Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple

Apple Accused of Delaying Masimo Legal Fight To Gain Watch Sales (bloomberg.com) 48

Apple is trying to delay a legal fight over allegedly stolen blood-oxygen monitoring technology in its latest watch so it can gain a more dominant share of the smartwatch market, medical-sensor maker Masimo said in a court filing late Monday. From a report: Blood-oxygen monitoring is a key feature of the latest Apple Watch Series 6 announced on Sept. 15. Masimo and its spinoff Cercacor Laboratories had sued in January, accusing Apple of promising a working relationship only to steal secret information and hire away key employees, including Cercacor's former chief technology officer and Masimo's chief medical officer. Cupertino, California-based Apple hasn't formally responded to the allegations. Instead, it has filed requests to dismiss the trade-secret part of the case and earlier this month lodged petitions to have Masimo patents invalidated at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Apple wants the trial court in Santa Ana, California, to keep the civil suit on hold until those issues are resolved. Postponing the case "would allow Apple to seize on a critical window of opportunity to capture an emerging field," Masimo said in the filing Monday. "Just as it has done in numerous other markets, Apple seeks to use its considerable resources and ecosystem to capture the market without regard" to Masimo's patents, the sensor-maker said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Accused of Delaying Masimo Legal Fight To Gain Watch Sales

Comments Filter:
  • Apple is too big, and too well entrenched, and too able to legally bribe our government to care.

    Nothing will come of this except a continued slide into corporate oligarchy. The Republic we were taught about in school no longer exists, and in many respects, never existed unless you were a wealthy, white, male property owner.

    • Normally after a lot of bluster, both sides will often negotiate some sort of truce.
       

    • Apple trying to invalidate bad patents is a good thing. Clearly the company is concerned they will succeed so they want a quick resolution before the patent office invalidates the patents.

      • Apple trying to invalidate bad patents is a good thing. Clearly the company is concerned they will succeed so they want a quick resolution before the patent office invalidates the patents.

        This is only one side, of course, but if Apple did meet with them to do business and instead hired away important people that's not good. Sounds like the end of thing Microsoft was well-known for back when Apple was still "beleaguered."

      • Apple trying to invalidate bad patents is a good thing.

        Everyone in the world is for invalidating bad patents. Of course, all of one's patents are "good." "Bad" patents are only held by competitors.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Either way Apple loses, either they pay royalties or every $40 smart watch has this sensor in short order.

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Apple trying to invalidate bad patents is a good thing. Clearly the company is concerned they will succeed so they want a quick resolution before the patent office invalidates the patents.

        That's the concern, exactly. Apple is currently paying licensing fees on patents that are invalid because the judgement was made prior to the patent office invalidating them. Apple has tried in the past to invalidate those judgements but many were upheld, so you can be responsible for paying fees for patents later found in

        • I don't agree. Delaying things have proven extremely good for apl. Delayed multitasking, precluding any alternate media players. This firmly entrenched their own in the minds and devices. Netscape / Firefox had a huge base because they moved first. AoL still has huge number of subscribers. If you're first because you stole other people's products, you have a huge advantage
    • "The Republic we were taught about in school no longer exists, and in many respects, never existed unless you were a wealthy, white, male property owner."

      Which is exactly who it was designed to benefit... The wealthy landed white males who wrote the constitution.

      In school we learned that a republic was a kind of democracy, but it's clear that it's actually a kind of oligarchy.

      • You're free to throw a revolution and see if the result produces something like new iPhones and androids and drugs at an even faster rate.

        Hint: That experiment has been run many times. Hint: You won't like the results.

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        You racist sexist shit. The republic of the United States of America benefits people irrespective of their skin colour or gender.

        Why do you think so many non-white people keep trying to migrate there.

        • "You racist sexist shit."

          White is not a race, noob.

          "Why do you think so many non-white people keep trying to migrate there."

          Because we have shit on their country.

          • by Cederic ( 9623 )

            White is not a race, noob.

            Black is not a race.
            Brown is not a race.

