A couple of years ago Apple, poached a team from Masimo. Not illegal.
A couple of years later apple by way of a coincidence had a technology that infringed on Masimo technology.
One of three things happend.
1) Apple accidentally copied Masimo technology. 2) The team apple poached refreshed it knowledge of Masimo technology. Without apple knowledge. 3) Apple told their poached team that we hired you to copy it so do it.
I think Apple thinks it has so much money it can push anyone out of its way.
Anyone who think Masimo technology is the same as the junk you buy for $30 on Amazon is sniffing glue.
The fact that the team from Masimo was able to recreate a technology that they developed at Masimo years later at apple. Should be all the judge needs to hear.
Poaching is legal between two California companies.
The time span was about 10 years, not a few years.
The patent in question was filed by Masimo right after the series 6 was released as a continuation of another 13 year old patent. It looks remarkably like Apple’s Watch more-so then the Masimo watch.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
Thanks for the links. They were useful. “wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to
substantially prevent light piping and comprises one or more chamfered edges” is the patent for which hardware infringement was cited by ITC. Huh? An opaque plastic rim around the O2 sensor on the bottom of watch? I bet the Masimo W1 watch as that feature. I don't know about you but this sounds ridiculously trivial. Masimo may be a troll if that is their trade secret 'invention' they are litigating on. If Masimo loses and has all of their patents invalidated , it may be schadenfreude time.
Yeah, it is ridiculously trivial, but that is most patents. To patent actual IP they would need to publish all the details of it for countries that don’t have IP protection. IMHO, the whole patent system is a joke and should just be eliminated. Copyright can protect most IP well enough.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
It’s not the fact that it’s an o I meter on a watch anymore than Chevy needs to pay for for a tachometer on a car.
It’s the novel technical way of doing it that apple has copied. They just need to figure out another way or pay the license fee just like every business move ever.
Or, using the third option, they could purchase Maximo, eliminating the issue altogether. However, this option introduce new hurdles, making Apple an actual medical device company - opening legal liabilities and accountability. That may be the reason apple hadn’t done this yet.
If you read the patents that the ITC regards Apple are infringing, there is nothing novel in them. It's a user-worn device that has a protrusion with a convex surface where there is more than 1 emitter and more 1 receptor, with dependent claims on them being on the same side, having materials to prevent light from spreading out and interfering with the receptors, using two wavelengths, has the receptors and emitters on the same side, etc. Lots of dependent claims. So a finger clamp device with emitters on one side and receptors on the other side, but with more than two LEDs and photo-receptors, is the essence of the patent. How that applies to a watch and other user-worn devices is left to the court to decide.
The patent writer wants to write the patent as generalizable as possible. They do this to capture as much of the market as possible, or to capture the idea as much as possible. The patent examiners are directed to give the patent the broadest interpretation possible, so a force multiplier for capturing an idea with a patent, not an actual design or implementation. For these reasons, no real actionable information is revealed in a patent. As soon as an actual detail is put into the patent, it becomes instructions for not infringing.
So, if the court cases don't go Apple's way, they can just change the bottom of Watch from the existing protrusion to something convex and conformal, and I think that clears infringement. That basically is sign of how stupid that patent process is. Apple has been using the same protrusion for 10 years, and they are likely loathe to change, and especially loathed to change it for a patent reason. Best option is invalidation or win the court case saying they don't infringe.
A couple of years ago Apple, poached a team from Masimo. Not illegal.
A couple of years later apple by way of a coincidence had a technology that infringed on Masimo technology.
One of three things happend.
1) Apple accidentally copied Masimo technology. 2) The team apple poached refreshed it knowledge of Masimo technology. Without apple knowledge. 3) Apple told their poached team that we hired you to copy it so do it.
I think Apple thinks it has so much money it can push anyone out of its way.
Anyone who think Masimo technology is the same as the junk you buy for $30 on Amazon is sniffing glue.
The fact that the team from Masimo was able to recreate a technology that they developed at Masimo years later at apple. Should be all the judge needs to hear.
Poaching is legal between two California companies.
The time span was about 10 years, not a few years.
