thrang

Masimo is a bit of an odd egg; they also own consumer audio products (Denon, Marantz, B&W...)

9secondkox2 said:

ApplePoor said:

Doubt Apple can legally disable a feature in a "sold" item. They can not include that feature in the new ones coming off the line. That complies with what I can read.

Software update. They can use their rapid response too. 

for what? They don't have to disable it in watches already sold...

Killer's wasn't that good. The change from the book was a poor choice

Hadn't seen most of the other nominees, but was pulling for Gary Oldman in Slow Horses... love that show and his performance...

PauloSeraa said:

beowulfschmidt said:

AppleInsider said:

"Masimo has wrongly attempted to use the ITC to keep a potentially lifesaving product from millions of U.S. consumers while making way for their own watch that copies Apple," an Apple spokesperson said.

Apple's appeal to irrelevant emotion here is somewhat telling.  Rather than appeal to the facts of the case, they elected to go the "think of the children..." route.

If Apple actually violated these patents, how much "good" the watch does is irrelevant; they should pay up and/or suffer the consequences.

If Apple did NOT violate these patents, the facts should be sufficient without an emotional appeal.

I don't know if they did or not, I just know that the most common reason for an emotional appeal like this one is that they don't believe the facts are sufficient to defend themselves on their own, and they want to distract people from those insufficient facts.

Agree 100%. They use a lot of these "think of the children" appeals, notably when discussing side-loading of Apps. It's a giant red flag that their factual arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.

I believe the argument is more legitimate than you might consider, given it's directed toward the consideration of the impact a ban would have. It's why there is a review process; even if there is some violation by a manufacturer against another, an outright ban, given the offenders product overall benefit (which includes many things not in dispute) may be considered too severe.

And in a tangential vein, Facebook is being sued by more than half the states for essentially NOT "looking after the children" 

This will end in some sort of settlement/licensing obviously. They always do.

As a curious aside, did Apple file (and were they awarded) patents for their invention/implementation of this technology?

I kind of don't get it. Apple is not being strong-armed. If they prefer to take the 20bn to simply default to Google search (while allowing the user to easily change it), rather than spend capital to build their own from scratch, that's their prerogative. If Google withheld some other capability or service Apple needed unless they signed that deal, that would be coercive, but I haven't seen that argued.

Apple perhaps loses a high ground business ethics argument which is: they heavily promote privacy with the iPhone, but then take cash to leverage a company known to use as much of your personal data as they can.