Hacker News Reader

Comment by hx8 | Hacker News Reader

This has so many negative externalities, and the only party really benefiting is Masimo. I understand Apple broke the law, but this ruling is only bad for the public.

* Apple Watches improve public health. Stepcounters, heart rate monitors, fall detection, etc etc. It's a tragedy that less of these were put out into the public, especially around Christmas/New Years.

* The Blood Oxygen technology has a much larger impact on the general public when it's in a widely distributed device like the Apple Watch. Access to the technology will be lower with Masimo.

* The quantified self is becoming more and more of a reality. The long term vision -- of having a better image of your health -- is something we should be sprinting towards. This is hurdle.

View on HN

Apple can afford to license the technology. They shouldn't be allowed to skip that step just because they have a lot of lawyers.

If we let Apple to continue doing this, it makes it harder for other companies to start selling the same kind of devices too, because they're at a disadvantage when they do follow the law.

Arguably, we all benefit when companies that break the law face consequences for breaking the law.

There are other pedometers, heart rate sensors, fall sensors, etc. There is no reason people who were in the market for such products have to buy Apple Watches. They can get other brands. If you think that it's a tragedy that Apple couldn't maximally capitalize on the New Years resolution surge in interest in health, take heart that other companies that did not apparently flagrantly violate the law are picking up the slack.

I have one of the infringing devices, and the blood oxygen feature is not a useful one for me. It adds nothing to my life, despite my zeal for quantifying everything. This is due partly to the inaccuracy of the sensor and partly because I don't have a relevant health condition. For someone who has a medical condition that could use such monitoring, there are probably better solutions that are actually fit for purpose. I'll keep wearing the watch for its other functions, but I hope that by the time I want a new revision of smart watch, Apple has changed their behavior and goes back to being a better corporate citizen that doesn't infringe patents and poach employees just because they don't like the deal that Masimo put on the table (or whatever their justification was). Otherwise, I'll just buy the competition or do without.

According to Masimo, Apple never put a deal on the table. They had one meeting and then poached their employees.

> [but this ruling is only bad for the public]

NO. It is GOOD for the public, because the public needs protection from criminals and law-breakers.

This is not a public health 'hurdle' or emergency. And, if Apple believes in The Cause that is being proposed in this comment, it can simply PAY MASIMO and be Done-zo with this public health.

> Apple Watches improve public health

Please post the randomized controlled trial that shows that people with Apple Watches live longer and/or with better quality of life than those without. You won't find one, and it's not as black-and-white as one might think due to iatrogenic harms and the nocebo effect: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-15/wrist-...

You are making evidence-free claims.

"I understand Apple broke the law"

This is not actually the case whatsoever. There has been 0 ruling on the merits of the patent case. There has been a report from the US ITC that the courts have used as the basis of the bans.

But we do not know if apple will prevail in court. Until that happens, "apple broke the law" is your opinion not a fact.

The only people to blame for this are Apple and their arrogance?

In this case apple maybe should, you know, pay for this to be included?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com