carnegie

proto732 said:

I'd like to see me detail on what was actually infringed.  Was it the core technology of the product(circuits & components)? or was the patent something ridiculously simple like "a wearable that displays blood oxygen saturation on a screen". 

Here is the wording of the only 2 claims (from 1 patent) which the ITC judge found to be infringed by Apple. Masimo asserted 5 patents, but the judge didn't find infringement of the other 4 patents.


Claim 20 (which wasn't found to be infringed):

20. A user-worn device configured to non-invasively determine measurements of a user's tissue, the user-worn device comprising:
a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs);
at least four photodiodes configured to receive light emitted by the LEDs, the four photodiodes being arranged to capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user;
a protrusion comprising a convex surface and a plurality of through holes, each through hole including a window and arranged over a different one of the at least four photodiodes; and
one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the photodiodes and determine measurements of oxygen saturation of the user.

Claim 24 (which was found to be infringed):

The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion comprises opaque material configured to substantially prevent light piping.

And Claim 30 (which was also found to be infringed):

The user-worn device of claim 20, wherein the protrusion further comprises one or more chamfered edges.

EDIT: Correction... The ITC judge did find that a few other claims were infringed, but found that those claims were invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

AppleInsider said:
...

It's not clear why Han believes this, because the net beneficial effect to developers is near-zero, if there are benefits at all. The taxes are still due, and now the onus is on the developers to pay them directly.

...

If I understand what I've read correctly, developers shouldn't owe any additional VAT. Apple will already have paid that.


The accusation was that Apple was, essentially, doing something like this:

Collecting $11 for an app with a ex-VAT price of $10. The extra $1 was for the VAT.

Keeping 30% of the total $11 ($3.30) for itself.

Giving the $1 in taxes to the appropriate tax authority.

Giving the remaining $6.70 (67% of the ex-VAT price of the app) to the developer.


In effect, Apple was charging the developer not only a 30% commission on the $10 price of the app, but also a 30% commission for handling the $1 in VAT. Put another way, Apple was keeping an amount equal to 33%, rather than 30%, of the ex-VAT price which it was splitting with the developer. Fixing that would mean Apple would keep 30% of the ex-VAT price rather than 30% of the VAT-included price.

coolfactor said:

danox said:

“A Sucker is born every day”

robin huber said:

I have little sympathy for those who fall for schemes. Putting a little something in high risk is fun and exciting, but like Las Vegas gambling is not a sound financial plan. 

Cryptocurrency is not a scheme, not a fad. But often it's run by greedy, get-rich-quick-minded folks that aren't looking at the long-term plan. It's a very volatile type of currency, so as long as you invest with that in mind, it can be very lucrative. In other words, don't put all of your eggs into one basket.

It can be lucrative, sure. But cryptocurrencies aren't currencies, they're assets. That may seem like semantics, but it's an important distinction and as-assets rather than as-currencies is how people should think of cryptocurrencies if they hope to profitably invest in them.

We know that cryptocurrencies aren't currencies for a number of reasons. For one, at least in the U.S., buying things with crypto creates potentially taxable events. You aren't really buying things with crypto, you're trading crypto for things. Every time you do that you potentially create a capital gain or a capital loss depending on whether the value of the crypto has gone up or down since you first acquired it. For another, we don't think of swings in the trading value (or supposed buying power) of crypto as inflation or deflation, we think of it as gains or losses. For another, we'd never accept such wild fluctuations in the value of a currency. The primary point of a currency is as a stable and reliably recognizable store of value.

The clearest way that we know crypto isn't currency is that we think of its value almost exclusively in terms of actual currencies, and not just in FX contexts. If you ask what 1 Bitcoin is worth, the answer is most often going to come in terms of dollars (or some other currency). We don't first think of a bitcoin as being worth one Tesla or one bottle of soda or the value of an hour of labor. If you ask what 1 Dollar is worth, the answer isn't likely to come in terms of bitcoin or any other currency unless the context of the question is with regard to the relative values of particular currencies. The value of 1 Dollar is rather vague, it's generally conceived of based on what we could buy with it and/or what it would take to earn it. It's a store of general, not definitively defined (other than by specific contexts), value. Put another way, a currency is the way we measure the value of other things. The value of 1 Dollar is 1 Dollar. The value of 1 Bitcoin is, currently, something like 17,000 Dollars.

That said, the value of crypto assets is derived from the belief (or hope) that at some point in the future they will become actual currencies. And their value is based on other people's beliefs regarding the likelihood that that will happen. How likely is it that a given crypto asset will eventually become an actual currency and, at its current valuation, would it then be under supplied or over supplied? So, if one is interested in investing in crypto, they should be thinking about the possible paths by which given cryptos might become actual currencies. Is there any way they can? Importantly, is there any chance (the major) governments around the world will allow them to become actual currencies rather than just the speculative assets which they currently are allowed to exist as?

If you can see the path whereby they might become actual currencies, then maybe they have some long-term value. If you can't see such a path (or think it sufficiently unlikely), then the only thing left supporting their value is that some others don't yet recognize what you do. To the extent that's the case, investing in crypto is just a dicey game of trying to figure out (or recognize) when you would (or did) transition from being one of the people taking advantage of the suckers to being one of the suckers.

I'm not suggesting that investing in crypto is a bad idea. I am, however, suggesting that if crypto investors aren't thinking about crypto in the way I just described, then they don't understand the fundamentals of the game they're playing and, as a consequence, the likelihood of them winning at that game is reduced.

B-Mc-C said:

carnegie said:

B-Mc-C said:

Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.

Yes, it's a thing.

It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.

This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.

I appreciate this response and I’ve learned something new. It still seems to me they have an axe to grind and want to inflict pain on Apple and the shareholders.

You're welcome.

The DOJ does have its positions when it comes to how (or whether) existing antitrust laws should apply in Apple's case. And I'd say those positions are (1) generally not favorable for Apple and (2) generally not right. I think we've stretched existing antitrust laws well beyond their original intent to cover situations for which they aren't needed.

So, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the DOJ's positions are right in this case. I'm just pointing out that its attempts to weigh in on the legal issues in this case aren't that out of the ordinary. Appellate courts see lots of amicus briefs, most of which clearly support one side of a case or the other. And they occasionally allow amici - to include the executive branch of the federal government - to participate in oral arguments.

bshank said:

Judges aren’t smart enough to make decisions on their own now?

The judges will make the decision in this case. But prior to making (or issuing) decisions, appellate judges typically hear arguments from the parties originally involved in cases as well as amici who wish to make their own arguments. Amici can include private parties and government entities.