            Stop being a fucking racist cunt.

            Because we have shit on their country.

            Really? When did the US shit on India? Most people blame the UK for any woes there.

            When did the US shit on Australia, Canada, the UK? Lots of people from those countries migrate to the US.

            Just fucking admit it, you're a racist cunt. Racism is bad. Don't be racist.

            • "Black is not a race.
              Brown is not a race."

                No shit, dumbass. But people act like they are. Those people are racist. I don't even believe in race, so how can I be racist? You don't even know what you're saying.

              "Really? When did the US shit on India? Most people blame the UK for any woes there."

              Remind me, where did the USA come from? I seem to have forgotten. No, wait, you seem to have forgotten.

              • by Cederic ( 9623 )

                I don't even believe in race, so how can I be racist?

                Racist cunt attacks people because of their skin colour then claims he can't be racist. Stupid ignorant racist cunt.

                Remind me, where did the USA come from? I seem to have forgotten. No, wait, you seem to have forgotten.

                Well, the land mass came from pangea. The country came from the uniting of many peoples from various parts of the globe. What's your fucking point here, and how the fuck does it relate to my query regarding the alleged shitting by the US on India. I ask again, when did the USA shit on India, a source of much migration.

                • Oh, you feel attacked, snowflake? Melt already.

                  • by Cederic ( 9623 )

                    Not at all, I don't have white skin.

                    I don't have to, to defend people against racist attacks. I see you've abandoned any pretence now of not being racist. This is a helpful first step towards addressing your ignorance. Carry on, maybe you'll eventually grow the fuck up.

    • never existed unless you were a wealthy, white, male property owner.

      Even ignoring the flaws of "our Republic never existed" this particular statement is quite wrong in that you mention a particular skin color... anyone of any color has been fine if they were a wealthy property owner, no need to bring race or even gender into it. Lots of historical examples of well-off black people and women who did quite well.

      • So you're saying that everyone who had land had the franchise from the start? Even where it was available to a limited, privileged subset of non-white,non-males, it was quickly done away with.

        Shame on you, for being a liar, and a poor one at that.

        Women's suffrage is, by definition, the right of women to vote. This was the goal of the suffragists, who believed in using legal means and the suffragettes, who used extremist measures. Short-lived suffrage equity was drafted into provisions of the State of New Jersey's first, 1776 Constitution, which extended the Right to Vote to unwed female landholders & black land owners.

        "IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large." New Jersey 1776

        However, the document did not specify an Amendment procedure, and the provision was subsequently replaced in 1844 by the adoption of the succeeding constitution, which reverted to "all white male" suffrage restrictions.

        • So you're saying that everyone who had land had the franchise from the start?

          No, and you are an idiot for claiming that was my argument. As such, the rest of your points are hopelessly lost.

          MY POINT is simply that the monied always have an advantage over the non-monied, which has been true throughout history regardless of what laws have said.

          You are some kind of idiot to think wealthy prince or king from Africa going to the U.S. even when slavery was still a thing, would not have simply skirted any laws th

      • Even ignoring the flaws of "our Republic never existed" this particular statement is quite wrong in that you mention a particular skin color...

        Give me a break! We are a country who wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." while at the same time owning slaves.

      • Such a statement is also profoundly ignorant of the way economists measure nations. They look for average health and wealth and longevity, which continues apace.

        These folk live in a world of class warfare rhetoric, where stuff magically works in their mind, feeding raging confirmation bias.

        Look at actual measurements of actual people, not failed promises of "things will be better, OOPS that's not the real way to implement it!"

        Actual measurements. These western free nations are unparalleled in their abilit

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday September 29, 2020 @02:06PM (#60554684)

    Masimo sued Apple in January. Apple has filed a motion to dismiss and wants the PTO to invalidate Masimo’s patents. Apple want to hold off a trial until those two issues are settled first.

