hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service could have that service reactivated at any subsequent software update.
In consequence a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service inevitably has a higher market value than the same device without such hardware (where such service cannot be simply turned on with a software update).
Such market value difference between a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service and one without such hardware would still be a violation of the patent holder exclusivity rights i.m.o..
I doubt it. The point is that the feature is no longer "functional". The simple fix was to disable it in firmware until all of the appeals are exhausted and the case is settled. It's possible Apple may yet prevail, in which case they would be able to enable the feature in firmware.
As for the hardware, it appears the same sensors use for heart rate and ECG, are the same set of censors use for blood oxygen. The patent is probably more about technique than the actual hardware. Hardware which has likely been around in medical devices for decades.
I am glad. Whether you like or dislike Apple, medical devices should have some exception to other product categories.
That being said, I hope Masimo gets reimbursed for their troubles.
Masimo has become a bit of a troll and it seems the ITC has over reached on their decision.
From iMore, Florian Mueller is a patent expert and legal expert has written, “Apple sometimes
engages in bullying, but the ITC’s attack is gratuitous, disingenuous
and irresponsible,” noting the ITC’s own record shows that Apple created
the disputed pulse oxymetry technology independently and that Masimo
“tactically designed the patents-in-suit after Apple’s independent
innovation, and more than 10 years after the original applications, in
order to read on the relevant Apple Watch feature.”
I think Masimo should get 'rewarded' for the trouble they have caused themselves and their shareholders LOL. They have spent 100 million on this and they only make 120 million a year in profit!
Likely, one component of the non-disclosed decision includes reimbursement of Masimo’s legal fees, since they legally prevailed. Apple will have done everything they could to make this process “not worth it” for Masimo to discourage them from trying to sue Apple for whatever solution they come up with.
I’m in the medical field. Masimo is high quality (if still overpriced) equipment. We have a couple of generic finger pulse-oximeters that are $15 each on Amazon. We recently got a similar one from Masimo that was well over $300 for the same functionality.
The difference? Masimo is sold as a medical device where the generic one is not. They are both accurate, but in the hospital, we are required to use the medically certified ones.
The Masimo one is very well made with high-quality materials, but I would rather replace the $15 unit a couple times that pay more than 20 times that cost for the “nice” one.
If you're in the medical field, which I have to doubt based on what you posted, I hope to never experience whatever facility you're in. You think the difference between Chinese sweatshop junk tech being sold on Amazon and medical grade equipment is that the latter is much more expensive because it's "nice?" The reason you're required to use approved medical devices in hospitals is because their accuracy and performance is certified, thereby generating data that can be trusted.... which is kind of essential in a hospital, no? Sure, that $15 SXHMZLY Pulse Oximeter you bought on Amazon "might" be accurate. Or it might not. Or it might sometimes be accurate and sometimes not. Inconsistency is a hallmark of cheap measuring devices. Whatever the case, the manufacturer sure isn't certifying anything. Meaning: you can never really trust the data it provides. And if you do trust an inaccurate reading, what's at stake could be a lot more than spending $15 for a new piece of junk... you could easily jeopardize a patient's health or their life. But you'd know this if you were in the medical field.
I think it’s safe to say I know what I’m talking about. No, I didn’t say we bought *random* cheap oximeters. I said we have generic cheap ones that cost $15 on Amazon. These correlate extremely well with bedside, continuous pulse ox monitors.
Is the Apple Watch pulse-oximeter “junk”? Surely you know that, just like our $15 pulse ox, the oximeter in the Apple Watch is NOT certified as a medical device, right? By your logic, that makes it worthless garbage.
If you were an expert in pulse-oximetry devices, you would know that within the huge non-certified branch of devices, there is a many tiers of quality, but these generally cannot demand the exorbitant prices of the certified devices.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but your post reads like the rant of a Karen that was hunting for a reason to be offended. Unfortunately, this Karen made a few presumptions that they thought sounded logical and ran with it, and got it all wrong.
I’m (deeply) in the medical field so yes, I know that.
I am glad. Whether you like or dislike Apple, medical devices should have some exception to other product categories.
That being said, I hope Masimo gets reimbursed for their troubles.
Masimo has become a bit of a troll and it seems the ITC has over reached on their decision.
From iMore, Florian Mueller is a patent expert and legal expert has written, “Apple sometimes
engages in bullying, but the ITC’s attack is gratuitous, disingenuous
and irresponsible,” noting the ITC’s own record shows that Apple created
the disputed pulse oxymetry technology independently and that Masimo
“tactically designed the patents-in-suit after Apple’s independent
innovation, and more than 10 years after the original applications, in
order to read on the relevant Apple Watch feature.”
I think Masimo should get 'rewarded' for the trouble they have caused themselves and their shareholders LOL. They have spent 100 million on this and they only make 120 million a year in profit!
Likely, one component of the non-disclosed decision includes reimbursement of Masimo’s legal fees, since they legally prevailed. Apple will have done everything they could to make this process “not worth it” for Masimo to discourage them from trying to sue Apple for whatever solution they come up with.
I’m in the medical field. Masimo is high quality (if still overpriced) equipment. We have a couple of generic finger pulse-oximeters that are $15 each on Amazon. We recently got a similar one from Masimo that was well over $300 for the same functionality.
The difference? Masimo is sold as a medical device where the generic one is not. They are both accurate, but in the hospital, we are required to use the medically certified ones.
The Masimo one is very well made with high-quality materials, but I would rather replace the $15 unit a couple times that pay more than 20 times that cost for the “nice” one.
