Apple's timepiece turmoil taken to appeals court The game of patent ping-pong over the Apple Watch and Ultra 2 has continued as the phone maker filed an appeal over an import ban of the devices into the US. The US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in October that Apple violated patents covering the measurement of blood oxygen levels. As a result, Apple was banned …
Sadly, most patent clerks are only given very little time to evaluate each patent, which is the result of a whole other set of problems beyond the scope of this discussion, so a lot of shit makes its way through that really shouldn't. You also have clerks who aren't polymaths and experts on every subject, which is why you see everyone trying to use all kinds of technical jargon in patent applications. In an ideal world, someone who is an actual expert on these matters would be the person who evaluates this patent and they're given ample time to investigate the novelty of it. We don't live in that world.
That said, I still think the idea of forcing a product off the shelves is a stupid way to handle it. While not a perfect solution, forcing Apple to license the patent and then put money into an escrow account for every unit sold after the date of the ruling, would be a better way to handle it. If Apple eventually has the patent invalidated or shows they aren't actually violating it, they get the money back. Otherwise it goes to the patent holder and all future payments go to them directly. Again, not a perfect solution, no such thing exists, but it's better than what we have now.
What we really need is a massive overhaul of the patent system to include safeguards like, 1) companies can't just patent any random idea someone comes up with, you have to actually be in the process of producing a product that uses the patent, 2) the life of the patent lasts only as long as you're actively selling that product, or X number of years (10 maybe), whichever comes first, 3) if it's some kind of fundamental technology (think DRAM patents) then you can be compelled to license it to anyone who pays the fee. Probably a few others, but that would be a good start.
No, better ruling would be to invalidate the "patent" and do a review of any similar "patents".
This is how these patent trolls stop innovation. Smaller businesses can't come to market with a product without fear that someone already has patent their idea or part of it.
Only big corporations have money to fight trolls in court, but still incompetence of people participating in the process leaves a lot to luck.
This creates incentive for patent trolls to file patents for everything their brains fart out.
This is not wrong... but we are omitting the part where big corporation are also, frequently, patent trolls. Apple and their ilk benefit from a generally poor system of patent approval and enforcement. The only change is that it is now easier for smaller actors to abuse the same patent system that the larger businesses have used as a crude cudgel against innovation and competition for decades. It's death by a thousand cuts. Their whirlwind is arriving.
Seriously, read some of Apple's own patents. How many are "Novel", "Nonobvious", and are not "Abstract ideas" but definitive and specific processes? Apple does technically good work. They innovate. But many of their patents are equally vapid. Just look at US9939850B2 - which I can summarize as "smartphone cases which have some 'smart' capability"
2) the life of the patent lasts only as long as you're actively selling that product, or X number of years (10 maybe),
This really. Most of these protections (patents/copyright) would work much better with sensible time frames applied. This seems to have escaped the digital world though.
For example, Dyson patented his cyclonic vacuum, and successfully stopped others from producing copies.
However, that patent has since expired, and now the improved technology is available to all manufacturers.
This allowed the inventor to profit from his invention (ironically, by setting up a company himself when all the big manufacturers at the time turned him down), but then means the improvements brought by his idea are eventually available to all.
Now, if he's written a song about his hoover, he'd still be able to profit off that....
This post has been deleted by its author
Optical pulse oximeters have existed since at least 1982, so the original patents have long expired. Masimo's patent is basically "existing pulse oximeter technology, but on something you wear" - i.e. what was obviously going to happen due to industry wide miniaturization of electronics that required no innovation on their part.
The patent should never have been ruled valid, but as it has been it seems unlikely any sort of software fix can work around it. The only potential hole I can see is the claim of a "storage device" and "touch screen user interface" - maybe Apple will change the software so the readings go directly to iCloud without ever being stored on your watch and/or can't be viewed on the watch?
I had assumed that they would just say "Fine, the hardware is disabled until this case ends, so people can buy them again if the hardware is completely unused", but I haven't managed to get interested enough to actually figure out what the patent is on so that assumption could easily be wrong.
Optical pulse oximeters have existed since at least 1982, so the original patents have long expired. Masimo's patent is basically "existing pulse oximeter technology, but on something you wear" - i.e. what was obviously going to happen due to industry wide miniaturization of electronics that required no innovation on their part.
That's what I don't get, ie the 'prior art' with a lot of patents. Pulse oximeters have been wearable for a very long time on ears, fingers and maybe wrists. I had a Casio digital watch that had a heart rate function that I think used it, so what's really novel about Masimo's claim? But then the same is true for other lucrative payments like Amazon's 1-click given that existed in SF long before Amazon did. Then again, Apple did appear to acquire Masimo's tech in rather dubious circumstances, so that should be discouraged.
Then again, Apple did appear to acquire Masimo's tech in rather dubious circumstances, so that should be discouraged
In California there is no such thing as "poaching" employees as Masimo claims, because contracts that prevent an employee from working for a competitor or in the same field are explicitly banned. If through him Apple stole Masimo's proprietary knowledge (i.e. a trade secret not patented but unique to them) then it would be illegal, but they aren't alleging that. They are alleging a patent violation.
I imagine their use of words like "poaching" plays well with some judges who may believe an employer should be able to exert that type of control over employees - which is legal in some states/countries (and probably why California is the world leader in startups, because employees are free to leave for or to form a startup in the same field as their former employer)
@DS999 "If through him Apple stole Masimo's proprietary knowledge (i.e. a trade secret not patented but unique to them) then it would be illegal, but they aren't alleging that. They are alleging a patent violation."
Masimo are alleging both patent violation and stolen proprietary knowledge. "In 2020, Masimo sued Apple in federal district court in Southern California, accusing the company of gaining access to proprietary information by hiring Masimo employees" * and for infringing 12 patents. That case ended in a mistrial earlier this year, so there will be a new trial for Masimo to allege stolen proprietary knowledge.
Masimo went to the ITC in 2021 with 5 different patents to the 12 the on going at the time 2020 case was dealing with.
* Quote from this https://archive.ph/DxarT which gives a lot of history on the dispute.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
