gatorguy

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. 

spheric said:

gatorguy said:

tht said:

kellie said:

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. 

tht said:

kellie said:

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. 

danox said:

It’s water resistant for incidental water contact you walk outside and it’s raining and you quickly cover up, it can stand some water but doesn’t mean you can become a scuba diver, or play dunkin for toilets.

Schiller would disagree. They'll be fine even after a drop in the pool, or toilet as may be. 


His comments about water and other liquids begins at the 40:20 mark

StrangeDays said:

gatorguy said:

kamyk35 said:

Sounds like he's is trying to redefine the definitions for water resistant & water proof

It's not as though Apple marketing discourages the inference of being "waterproof".  We have them promoting "look what we found on the lake bottom and it still works!" stories on a regular basis. Marketing can be a bit weasily, so always go by the specs and legal disclaimers. 

Apple promotes the iphone in lake stories? Citation needed. 

Start with the Sept. 12, 2018 Keynote. 40:58 mark
then
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250312425?sortBy=rank
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/03/03/iphone-11-survives-7-meters-deep-in-lake-for-a-week
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/03/06/iphone-11-reunited-with-owner-after-spending-6-months-in-a-lake
https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/23/man-recovers-iphone-lost-at-the-bottom-of-a-river-for-10-months
https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/03/25/determined-owner-retrieves-working-iphone-from-frozen-lake-after-month-underwater
and lastly
https://www.patentlyapple.com/2020/11/italys-agcm-office-fined-apple-close-to-us12-million-for-deceiving-iphone-water-resistant-claims-whi.html

Apple certainly seems happy with implying "don't worry about water, it's an iPhone" to potential buyers, instead of warning that water being splashed on one might void a warranty.


Some search engines are better than others.