spheric
About
- Username
- spheric
- Joined
- Visits
- 290
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,418
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 2,805
Reactions
-
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
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.gatorguy said:
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?tht said:
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.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.Masimo submarined Apple here. Ie, they got a patent on an Apple Watch design feature 5 years after the design shipped.
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.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?
-
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
It’s a sales ban, not an import ban. Imports are affected because you can’t import something with intent to sell that you’re not actually allowed to sell.longfang said:
Perhaps they feel that the patent in question does not apply?pulseimages said:Why doesn’t Apple want to license the patent?
In any case Apple is still entitled to have this be adjudicated in a court of law. There is currently an import ban, which prevents Apple from importing devices manufactured outside the US with this feature, so technically a work around for US watches would be to manufacture it in the US.
-
Sleep apnea in, hypertension out for Apple Watch Series 10
This is wrong. Blood oxygen sensing isn’t missing from Apple Watch.AppleInsider said:Another health element users will miss out on is blood oxygen sensing. Following Masimo's legal fight and the successful ban on Apple using the technology, Apple stripped it out of the Apple Watch.
However, as Apple CEO Tim Cook previously implied that Apple wouldn't license Masimo's patents, blood oxygen sensing won't be making a return anytime soon.The only people „missing out“ on blood oxygen sensing are customers in the United States of America.Maybe some day, Americans will finally grasp this „global“ concept and understand the whole internet thing.We’ll be here when you’re ready. -
EU antitrust chief & Apple foe Margrethe Vestager out after 10 years
danox said:
Yeah, they have real democracy protection for Spotify and Epic.michelb76 said:>Ireland disagreed with her stance then, and still does now.
Yeah no shit, they want that sweet money. You won't see Switzerland becoming transparant about banking either.
That aside, it's interesting reading American reactions to a real democracy with consumer protections and actual freedoms.They investigate and follow up on complaints.At least you’ve discredited the stupid "EU is just out to get American companies", since you’ve mentioned the American company Epic’s win.
-
EU antitrust chief & Apple foe Margrethe Vestager out after 10 years
These statements are so telling: you all think the EU is all about Apple. Fact is, the EU doesn’t give a SHIT about Apple: the USB-C standardisation was about getting EVERYBODY to unify their charging. Apple was already headed there because they aren’t stupid and knew it was coming (and they probably talk regularly with the Commission), having sat out the horrific micro-USB suggestion.Fidonet127 said:
There is no evidence that EU forced Apple to go USB-C as Apple was already heading there. Yes they put it into law, but the market was already forcing Apple to go USB-C. Due to timing, EU got the credit.tlinn said:I will forever be grateful to the Europeans for forcing Apple to adopt USB-C. But the idea that Apple shouldn't be compensated for developing a platform that allows thousands of developers to make a living, or that the "fair" amount of compensation should be decided by developers seems ridiculous to me. Apple is not a charity, nor do they exist to be the world's R&D department. Much of what the Europeans are doing feels like protectionism.
That said, there are plenty of examples where Apple disadvantages its own customers and stifles innovation—like forcing all browsers to use the same engine. This is where government action should focus.The EU rightfully gets the credit for kicking everybody into supporting a single standard — they’d already been working with various manufacturers for a decade before Apple finally switched their iPhones, as well.