The patent in question was filed by Masimo right after the series 6 was released as a continuation of another 13 year old patent. It looks remarkably like Apple’s Watch more-so then the Masimo watch.
It looks like found out about technology that Masimo was under utilising. Poached the people that developed it and got them to do it again.
It doesn't matter if the patent was 13 years old. It was still valid and still belonged to Masimo.
Masimo was caught with their pants down and only realised what apple did once the 6 was released.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
Thanks for the links. They were useful. “wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to
substantially prevent light piping and comprises one or more chamfered edges” is the patent for which hardware infringement was cited by ITC. Huh? An opaque plastic rim around the O2 sensor on the bottom of watch? I bet the Masimo W1 watch as that feature. I don't know about you but this sounds ridiculously trivial. Masimo may be a troll if that is their trade secret 'invention' they are litigating on. If Masimo loses and has all of their patents invalidated , it may be schadenfreude time.
Apple should just do an octagon shape. Boom. No longer a ring. Lol
I tried this feature once, when it first appeared. Haven’t tried it since. No big loss for me. Can wait for Apple to re-invent it, and, find a way to make it truly useful.
It looks like found out about technology that Masimo was under utilising. Poached the people that developed it and got them to do it again.
It doesn't matter if the patent was 13 years old. It was still valid and still belonged to Masimo.
Masimo was caught with their pants down and only realised what apple did once the 6 was released.
This is an interesting theory of yours, but it’s almost certainly not correct.
Apple certainly did poach the Masimo staff who helped that company develop its pulse oximetry technique, but Apple would have instructed them to come up with a different technique that does not violate existing Masimo patents of that time. That’s key.
This is the same modus operandi that Apple has used with other employees hired away from companies that hold patents on their work, since if they just copied their old company’s patents, the employee themselves could also be sued for revealing trade secrets.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
Seems to describe the Apple Watches sensor but also every other blood ox product as well. I guess the other products use a different wavelength?
pulse oximeters use at least 2 wavelengths plus signal processing to measure blood oxygen levels. The issue isn't the basic tech but the implementation. Just like a million other things in the tech world.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
Thanks for the links. They were useful. “wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to
substantially prevent light piping and comprises one or more chamfered edges” is the patent for which hardware infringement was cited by ITC. Huh? An opaque plastic rim around the O2 sensor on the bottom of watch? I bet the Masimo W1 watch as that feature. I don't know about you but this sounds ridiculously trivial. Masimo may be a troll if that is their trade secret 'invention' they are litigating on. If Masimo loses and has all of their patents invalidated , it may be schadenfreude time.
Error correction and artifact prevention in pulse oximetry is a significant issue. There are many patented inventions that seem obvious - except no one thought of them before; they're obvious in retrospect. Apple has it's share of these, too.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
So if apple can sell the watches without the feature, just how are they suffering 'irreparable' harm? Sounds more like a lawyer whining that they might not make as much money if they're not allowed to sell a device that infringes.
This is an interesting theory of yours, but it’s almost certainly not correct.
Apple certainly did poach the Masimo staff who helped that company develop its pulse oximetry technique, but Apple would have instructed them to come up with a different technique that does not violate existing Masimo patents of that time. That’s key.
This is the same modus operandi that Apple has used with other employees hired away from companies that hold patents on their work, since if they just copied their old company’s patents, the employee themselves could also be sued for revealing trade secrets.
So your theory seems unlikely, to put it mildly.
The judges and Masimo seem to agree, but they can't prove it. Apple and the ex Masimo employees failed to come up a solution that avoids Masimo's patents hence the court case.
Apple up to now have used it huge bank of lawyers and money to bully anyone they want.
But you have to read between the lines. Big companies do it all the time.
My understanding is the basis for the parent is that it’s an oxymeter on a watch. How in the world was something so general given as a patent to begin with? Ridiculous.
Your understanding is not correct. Maybe you should actually read the patents before spouting nonsense.
