Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukev | Hacker News Reader

Why would Apple take their devices off the market or disable the feature instead of parting with a minuscule fraction of the pile of gold they're sitting on for a patent license?

I mean obviously for now it makes more sense for them to wait and hope they win on appeal or get the import ban veto'd, but if it actually comes down to not being able to sell the device, surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost?

View on HN

surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost?

Assuming a spherical cow, and that Apple's decision-makers aren't completely incapable of basic math, the logical conclusion would be...?

(Spoiler: I assume the patent-holder is asking some outrageous sum. Or there's a piece of the story we're missing. Or maybe some kind of game of chicken.)

If you can't agree on licensing terms, then you sell the watch without the infringing technology. Nobody (relatively speaking) is making a buy/not buy decision on the Apple Watch due to its blood oxygen monitor functionality. It's a feature that isn't important or necessary for the vast majority of people.

> It's a feature that isn't important or necessary for the vast majority of people.

Do you have data on this? I think it's a pretty big deal.

If one has a serious health condition that affects blood oxygen levels, pulse oximetry can be useful. For the average healthy person, the medical value is very little to nil.

Uses of pulse oximetry: https://www.healthline.com/health/pulse-oximetry#purpose-and...

Most of the above conditions listed above occur in very sick people already under close medical supervision, with the exception of asthma. But even in asthma, pulse oximetry has limitations: https://asthma.net/living/lets-talk-pulse-oximetry

I think it’s cool the Apple Watch has this, but it’s mostly a gimmick as far as I can tell.

There is also value in monitoring stats over time. ie: knowing what's normal for you and even a normal range throughout the day allows you to identify changes before you get to a state where a hospital is needed.

On the non-medical side, I fly small, unpressurized airplanes and altitude can definitely have an effect on blood oxygen levels. Having this data collected in the background as I fly or do other activities is valuable to me despite not having any of the issues presented from the link above.

Valuable as in "satisfies my curiosity" or valuable in some actionable way?

I admit, I definitely have curiosity.

I have not had to act on the data yet but if I were to get a low O2 alert while flying I would definitely open a window and descend ASAP. Depending on the circumstances I might also consider landing.

Anyone can get pneumonia and it's useful for telling if you need urgent medical care. That's no gimmick.

This is also an iterated game. Apple doesn’t want a reputation for caving to patent trolls because that invites more lawsuits.

Indeed, Apple has a reputation for going scorched earth on patent trolls and trying to invalidate your entire patent portfolio after you poke the bear (Masimo has already had several of their patents invalidated in the course of their litigation with Apple).

Why do you call them patent trolls when they're not. Patent holders who build and ship products based on those patents are not patent trolls. Do you not know what that phrase actually means?

I don't know if I would call them patent trolls per se, since some patent troll companies' business model is just trying to win patent lawsuits, but if you go to battle and the overwhelming majority of your patents are invalidated when put under any level of scrutiny then you're still being shady. Literally 95% of Masimo's infringment claims (98 of 103) have already been invalidated in this case. They're building products but they're also abusing the patent system.

This is endemic though, I don't think Masimo is especially unique here, companies often encourage filing frivolous patents.

In the short term the impending scarcity will be a great boon for sales, in what's probably their busiest month. In the medium term they can appeal the ruling and hope for help from POTUS. If that doesn't pan out they can still make a deal; probably to more favorable conditions since then they showed that they are willing to walk away from any one-sided license deal.

Because Masimo doesn't offer a patent license:

> “If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.”

1) Because they don't want to pay Samsung a patent fee for every watch sold, and

2) Because they're appealing the ruling, and

3) They're hoping POTUS might drag their ass out of the fire like Obama did in 2013.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com