Apple wins bid to pause Apple Watch ban at US appeals court
reuters.com
reuters.com
Apple's argument was that it was being irreparably harmed by having to take the Watch off the market. Not for lost sales, which are reparable by handing money to Apple, but for the reputation / goodwill cost of consumers being exposed to the turmoil. (There's established case law that this does count as irreparable, so the main question would be whether they're really being harmed in that way.)
This is a separate—and reparable—set of harms.
The worst possible outcome for customers is that Apple pushes a software update to disable the feature, but it's a fairly useless feature for most people.
Appeals aren't retrials, though.
Generally an appeal like this is just a short pause while they work out whether there's more that needs to be done in the case, and so it hurts less to stop the ban for a few days while that's happening. Then if it actually goes up to an appeals court for more expensive lawyer-work the issue would indeed still be undecided and the pause should continue. For a company that's not a behemoth like Apple you could certainly imagine a poorly-decided import ban causing them to run out of money to fight it, after all.
Not sure I understand this logic. There are basically two outcomes- either customs decides it is okay to be imported and the ban is lifted or it decides it should be upheld and the ban remains. If it were to be appealed to a higher court and then have the ban reinstated as you say, why would it make sense to pause the ban and then reinstate it when it goes to appeals since it’s already in place? Seems it should be upheld until a higher authority says it no longer needs to be upheld. I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either.
i.e. There's more then 2 possible scenarios.
The idea is that harms that can't be fixed (by e.g. ordering someone to pay money) should be avoided until the system has settled on a definite answer.
> I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either.
The ruling is just blocking imports, not sales. I don't think that Apple is actually required to freeze its own sales, per se, but they're very just-in-time for stock so it was an effective ban for them unless they wanted to stockpile.
Third parties are thus able to sell through whatever stock they have.
How many levels of appeal should this apply to?
Capital punsihment is also not administered untill appeals are finished.
Obviously you can't attend a court hearing if you have already been killed or deported.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a reversion to the "remain in Mexico" policy in the coming months. This flipped the presumption on whether the applicant was going to prevail on the merits, presumably because such a small percentage do ultimately qualify. There is a growing sentiment, including in bright blue cities, that the current system, which presumes applicants will qualify for asylum, is not tenable.
Also, some plaintiff's might have a hard time paying for all of the appeals — if a large defendant can simply wait them out, without regard to wins in courts of first impression, that is a boon for deep-pocketed companies.
This was an ex parte stay, so is only in place until everyone finished briefing.
The bond requirement is still in place but the ITC set the bond at $0 so the appeal bond is also $0 anyway ;)
In all likelihood, the patent will eventually be tossed out, but that process takes a year or two.
You pay them to make sure the patent in valid before granting it. Why would one part of the government always preaume that the other part of the government is wrong?
I know you didn't draw the connection explicitly, but I just wanted to point out that in this particular case, Masimo isn't a patent troll - they're a company that sells actual devices - https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com and is listed on the NASDAQ with market cap of $6 billion.
What does expressing their legal rights / etc have to do with morality?
U.S. Customs will decide on January 12th whether the redesign is sufficient, and if it is sufficient Apple can continue its imports. Maismo would then need to head back to the ITC to argue that the software redesign still infringes their patents. That could easily take another year.
If Apple succeeds in either way, they will be able to draw out the litigation long enough for a full hardware redesign in the Apple Watch 10.
Can they still be sued for the damages caused even if they come up with total redesign?
The likely reason Masimo made the strategic choice to sue for for unjust enrichment instead of damages is that damages are limited to the license fees Apple would have paid in the alternative world where they sought a license. That's a relatively small amount of money compared to what Masimo is no doubt hoping to extract by blocking Apple Watch imports.
By the way, a court would not have enjoined Apple from importing or selling the Apple Watch. Masimo has a very small domestic consumer-facing industry putting their patents into practice and they they already license their patents to others, demonstrating that they could do so here as well. The ITC was the only place they were likley to get that remedy.
How can you figure out what that license fee would have been? Couldn't Masimo argue they only would have ever licensed the technology for some huge sum of money?
Kinda absurd lol. The US court system is so biased towards rich transgressors lmao.
Well, tbf to apple, no domestic court has ruled on this patent. Just domestic agencies and the ITC right?
No, then there are money damages.
Masimo is a multi-billion dollar company themselves. They may not be Apple-big, but they are definitely in the category of 'rich' for this discussion.
I've not seem anyone manage to turn up what sort of terms Masimo would want to license their patent. It's certainly possible that what they want is unreasonable, particularly since they seem to be launching their own smartwatch. Of course, Apple famously loves its high margins on products, and it might be fighting here to keep a 30% profit on the Watch rather than 28%.
> I've not seem anyone manage to turn up what sort of terms Masimo would want to license their patent. It's certainly possible that what they want is unreasonable
FTA: “In its earlier suit, which ended with a deadlocked jury, Masimo wanted Apple to pay more than $3 billion in damage”
So, they’re claiming that patent is worth half the company. I guess that’s, at least, quite a high initial offer.
