flydog

About

Username
flydog
Joined
Visits
195
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
3,631
Badges
1
Posts
1,149

Reactions

2.3KLike2Dislike251Informative

  • Gene Munster: Apple should buy Rivian after cancelling Apple Car

    flydogflydog
    jimh2 said:
     Good businesses do not diversify into products that are outside of their primary focus. Apple makes phones, computers and related accessories. They also do streaming of music/videos/podcasts and create content. Manufacturing cars is does not even remotely fit into their business model.
    Under your "primary focus" rule, Apple would never have branched out into music players, phones, watches, earphones, and portable speakers, which together make up over 90% of its current revenue from product compared to what as the "primary focus" prior to 2001 (computers).  Maybe you define "primary focus" broadly to include anything with a CPU in it, but that rules also fails because Apple derives 20% of all revenue from services that include producing their own TV shows and movies and selling ads. 




    williamlondonwatto_cobra

  • Apple sues US Patent Office over augmented reality trademarks

    flydogflydog
    Apple has not filed suit against the USPTO. The lawsuit names ZeroDensity as the defendant, and is an appeal of the USPTO's decision to deny the trademark registration. Saying they are suing the USPTO is like saying the person who is appealing a criminal conviction is suing the judge. 
    byronlOfermuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobraroundaboutnow

  • Don't use a smartwatch or smart ring for blood glucose monitoring just yet

    flydogflydog
    Massiveattack87 said:
    Honestly speaking... I never understood why we need this function.. 
    You meant you don't understand why you need this function right?
    watto_cobraStrangeDays

  • Apple Watch ban back on, court denies Apple's appeal to keep it on the market

    flydogflydog

    neoncat said:
    deckert63 said:
    Is Masimo a real healthcare technology firm or are they a patent troll? If the former, not sure why apple doesn’t pay them the license fees like they do Qualcomm. If the latter, may Masimo rot in special place in hell only reserved for patent trolls. 
    The tale is an interesting read, you'd do yourself a favor to at least Google a basic summary of what has happened and why. It involves Apple poaching employees from Masimo, one employee in particular lobbying Apple for a job, said employee only lasting a short time, and Apple bringing a pulse ox measurement device to market much faster than would normally have been expected given the complexity of the technology.

    One does genuinely wonder, however, what Apple's end game is. They get into these situations where they become so convinced of their own piety they tend to ride the train straight to hell instead of looking for a convenient and practical way to get off. A little humility and less hubris would serve Apple well as a brand and as a company.
    Poaching is not illegal, and neither is designing around a patent, regardless of whether it is done with or without "poached" employees. And of course, bringing a product to market is going to be faster if you have the help of your competitor's former employees, which is why every company on earth, including Masimo, has done it.  All of that may repulse your own sense of morality, but none of it standing alone establishes patent infringement or any other tort.


    jibthtflashfan207ronndaven13485watto_cobra

  • Apple Watch ban back on, court denies Apple's appeal to keep it on the market

    flydogflydog

    voenixrising said:
    (a) Why doesn't Apple just pay whatever licensing fees Masimo demands? Any amount would be pocket change for Apple.
    (b) Why doesn't Apple just BUY Masimo and be done with it?
    (a) If someone rear ended your car and demanded you'd pay for their damages, you'd simply write a check?
    (b) Why wouldn't you just buy their car and be done with it? 

    grandact73thtwatto_cobra