Apple Lawsuits Say Health Monitoring Company Masimo Copied Apple Watch (reuters.com) 19
Apple has sued medical technology company Masimo in Delaware federal court, accusing its new W1 line of smartwatches of infringing several Apple Watch patents. From a report: The two lawsuits said Masimo copied Apple's technology while seeking bans on sales and imports of Apple Watches in earlier intellectual-property cases against the tech giant in California and at a U.S. trade tribunal. Apple said Masimo "carefully studied Apple's IP" during those cases and claimed a Masimo spinoff received confidential information about the Apple Watch. Apple accused Masimo of trying to use the litigation to remove Apple's watches from the market to "make way for Masimo's own watch." Irvine, California-based Masimo said in a statement that Apple's lawsuits are "retaliatory" and "appear to be an attempt to avoid the court in which the parties have been litigating their dispute for the past three years." Masimo, which specializes in health-monitoring devices for medical patients, sued Apple in California federal court in 2020.
Wouldn't want anyone else to help people (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah... the wonderful world of patents to prevent competition.
Lovely to think that I could own an idea and prevent other people from using it.
Isn't capitalism wonderful?
Most software patents are crap (Score:3)
Most likely the patents are obvious to anybody working in software. The patent office appears blind to obviousness in the name of job security. It's a shame because it keeps consumers from having more options.
Defenders usually talk about the say 1 in 20 that are any good. But if 19 out of 20 are crap, the aggregate effect is overall negative to the economy. Either fix the "obvious" problem or toss software patents all together like India has. If #20 has to take a bullet, so be it. The net benefit is worth k
Re:Most software patents are crap (IRONIC) (Score:3)
Most likely the patents are obvious to anybody working in software. The patent office appears blind to obviousness in the name of job security. It's a shame because it keeps consumers from having more options.
NONE of these 2 lawsuits pertain to SOFTWARE design patents. They are confined to HARDWARE DESIGN (Apple v. Samsung "rounded corners") and IMPLEMENTATION (blatant knockoff via exploitation of privileged IP docs a stakeholder in Masimo obtained, kinda like HP v. Lexmark "printer cartridges") patents -- classic IP infringement, actually.
In fact, none of the 109 pages across 2 lawsuits (first is 32 pages, second is 77 pages) make any reference to software design or concepts!
It's ironic cuz you're arguing
Re: (Score:1)
Ah... the wonderful world of patents to prevent competition.
Strike One: Yes the world of patents is wonderful. Unregulated competition reduces innovation. Why invest R&D if tomorrow someone else just takes your idea and sells it for a lower price. The concept of patents is wonderful. The execution of it leaves a bit to be desired.
Lovely to think that I could own an idea and prevent other people from using it.
Strike Two: Yes it is. Otherwise why would you invest in developing the idea if you can't be guaranteed that the idea remains yours for a limited period of time?
Isn't capitalism wonderful?
Strike Three: Patents are not capitalism. It's actually the exact opposite.
Well, IF the claims are correct... (Score:1)
IF the claims are correct, then Apple has a just case. But since the claims are filed by lawyers I'll need independent proof that they are both correct, and mean what they seem to mean.
Then there's the case of whether those elements are worthy of patent or copyright. Again I've got a great deal of dubiosity. Some patents really are justifiable, though. Or at least cover something that could justifiably be patented, though perhaps not with the given claims.
(Note, by the way, that I made no reference to l
Uh-oh! (Score:2)
Accusations May Go Beyond Patent Violations (Score:2)
Patents are extremely public documents (by design), so I don't understand what "confidential" information the article is referring to. Saying that someone received confidential information about your product sounds more like an accusation of a violation of trade secret, but that would be weird since Apple is notorious for patenting anything that could be remotely considered as valuable rather than relying on trade secrets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Accusations May Go Beyond Patent Violations (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no ruling on this case yet, so that's just your opinion.
All of the patents listed in the Apple's lawsuit are utility patents, not design patents, so any similarity of their designs is not relevant to this case.
Well, the original patent lawsuit was from Masimo against Apple for violations of Masimo's own utility patents. Therefore, both companies have patents in this industry and it's entirely possible that one or both companies have products which infringe on patents of the other company.
My whole point was that patents are not trade secrets. And this accusation has yet to be proven in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple filed 2 lawsuits -- the first (32 pages) is specifically design patents infringement, the second (77 pages) is specifically utility patents infringement.
OBVIOUSLY these are not final verdicts, but they are NOT my opinion either -- they are, quite literally as described in TFA and lawsuits as claims. This added specificity is literarily implied on account as it's a comment pertaining to these lawsuits.
I
Masimo made medical equipment first (Score:4, Informative)
Quite some time before the apple watch was even a thing.
Apple apparently hired some former Masimo employees a few years ago, and later, Masimo then sued Apple in 2020 for copying their technology.
Now it seems Apple is suing them back, implying the same thing simply because Masimo has entered the smart watch arena.
It's my understanding that the basic health monitoring technologies that Apple watch utilizes has been used by triage centres in hospitals and by paramedics since before the turn of the century.. I'm pretty sure that the patents have expired.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The lawsuit says a bit more than that. I haven't read the lawsuit all the way through, but one of the demands is that Apple turn over some of its patents. It sounds like the people Apple hired away were high up at Masimo, knew about their development projects, and were under NDA. Shortly after they were hired away, Apple filed for patents in the areas they were workin
Re: (Score:1)
Quite some time before the apple watch was even a thing.
Completely irrelevant to the case at hand. No one is asking which company made the first medical devices. Lawsuits that generic don't typically make it to court usually because lawyers die in a laughing fit when they are proposed.
Now it seems Apple is suing them back, implying the same thing simply because Masimo has entered the smart watch arena.
I suppose without looking it up you can tell us exactly the technology and innovations describe in the patents in question? No? Then all your claims about why and what are actually completely meaningless.
I'm pretty sure that the patents have expired.
Oh shit man! Better call all parties involved and tell them not to waste money
Re: (Score:2)
I mean that it seems evident that this lawsuit exists only to make one side capitulate without it going to court, Otherwise the only people who are going to come out ahead are the lawyers.
If this makes it to court, the technologies they are talking about will be found to have been ineligible for patent on account of prior art. Apple's case against Mosimo would be dismissed, and Mosimo wouldn't have any case against Apple because the technology was in wide use long before then, so Apple cannot be accuse
Let me guess, it has round corners? (Score:2)
We really need urgent reforms both to the patent system and copyright framework. They need to help more little guys, discourage patent trolls and foster more innovation