    So what’s with the "accusation of delaying"? If there’s a motion to dismiss, the court should address that before trial begins. If the basis of Masimo’s claims are trade secrets and patents then an invalidation of their patents would alter the case. The other part is how long the delay? Are we talking weeks here? This litigation isn’t the decades long SCO vs IBM debacle.

    • I'm guessing their concern is that if Apple is allowed to delay the trial, Masimo may not be able to get an injunction. If that's the case, Apple could use that time to stomp out all other manufacturers of smart devices that use Masimo's sensors before the case even went to trial. Therefore, even if the case eventually proceeded and Masimo won, it would be a pyrrhic victory since there would be no companies left to buy Masimo's sensors.

      Of course, Masimo already has a huge uphill battle going against a b
      • I'm guessing their concern is that if Apple is allowed to delay the trial, Masimo may not be able to get an injunction.

        Injunctions are separate from motions to dismiss. Masimo can file for an injunction now. I do not know the details of the case but if Masimo had some sense of urgency they should have filed one already. However if the court rules for Apple, an injunction is moot.

        If that's the case, Apple could use that time to stomp out all other manufacturers of smart devices that use Masimo's sensors before the case even went to trial.

        How? Apple does not control any other manufacturer. Google, Samsung etc can and already make other devices today. The fact that consumers buy Apple watches more than any other manufacturer is not control.

        Therefore, even if the case eventually proceeded and Masimo won, it would be a pyrrhic victory since there would be no companies left to buy Masimo's sensors.

        Again how? Apple only controls only their own

    • Interesting, when the shoe is on the other foot Apple instead argues that Samsung should be banned from importing a photo that dares to have rounded corners until the outcome of the case is decided. I mean it's only hypocritical if the other team does it right?

      • Interesting, when the shoe is on the other foot Apple instead argues that Samsung should be banned from importing a photo that dares to have rounded corners until the outcome of the case is decided. I mean it's only hypocritical if the other team does it right?

        Did Apple accuse Samsung of "delaying" when Samsung entered in a motion to dismiss?

        • "Did Apple accuse of delaying"

          Indirectly yes. Apple filed the motion early as a request specifically because they were worried that any delay due to the cause would cause them direct monetary damages though continued sales of "infringing" products. This is a completely identical situation now. It is only fair that someone uses the argument against them.

          Welcome to the world. Each side wants to make money, each side wants the other side not to make money, both sides want the other side to suffer while court proceedings are ongoing.

          • So Apple filed a request early according to you. But they did accuse Samsung of delay? My point which you missed is that these motions as common in these lawsuits. It is not "delaying".
            • Okay whatever, get hung up on the word "delay" if you want rather than the underlying point that both companies are for time sensitive reasons attempting to stop the competition from selling a product during an ongoing court case.

              Apparently all that matters is the use of the word delay and since Apple didn't use the word delay they must be the good guys. Man you fanbois are lame.

              • Okay whatever, get hung up on the word "delay" if you want rather than the underlying point

                The title of this entire article is "Apple Accused of Delaying Masimo Legal Fight To Gain Watch Sales". The point of the article and my question is whether Apple was using delaying tactics in a 9 month old trial. You want to talk about a different topic, you can start your own thread.

                for time sensitive reasons attempting to stop the competition from selling a product during an ongoing court case

                How is it time sensitive? The Apple Watch as far as I know outsold their competitors now and for the last several years. Masimo’s argument makes zero sense to me as a new iteration of the watch does little to change the

    • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      So what’s with the "accusation of delaying"?

      What Apple is doing is clearly irregular. In the US patents are deemed to be valid and you can't get a preliminary injunction based on assertion that the patent is invalid. You have to go to the full trial. Moreover, that trial can conclude with damages awarded while the case is still being litigated with the USPTO.

      Damages won't likely be collected until the USPTO case is concluded, though.

      • What Apple is doing is clearly irregular. In the US patents are deemed to be valid and you can't get a preliminary injunction based on assertion that the patent is invalid.

        Um what? Apple has filed a motion to dismiss and requested the PTO to invalidate the patents Both are quite common in these cases. What injunction are you talking about? The party that would file an injunction is Masimo.

