hogman

MplsP said:

retrogusto said:

williamh said:

omasou said:

quakerotis said:

It's not Apple's, it's Masimo's.

Joe Kiani, the CEO of Masimo who contends Apple infringes on his company's patents, said in an interview on January 18 that Apple is "masquerading what they are offering to consumers as a reliable, medical pulse oximeter, even though it's not." Kiani maintains "I really feel wholeheartedly that consumers are better off without it."

According to Masimo:

Apple's implementation is infringing on Masimo patent = T
Apple tech is neither a reliable and/or medical pulse oximeter = T

Then a simple truth table says T + T = T and therefore Masimo implementation is neither a reliable and/or medical pulse oximeter.

You can make assertions all you want but that doesn't make them true.  Why do would a thinking person just take "according to Masimo" at face value?

We could add According to Masimo:

Apple is "masquerading what they are offering to consumers as a reliable, medical pulse oximeter, even though it's not." = F

From the article (you would know if you read it): Apple advises on its website that the measurements found in the watchOS Blood Oxygen app are "not intended for medical use," and are designed only for "general fitness and wellness purposes."

Kiani maintains "I really feel wholeheartedly that consumers are better off without it." = F

Ok, it's true that he maintains it but he is wrong.  According to the article, a DOCTOR on the flight said ""The Apple Watch helped me to find out the patient had low oxygen saturation."  Do you know better, Dr. Omasou?

I think Omasou is pointing out that Masimo is complaining that Apple is using their tech, and simultaneously complaining that the tech Apple is using (Masimo’s tech) is not very good. 

Yes, but it's poor reasoning. Apple didn't steal everything from Masimo, so even if their implementation uses Masimo's patents it is not the same device and thus can't be automatically considered equivalent. It's like saying Samsung uses the same Qualcomm modem therefore the Galaxy is the same as the iPhone.

Having said that, I think Masimo's claims about the usefulness of Apple's pulse oximetry are not completely accurate and more posturing than reality. The Apple Watch oximeter may not be medical grade but that in no way makes is useless. This story is a perfect example.

hmlongco said:

mikethemartian said:

hmlongco said:

They'll never do it, but eBay should have a moratorium on the ability to resell new devices within a few months of launch. Don't care if it's a Vision Pro, new iPhone, or the latest Xbox or Playstation console. Need to shut scalpers down.

It is a purely elective purchase. No one is forced to buy it at the higher prices.

And every one scalped is a device that could have been available for someone else to purchase. 

Another possibility is for Apple to require your Apple ID for purchase and then "lock" the device to that ID for a limited period of time.

flydog said:

igorsky said:

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.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en

This might be helpful too https://www.inquartik.com/blog/apple-watch-masimo-pulse-oximeter-litigation/