Masimo does creates products so in that sense is not the classic 'non practising entity' / troll but they are so aggressive in going after anyone in this space, that patent experts have suggested they are using troll techniques and limiting inventiveness. The tech is 80 years old and from what I have read, Masimo's original patents were improvements but not ground breaking. These have expired or have been invalidated for obviousness and/or prior art, and the more recent patents are 'continuations' with very minor changes. There are 2 remaining that the ITC cites - at least one seems to be hardware related on how light gets transmitted back. That could not be addressed by a software fix, but could perhaps be by simple change to the current watch design. Or like the others, the patent could be invalidated by the USPTO for obviousness. It is hard to come up with much original invention these days. There was a patent issued almost 100 years ago for a refrigerator light to go off with the door closed LOL.. I doubt you could get anything related to be patented today ... even if you changed the color of the bulb, had a different censor to indicate closed door... To be invalidated so easily, Masimo's patents may be in the same level of inventiveness.
If the Masimo patents are related to hardware and software, then removing just the software might not avoid the violation.
After all, a device that still carries hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service could have that service reactivated at any subsequent software update.
In consequence a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service inevitably has a higher market value than the same device without such hardware (where such service cannot be simply turned on with a software update).
Such market value difference between a device with hardware for a (temporarily) forbidden service and one without such hardware would still be a violation of the patent holder exclusivity rights i.m.o..
"Apple accomplished this through a "software workaround" for smartwatches recently shipped to its physical stores, according to a Bloomberg report from Mark Gurman on Monday. However, the stores will not sell the redesigned watches until Apple headquarters tells them to, Bloomberg reported."
It's worth noting they are still selling off their current stock with the feature enabled.
"Currently, the Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 are still available with blood oxygen monitoring, an Apple spokesperson confirmed to Ars. But Apple hasn't confirmed how long that will be the case, jeopardizing demand and the perceived value for Apple's latest smartwatches.
Longer term, Bloomberg also reported that Apple is developing a software update that alters the watches' blood oxygen monitoring app and algorithms so that users can still check out their blood oxygen but without Apple infringing on any patents."
Apple Watch redesigned without blood oxygen monitoring to avoid import ban
If they "remove" the blood oxygen sensing feature feature, to avoid the law suit from Masimo then there will for sure come a class act law suit from the consumers who bought the watch under assumption there was a blood oxygen sensing feature as advertised by Apple. Question is perhaps what is the cheapest solution.
Comments
I’m in the medical field. Masimo is high quality (if still overpriced) equipment. We have a couple of generic finger pulse-oximeters that are $15 each on Amazon. We recently got a similar one from Masimo that was well over $300 for the same functionality.
The Masimo one is very well made with high-quality materials, but I would rather replace the $15 unit a couple times that pay more than 20 times that cost for the “nice” one.
If the Appeals Court says the ITC ban can go into effect, Apple can remove the blood oxygen measurement, and continue selling Watches in the USA without the feature. If the Appeals Court decides in Apple's favor, they can restore the feature.
The Masimo vs Apple patent and trade secrets trial ended in a mistrial due to the jury decision not being unanimous, with it ending in a 6-1 decision in Apple's favor. There is in an appeals process or a redo. Apple's patent appeals court suit is in an appeal process with 2 patents not invalidated. This is continuing. Apple has a countersuit against Masimo with their watches. No decision on this yet.
And in the meanwhile, since Watches are in a yearly upgrade cycle, they can design and implement the feature in a non-infringing way to surviving patents if so desired.
Paying for a patent license is the worst case scenario for Apple. They aren't going to do that for this feature imo. It's really not worth licensing.
And lastly, this is a US International Trade Commission action. The ITC's only powers are over tariffs and imports. They have no powers over any already sold product. If Apple made Watches in the USA, they can't ban the sales of Watches. Existing Watches in owners' wrists will be unchanged. Watches sold outside of the USA will not be impacted.
If the glucose measurement ships in an Apple Watch, the lawsuits are going to fly imo. Any and all medical features in an Apple Watch or AirPod will be patent challenged in one way or another.
"Apple claimed "its Redesigned Watch products definitely (1) do not contain pulse oximetry functionality,"
As for the hardware, it appears the same sensors use for heart rate and ECG, are the same set of censors use for blood oxygen. The patent is probably more about technique than the actual hardware. Hardware which has likely been around in medical devices for decades.
Is the Apple Watch pulse-oximeter “junk”? Surely you know that, just like our $15 pulse ox, the oximeter in the Apple Watch is NOT certified as a medical device, right? By your logic, that makes it worthless garbage.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but your post reads like the rant of a Karen that was hunting for a reason to be offended. Unfortunately, this Karen made a few presumptions that they thought sounded logical and ran with it, and got it all wrong.
I’m (deeply) in the medical field so yes, I know that.
It's worth noting they are still selling off their current stock with the feature enabled.
"Currently, the Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 are still available with blood oxygen monitoring, an Apple spokesperson confirmed to Ars. But Apple hasn't confirmed how long that will be the case, jeopardizing demand and the perceived value for Apple's latest smartwatches.
Longer term, Bloomberg also reported that Apple is developing a software update that alters the watches' blood oxygen monitoring app and algorithms so that users can still check out their blood oxygen but without Apple infringing on any patents."
Apple Watch redesigned without blood oxygen monitoring to avoid import ban
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/apple-watch-redesigned-without-blood-oxygen-monitoring-to-avoid-import-ban/