They were posted in a previous thread, and the way they were written made it unclear what was actually covered. Is Apple allegedly infringing on the idea of putting a blood oxygen sensor in a watch, a technical innovation in how to do so effectively, or something else entirely?
My impression of the whole debacle is that Masimo hired up a bunch of smart people, they invented this tech while being paid next-to-nothing by Masimo (as Masimo didn’t have the product development chops to actually bring anything to market), Apple saw that the tech was good and just neeeed a product/marketing team, Apple tried to acquire Masimo, their CEO tried to play hard to get, so Apple ”stole” (offered compensation commensurate to their technical prowess) all the engineers who actually made the thing and just built it in house from “scratch”.
It’s a tricky case to be sure. But I’m all for the outcome where consumers get cool tech and the people who actually made it (notably not the Masimo CEO) get fair compensation for their work.
The aspect a lot of people here gloss over is that the patent that Masimo owns wasn’t actually developed by anyone currently at Masimo. Apple “owns” all the people, but Masimo “owns” their accomplishments. It’s weird.
Though in all likelihood it will be settled out of court.
As soon as the technology had a consumer application, the market value of the expertise changed drastically.
Your impression that Masimo "doesn't have product development chops to bring anything to market" is ... odd, considering Masimo is a nearly 40 year old company which has devices in most of the hospitals I see as a paramedic bringing patients in, and $2B a year in revenue.
> Apple tried to acquire Masimo, their CEO tried to play hard to get
Masimo stated in court - and Apple never challenged it - that their discussions were around partnership and licensing and tech. I have no idea where your claim that Masimo is just hurt/offended that they weren't "acquired by Apple". I can't even imagine why Masimo would be an acquisition target for Apple - there's an entire world of difference between personal healthcare and the world of ICUs, ORs and ERs that Masimo mostly plays in.
Their "Root" devices are actually some of the nicer ones I've used in healthcare - https://www.masimo.com/products/continuous/root/
There's definitely an undercurrent in a lot of these threads to paint Apple as being attacked by a patent troll.
Masimo makes as you note, industrial devices. The Root devices that I mention are not ever going to be used at home, even by the ultra wealthy.
I mean you are talking about devices that do CO-oximetry (effectively "arterial blood gas"), brain function monitoring, connect to ventilators (ISA capnography for intubated patients) and anesthesia machines and pushing aggregated data into EPIC. Like I said, these are devices being used in intensive care units, not simple finger pulse oximetry, reflected or otherwise.
They are not "gatekeeping" this technology for the ultra wealthy so poor Apple Watch owners (of which I am on my third) can't get access to it. They're entirely different models with different purposes, in an entirely differing market segment.
Also if you're referring to "potentially life saving analysis" with respect to pulse oximetry on the Apple Watch, which does it only on demand, and is not an FDA regulated medical device, regardless of patents, there's an exaggeration happening. Patients with chronic hypoxic and similar issues are not relying on Apple Watches to "potentially save their lives".
And why do you think engineers are making too much money while CEO’s are waking away with record profits off their backs?
All in all your argument is just anti-commoner pro-elite system gamers, and if that’s how you see things so be it. But I think people should be able to have their pulses measured even if the FDA doesn’t approve and they don’t have chronic hypoxia and they don’t want to integrate with Epic and they only need it on demand. I’ve had family members that were told they must go through complicated insurance processes to get fancy tens of thousands of dollar pulse measures, but then got by just fine with the watch. Masimo wants to put an end to that to secure their own profits, and this entire site loves them for it.
So Apple and their shareholders should make nothing on this either in a completely fair outcome?
Imo it’s appropriate for the government to step in and allow the general public to receive access to this life saving equipment without folks needing a “good insurance” plan whereby some bean counter with no medical training has looked over all your medical records and decided you are worth dropping bundles of money on to have a constant pulse taken.
Right, that’s my whole point really. People just look at this as “bad guy Apple” when really it’s a bunch of individual engineers getting absolutely shafted while the HN community cheers.
US-10945648-B2 seems to cover the heart of the issue. It specifically calls out
> four photodiodes configured to receive light emitted by the LEDs, the four photodiodes being arranged to capture light at different quadrants of tissue of a user;
Which is what I believe Apple was going to change via software disabling one.
https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/18/apple-watch-import-ban-...
Honestly it seems stretching to say the first one is patentable imho and the second one is easily changed for future hardware versions, which is why I presume Apple isn’t in licensing talks.
Masimo actually did sue Apple in Federal court for damages, but the judge declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 6-1 in favor of Apple.
To be clear, the mistrial was around "theft of trade secrets", and had nothing to do with the alleged patent infringement.
(Masimo did not ask for seizure yet afaik)
I've heard some companies say that they should never put in writing that they're aware of anyone else's IP, to mitigate the risk of treble damages.
I've been instructed by a big company to take all possible notes on my own ideas and experiments, and none at all on what information I found elsewhere.
I hear the opposite is true in trading, where to avoid insider trading allegations, you need notes on what publically available information you acted on, even just as "parallel construction" of the trades you were going to make based on insider information.
It's really interesting the kind of world you get when legal precedent is the only unstoppable force.
