• Chahk@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    9 months ago

    As much as I hate awfully broad patents, if the shoe was on the other foot, Apple would unleash its army of lawyers to block the other company’s sales.

    • Paradox@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Apple has done this many times before. Over even more frivolous patents (i.e. a glossy black rectangle)

      They made their bed, now they have to lie in it

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      In this case, it doesn’t seem like the patents are “awfully broad”. Masimo is actively selling products using the patents, and it seems likely that Apple stole their technology.

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        From the Apple claims:

        Masimo waited over a decade after it filed its original provisional applications, only to file the new applications that became the supposedly infringed patents just a week after Apple launched the first of the accused Apple Watch products.

        Sounds to me like that should be illegal, no matter who does it.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The trolling comes from stuff like this:


          “Non-invasive physiological sensor cover”
          US US11779247B2 Abraham Mazda Kiani Masimo Corporation

          • Priority 2009-07-29
          • Filed 2022-12-20
          • Granted 2023-10-10
          • Published 2023-10-10

          They were fine with selling their own watch in a “patent pending” state over 10 years after having filed a provisional application, but the moment Apple announced their own watch, they hurried to write a final application after the fact worded in a way that would make Apple infringe on it thanks to having a 10+ year old priority on it.

          They’ve been pulling the same stunt a bunch of times:

          https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Masimo&oq=Masimo&sort=new

          Several 2023 patents, have a priority as far back as 2006!

          • derbis@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Why does this constitute trolling, though? That means they actually did invent and produce the tech for that whole period, doesn’t it? I could understand filling a provisional patent and then only pulling the trigger on the whole shebang when you actually have to protect it.

            • cobra89@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It doesn’t, you’re 100% correct. Apple fanboys gonna fanboy.

              Also this whole thing is stupid. Apple literally refused to come to an agreement for the patent and was literally hinging its hopes on the Biden administration blocking the injunction, which made sense when it was a US company vs a non-US company, but of course doesn’t make sense when it’s two US companies. Apple probably could have bought out the entire company for less money than these 10 years of court cases cost but they thought they could bully the little guy with their market position.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    A statement (via CNBC) from the Office of US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said the agency “decided not to reverse the ITC’s [International Trade Commission] determination” after “careful consideration.”

    The ITC issued the ban after finding that Apple infringed on blood oxygen saturation technology patented by a company called Masimo.

    It also ordered Apple to stop selling any previously-imported devices with the infringed-upon tech.

    While Apple attempted to block the decision while awaiting an appeal, the ITC denied Apple’s request, and the other chance of intervention was a veto from President Joe Biden, which didn’t happen.

    Apple will also continue selling the Watch SE, as it doesn’t come with a blood oxygen sensor.

    But both of those methods might not be enough to satisfy the ITC, which is why Apple could always choose to settle with Masimo instead.


    Saved 47% of original text.