Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is not obvious at all. Even Maximo's case has been whittled down from 103 instances of infringement to just 5:

> In its initial filing with the ITC, Masimo accused Apple of 103 instances of patent infringement across five different patents. However, the ITC found that Apple infringed on only two patents, covering five different instances of patent infringements

This is a borderline case and a final decision has not been made. Patent decisions are often in a gray area.

The article you link to is extremely opinionated and it's just as easy to argue the opposite. I.e. Masimo complains that Apple poached some of their employees by paying them more. Well, why wouldn't Masimo pay them what they're worth? Companies try to hire experts away from other companies all the time, and this is good because it pushes up salaries for those experts and fairly rewards them for their expertise.

Masimo isn't some mom-and-pop shop. They have revenue of $1.24 billion. They know what they're doing.

>Even Maximo's case has been whittled down from 103 instances of infringement to just 5

That's like every ITC complaint in the history of ITC complaints. You throw everything at them and your best stuff sticks. They literally need one single complaint to stick, and they have 5. That is incredibly, overwhelmingly strong.

>Companies try to hire experts away from other companies all the time

Apple didn't just hire employees away from them. There would be nothing wrong with that (well, outside of the era of non-competes, which notably Apple was a big fan of and was a legal enforcer of, making that a humorous justification). Apple engaged in a classic "brain rape" to extract value without cost.

I'm a fan of Apple, but it is an extraordinarily greedy company. Maybe the greediest company in history. That is not a good trait, and it isn't beneficial to the industry as a whole.

> Apple engaged in a classic "brain rape" to extract value without cost.

Hyperbolic, sexualized language isn't helpful here.

Why didn't Masimo counter Apple's offers and pay their employees what they are worth? I don't see how this isn't Masimo's fault when they certainly had the money to do it.

I know lots of cases where rival companies tried to hire engineers with highly domain-specific expertise away from rivals and failed, because those rivals would counter offers and provided a great, supportive work environment. If Masimo failed to do that, then that's their own fault.

I side with the employees here. Good on them for knowing their worth.

> Why didn't Masimo counter Apple's offers and pay their employees what they are worth?

Was Apple paying them what they were worth, or did they pay them more than they were worth in order to damage Masimo? I don't think we know enough to say one way or the other. There must be some level at which poaching employees with inflated salaries crosses the line into anticompetitive territory.

Masimo is a profitable company, but that doesn't mean they can survive a bidding war against Apple.

They’re worth what precisely what someone is willing to pay them. Their expertise is probably more valuable for Apple than Masimo. It would make sense for them to be able to work at Apple then.

Not if, for example, equally qualified engineers not working for Masimo are not offered the same salaries.

Of course something like this is not easy to prove.

They’ve already spent >60 million just on legal fees.

Somehow I very strongly doubt they’d have spent that much just paying their employees more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com