tht
About
- Username
- tht
- Joined
- Visits
- 167
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 6,899
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 5,451
Reactions
-
Masimo has spent $100M in Apple Watch patent infringement fight
The profile on the company and Kiani's legal fights includes claims that some people view his "aggressive use of the U.S. patent system" as being "exploitation that stymies the innovation of others."Ah, a patent troll after all.After reading the Masimo vs True Wearables case, you really have to think that some aspects of the court are just irrational and willfully incurious.The case centered on whether n-dimensional regression fitting could be considered a secret. A statistics expert in the case say this type of algorithm technique has been in use for 60 years.The court deemed that it may be known in fields of math, but it is not in well known in the field of medical devices, and therefore could be considered a trade secret. True Wearables was prevented from being awarded a patent, and is now out of business I think.Absolutely nutso decision. When all this stuff uses ML, basically n-dimensional fitting but not constrained to the linear expansion old techniques use, I wonder what the courts are going to say.
-
Apple is pushing hard to make the Mac relevant in gaming
Like has been said time and time again, I can’t see Apple being serious with gaming until they become a publisher. Like always making sure the top 10-20 games are contemporaneously on the platform while also maintaining a library of old hits.
The thing that solidifies it is when people actually spend money on the games. This is the only way to make it self perpetuating.
-
US Apple Watch import ban is on hold, for now
Apple believes they don’t infringe the patents, and they need to prove to the Court that they don’t. Indeed, they basically won the court case it resulted in a mistrial due to a split decision. The court cases continues on whether they infringe or not, and whether the patents are valid or not.MplsP said:
See my comment above - If that's considered a valid reason then how could any patent cases be enforced at all? If "irreparable harm" = Lost sales then any patent enforcement at all means irreparable harm and should therefore have an injunction.radarthekat said:
If one customer decides to buy a cheaper Apple Watch because the one they wanted was banned, that could be considered irreparable harm. Because something was taken away that isn't going to be given back. I suppose some folks might imagine such a strong phrase must necessarily imply 'great harm' but irreparable has nothing to do with the amount of harm.MplsP said:I’m curious how Apple could claim irreparable harm when it sells other watches without the technology.
It just doesn't work like that. If company A develops and patents a product or technology they have the right to use and profit from that technology. Allowing other companies to violate patents just because they want the profitsu negates the use of the patent system.If Apple does prove they don’t infringe, or invalidates the patents, then the ITC ban is causing Apple harm. Therefore, the court can stay the ITC ban and have Masimo’s damages go into bond. All parties can be made whole when final determinations are made.The ITC is not a court. They are a US trade organization that can institute bans on imports. Their determination of patent infringement has no relation to the US court system that determines whether Apple infringes a patent or whether patents as valid. -
Japan plans to fine Apple over app stores and force sideloading
Heh: Nikkei Asia says it's the laws are expected to be applied to multinational firms, and not to Japanese ones.9secondkox2 said:The EU disease is infecting the planet.When Sony is forced to allow Apple and nintendo and microsoft to have their App Stores on PlayStation and tv sets, then we can talk.Such nonsense.
Sounds like you won’t be talking to them for a very long while, just like with how all these new EU laws just happen to exclude all EU companies.You know, 16 years ago, when everyone and their brother knew that Symbian needed to be rearchitected for the world that the iPhone introduced, the EU did squat? I honestly don’t remember. Everyone saw it coming. It was all-hands on deck for all competitors. It was not a time for the status quo of working. It was definitely hair on fire time.Nokia and company put together something like a 4 year plan to get Symbian^5 out the door, when it needed to be 1 year, 2 years at most. The EU should have put in time and money to get Symbian to be competitive. Instead, Nokia’s old platform was left to burn at sea, and they decided to let Microsoft buy and kill them. Infineon wasn’t subsidized so that they could continue developing cellular modems, and they let Intel buy them.
Nokia, Ericsson and Siemens had about 50% market share in mobile phones! It’s near zero now.Similar story with Japanese companies. Have to go re-read the business axioms on why incumbents can’t change even though they see the cliff coming.
-
Apple appeals Apple Watch ban, citing 'irreparable harm' to its business
Apple believes their design doesn’t infringe on Maximo’s patents or the patents can be invalidated. If so, they wouldn’t be negotiating for patent licensing with Masimo.MplsP said:
You're right about the term being 'legal speak' hyperbole but as others have said, it begs the question. If an Apple Watch ban is truly so damaging, why didn't they start negotiating with Massimo earlier?inkling said:LIke a lot of things lawyers say, "irreparable harm" means little. It's just a verbal button pushed to push for a court response. The royalties that Apple may end up paying Masimo probably amount to only a fraction of one percent of its annual profits. It's Apple that's putting a big dent in its watch sales by refusing to settle and pay.The ITC design is an import ban based on their interpretation of the 5 patents asserted by Masimo.There is a separate, and earlier, set of court cases that deal directly with whether Apple infringes on Masimo’s patent and a patent appeals board trial on whether the patents are valid.
The latter resulted in a mistrial when the jury trial resulted in a 6-1 jury vote in favor of Apple when it needed to be unanimous and the patent appeals trials seems to be waiting the ITC trial to wind down before it starts up again.