Have a great idea and patent it? Well who cares, they'll steal your tech and courts seemingly will let them. All comes down to who has the money for better lawyers.
Apart from those words, is there anything else you think is of concern compared to the progress made by humanity by making the tech available to millions of people?
Either Apple are guilty or being stingy, or Massimo are guilty of being greedy. Either could be responsible for the conflict.
I am not interested in that. It's just some thoughts in your mind.
The end result was that tech became more accessible and which is all I care about.
- In order to be granted a patent, inventors must publish detailed descriptions of their inventions, including step-by-step instructions on how to re-create them. The inventions become public knowledge.
- In exchange for publishing the details of their inventions, society grants a temporary exclusive right to market the technology.
Without this system, the only way to safeguard a technological advantage would be to keep it secret. Inventors would be incentivized to maintain maximum secrecy for all new inventions. That would be bad for society, and inconvenient for inventors.
The patent system is an acknowledgement of this reality. Even though it seems a bit ridiculous, we allow people to claim temporary "ownership" of their new ideas, in order to incentivize the publishing of research, which eventually enters the public domain.
Clearly, there's some room for argument on the details of this specific case, but assuming the patent is legitimate, and that Apple infringed on it, then it would be bad for the long-term progress of science for us to let them get away with it.
And in today's world where reversing a product is pretty much a guarantee if the product is something anyone wants, the secret won't be kept for too long. (shhh, everyone's secret sauce is pretty much thousand island) Once the secret is out, anyone that wants to will copy it and now there's no protection.
Without patents, who knows how many ideas would be stuck in the heads of individual people, reluctant not only to try to bring them to market, but to even discuss them with anybody. Why would anybody want to become an inventor, if there were so little upside?
The other issue is there are patents on ideas that aren't novel. There was some tightening of the rules such as the Alice software ruling but still lots of holes.
Case in point personally, our competitor patented the "idea" of putting a flexible PCB in a type of product. That's how bullshit it was and that was granted in 2020. Luckily we have prior art of a flexible PCB in a product of ours from 17years ago if they decide to ever start shit.
the existence of a patent that another company copied is by definition stealing. until further litigation occurs and changes this decision, it is a fact Apple stole this technology
why they can't ever show a little humility and pay up in royalties is just ridiculous. remember, they didn't even want to pay artists for the music they gave away when launching Apple Music until a Very Big Deal named Taylor Swift told them to GTFO.
It literally and figuratively is not.
Second, many patents are stupid. One click checkout was stupid and companies that implemented one click purchasing weren’t infringing anything. And certainly weren’t stealing.
Was this patent stupid? I don’t know, maybe. But assuming stealing is not a very good idea as I expect there are many more BS patents than valid.
Nevertheless, the patent was granted, and naked assertions and poor summarizations are not convincing enough to conclude that it should not have been. The contents of that patent, for anyone who is interested in examining it, make this seem like a pretty cut and dry case of patent infringement.
...assuming the patent is valid, which apple disputes.
Are you talking about an actual judge or the patent examiner?
Are you implying the patent examiner doesn't apply actual judgement or make actual judgments?
And is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid?
They might make "judgements" in the colloquial sense, but from a legal point of view they don't make the final call. It's not any different than a cop giving you a ticket for speeding. You're not guilty until convicted by a judge/jury.
They may not make the final call, but they make judgements, and thus are people who judge such things. Importantly, they do so more than you, so their judgement outweighs yours alone.
And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise.
Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent is invalid? I'd like to move beyond your purely semantic meta-argument and back towards substance.
>And, it's actually the opposite of your analogy, because the patent, having been judged by a person who judges such things, is indeed valid unless convincingly proven otherwise.
The same could be said for a cop and/or prosecutor. Do you think someone being prosecuted for a crime is guilty "unless convincingly proven otherwise"?
Of course not, which is precisely why your analogy fails. You seem to be confusing presumption of innocence in a crime, a thing which exists, with some sort of presumption of patent invalidity, a thing which doesn't exist. Thus, contrary to your latest claim, the same can't, in fact, be said of one and the other.
In the US, in the case of prosecution for a crime, someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Whereas the patent, having been judged valid and subsequently granted, continues to be valid until proven otherwise.
Which leads us back on topic: is there any convincing evidence the patent, currently judged valid, is actually invalid?
I asked you this already, and you responded with nothing, so if you respond again with nothing, it will look like you're just trying to argue, rather than discuss.
I take issue with the conflating infringing on a patent and "stealing" IP. The two are not the same.
My reading of Masimo's patent is far less charitable than yours. To me it reads like one of those "but on a computer" type patents. It's not really all that novel but overworked USPTO reviewers grant them anyways.
Supposed sordid dealings by Apple are yet to be demonstrated by anything but unsubstantiated claims by Masimo. Not that Apple is above any wrongdoing but Masimo's executives are incentivized to act like overly aggrieved victims to extract sympathy from third parties.
Is there any evidence you feel would convince people that the patent examiner was wrong in awarding the patent which, at the moment, is valid?
Any evidence you feel convincingly disputes the record we have of Apple's interactions with Masimo? Empty denials would be pretty unconvincing, and I'm not sure we even have that.