Thanks for the links. They were useful. “wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to
substantially prevent light piping and comprises one or more chamfered edges” is the patent for which hardware infringement was cited by ITC. Huh? An opaque plastic rim around the O2 sensor on the bottom of watch? I bet the Masimo W1 watch as that feature. I don't know about you but this sounds ridiculously trivial. Masimo may be a troll if that is their trade secret 'invention' they are litigating on. If Masimo loses and has all of their patents invalidated , it may be schadenfreude time.
Apple should just do an octagon shape. Boom. No longer a ring. Lol
Heh. If the octagon shape is a protrusion, it still infringes on Masimo ‘648.
To clear ‘648, a company can use a convex shape that is conformal (which is not a protrusion), or use 1 emitter, or a protrusion with a flat surface, or possibly a protrusion with rounded edges, use only one emitter one or three or more emitter wavelengths, etc.
The next Apple Watch is supposedly a new industrial design. It may clear just because of decisions involving that.
I can't believe the stupidity of people who seem bewildered by expensive, medical grade pulse oximetry devices because there's $20 junk from China on Amazon that they believe "does the same thing." No it doesn't. It's why your physician spends hundreds on a medical grade scale instead of weighing you on $20 bathroom scale. The entire field of health measurement devices is made up of expensive, medical grade equipment for which accuracy and consistency are assured vs. much cheaper devices which offer no such assurance. Even when claims of accuracy are made for cheap devices, you'll find that they are exactly that: "claims" with no rigorous testing or third party confirmation of results.
Thanks for the links. They were useful. “wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to
substantially prevent light piping and comprises one or more chamfered edges” is the patent for which hardware infringement was cited by ITC. Huh? An opaque plastic rim around the O2 sensor on the bottom of watch? I bet the Masimo W1 watch as that feature. I don't know about you but this sounds ridiculously trivial. Masimo may be a troll if that is their trade secret 'invention' they are litigating on. If Masimo loses and has all of their patents invalidated , it may be schadenfreude time.
What to the general public may sound ridiculously trivial may in fact be critical. The fact that it appears to be a tiny plastic component doesn't matter--it may be an inventive step and key to getting it to work effectively. If it's in a patent it's not a trade secret.
Comments
The time span was about 10 years, not a few years.
The patent in question was filed by Masimo right after the series 6 was released as a continuation of another 13 year old patent. It looks remarkably like Apple’s Watch more-so then the Masimo watch.
Yeah, it is ridiculously trivial, but that is most patents. To patent actual IP they would need to publish all the details of it for countries that don’t have IP protection. IMHO, the whole patent system is a joke and should just be eliminated. Copyright can protect most IP well enough.
The patent writer wants to write the patent as generalizable as possible. They do this to capture as much of the market as possible, or to capture the idea as much as possible. The patent examiners are directed to give the patent the broadest interpretation possible, so a force multiplier for capturing an idea with a patent, not an actual design or implementation. For these reasons, no real actionable information is revealed in a patent. As soon as an actual detail is put into the patent, it becomes instructions for not infringing.
So, if the court cases don't go Apple's way, they can just change the bottom of Watch from the existing protrusion to something convex and conformal, and I think that clears infringement. That basically is sign of how stupid that patent process is. Apple has been using the same protrusion for 10 years, and they are likely loathe to change, and especially loathed to change it for a patent reason. Best option is invalidation or win the court case saying they don't infringe.
It looks like found out about technology that Masimo was under utilising.
Poached the people that developed it and got them to do it again.
It doesn't matter if the patent was 13 years old. It was still valid and still belonged to Masimo.
Masimo was caught with their pants down and only realised what apple did once the 6 was released.
Error correction and artifact prevention in pulse oximetry is a significant issue. There are many patented inventions that seem obvious - except no one thought of them before; they're obvious in retrospect. Apple has it's share of these, too.
guess he had to compensate for your extra laziness.
The judges and Masimo seem to agree, but they can't prove it.
Apple and the ex Masimo employees failed to come up a solution that avoids Masimo's patents hence the court case.
Apple up to now have used it huge bank of lawyers and money to bully anyone they want.
But you have to read between the lines. Big companies do it all the time.
The next Apple Watch is supposedly a new industrial design. It may clear just because of decisions involving that.