        You have to go to the full trial. Moreover, that trial can conclude with damages awarded while the case is still being litigated with the USPTO.

        1) Apple has never said it is not going to full trial. It has said that the court must make a judgement on their motion to dismiss before trial. Such a request is standard. 2) The USPTO's ruling will affect his case. If Masimo has no valid patents then their claims are much weaker. Again it

  • "so it can gain a more dominant share of the smartwatch "

    Why, they are the Number 1 there and they also sell more watches than the whole Swiss and German watch industry together.

    • My thought too. They already dominate the market by a huge margin. Apple has 55.5% of the market as of Q1 2020, with Samsung in a very distant second at 13.9%. The addition of blood oxygen sensing wasn't going to be make or break for them in the dominant seat, nor is it likely to make them that much more dominant.
      • Blood oxygen content is a key indicator determining if a covid infected person will need to go on a ventilator. So right now the demand is for detection/monitoring devices is far higher then it has ever been before or ever will be again absent another respiratory pandemic. By delaying the ruling Apple has the chance to capitalize on it before the demand dies down.
        • It's still highly unlikely we're going to see a big surge in sales of Apple Watches just because someone could check for potential ventilator requirements. It's doubtful we'll see anything outside what we may normally see around the holiday buying time, likely even less with the current economic state.
        • By delaying the ruling Apple has the chance to capitalize on it

          To be honest, Apple missed the boat by a long shot with this. Much of the competition including cheap fitness bands already have this feature, hell Huawei actually rushed to capitalise on it back in March ... when it mattered.

      • Integration of medical monitoring is the dancing bear goal of smart watches. Like a medical tricorder generation 1.

        There's tons of complex signal analysis from various potential sensors lying around waiting for some clever people to invent it. Blood sugar, blood lipids, infections, who knows what, without a drop of blood.

    • True. I don’t see the logic behind the urgency on Masimo’s part.
    • Why, they are the Number 1 there and they also sell more watches than the whole Swiss and German watch industry together.

      Not sure why you compare the Smart Watch industry to the good ol' wristwatch industry, that's not relevant. The industry is called smart wearables and in that industry Apple has ~30% market share, significant but far from the only game in town.

      Also if you were a businessman and said "we're number 1 so why try harder" and you had a 30% market share, your board of directors will have you escorted to the door by security and replaced by someone who actually has shareholder interests in mind. 30% LOL, not even

  • of course they do. Real innovation is hard.
    • Real innovation is hard.

      The pulse oximeter was developed in 1972 and were common by the late 80's. Patent 10,588,553 was just granted this year. What innovation did Apple "steal"?

      • by olddoc ( 152678 ) on Tuesday September 29, 2020 @02:52PM (#60554854)
        As a practicing anesthesiologist I use pulse oximeters every day. They need to sense when there is an arterial pulse and it becomes a difficult task if there is a weak pulse or movement where the pulse oximeter is applied. Movement can happen in patients under sedation or in awake patients being monitored for respiratory depression after narcotic pain medicines. Masimo company products do a superior job, in the hospital setting, at monitoring moving patients. I suspect they have several patents in technology that makes their pulse oximeters better than other's when tracking moving patients. Apple would seriously benefit from this technology for a watch meant for people on the go. I suspect that Apple's unlimited money will carry the day in court.
      • The Pulse oximeter developed in 1972 is absolutely nothing like the pulse oximeter in a wearable wristwatch.

        What innovation did Apple "steal"?

        Why not start by actually looking at the patent and realising it has nothing to do with the invention of the pulse oximeter. Hell a large portion of the patent describes precisely how it is different from the thing developed in 1972.

  • At the watch trade fair here in Hong Kong (not a consumer trade fair, but one for watch related companies) I saw 2 years ago a local smartwatch prototype with heartbeat and oxygen sensor. It worked with infrared leds, much like an oxygen sensor in the hospital. Unless the company did something massively different that Apple is now copying, I am not convinced how much merit the patent has.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...