chadbag
About
- Username
- chadbag
- Joined
- Visits
- 829
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,365
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 2,032
Reactions
-
A movie piracy app snuck onto the App Store in 2023 and Apple only just killed it
Come now. Maybe trying the app? I’ve not used it but it sounds like it just starts offering movies to watch.Nunnyobizz said:Doubly so when Apple is arguing that this process -- and all the fees that come along with it -- make it more secure than third-party stores.People make mistakes. They are only human. Can you suggest an alternative that would’ve prevented these apps from showing up? I bet not. You’re just blowing smoke.
-
People are already forgetting their Apple Vision Pro passcodes, requiring a trip to Apple
Not only is AVP a solution looking for a problem
but
ABP is a problem looking for a solution!
🤣🤪
(I do think it has excellent vertical market potential and is a fun and expensive plaything in reference to my first statement above) -
Apple Vision Pro is not the iPhone, and faces an incredibly steep uphill climb
In terms of non niche, Apple sized markets, the Vision Pro struggles because no one needs this sort of thing and it doesn’t solve anyone’s day to day problems. And even in 5 years I doubt it will.This is tech for tech sake and the vision of people who don’t live in reality.Car manufacturers are putting physical buttons and stalks back in cars after going all touch screen. Why? Because the touch screen didn’t make driving easier or safer or anything. Vision Pro doesn’t make life easier or safer or anything. And probably won’t.Let Meta burn its cash on such fanciful stuff.Sure do research as these things have great vertical market applicability. But as a general consumer level device at Apple sized markets there isn’t a compelling case and won’t be. At least for a long long time.
-
Apple Watch ban back on, court denies Apple's appeal to keep it on the market
Yes Massimo is a real company. No, their claim has not been found to be legitimate (or not legitimate) that I know of. Patents don’t cover ideas. They cover implementations of ideas. I’m not aware that Massimo has shown that Apples implementation violates their patent. It may or may not, but I don’t think that’s been shown. Often a company has a patent on a process that implements a specific function and if someone else comes out with that function they assume that the company that came out with that function must have used the same process they have protected by patent and sues. But only based on the functionality involved, not the actual patented process. So far that is where I think this is at. The actual trial was declared a mistrial for some reason.kkapoor said:
They are a real company and their claim against Apple is legitimate.deckert63 said:Is Masimo a real healthcare technology firm or are they a patent troll? If the former, not sure why apple doesn’t pay them the license fees like they do Qualcomm. If the latter, may Masimo rot in special place in hell only reserved for patent trolls.The basic tech of getting oxygen saturation used is not new and not patent protected. What the patent is is a way to more reliably do it when the subject is moving or not perfectly still. Or something like that. A way to do it more reliably in real world non hospital conditions.Apple has a feature in their watch that meets that function and Massimo claims Apple violates their patent because they have that function. But I don’t think they’ve actually shown in code or circuitry that Apple uses the same process to get there.I’m not shilling forget Apple. Apple may have copied the process enough to violate the patent or they may have come up with their own unique way of doing it that is different in process with the approximate same results as the Massimo process. I don’t know. I just haven’t seen anywhere that claims Massimo has actually technically shown their process was copied and not just the general functionality.If Apple copied they should license and pay a royalty. But Massimo needs to technically prove that their patented process was used by Apple in some form and not just the end result.
-
Masimo has spent $100M in Apple Watch patent infringement fight
It obviously wasn’t solved decades ago or there wouldn’t be modern patents on it.dee_dee said:
Just because they have a legitimate business doesn’t mean the can’t be a troll. As discussed, this tech was solved decades ago.9secondkox2 said:
Except mason doesn’t troll.dee_dee said:
Apple has no choice. They are constantly targeted by patent trolls just because they have so much money. Apple’s only option is to draw out each fight as long as they can, and make litigation as expensive as possible to give patent trolls second thoughts about contesting a patent.s.metcalf said:The problem with behemoths like Apple is they know few can afford to defend their rights in court so they exploit that to their advantage constantly. Apple is a bully, just face it. Pretty much always has been, even (or especially) under Jobs. Microsoft and Google are still worse though.They have a legit business that rides on this. From products to licensed tech.A troll does nothing except sue whenever someone does anything remotely close to what their patent covers.In Masimos case, they are defending patents DIRECTLY infringed by Apple that harm their business materially.It’s a legit fight. Apple needs to do the honorable thing and license the tech or go about glucose monitoring in a way that doesn’t infringe.What was solved decades ago is the basic tech for this. That’s not the tech being leveraged. What’s being leveraged are patents on new updated tech that enhances or makes the basic tech much more useful.
