Biden Won't Stop a Potential Ban On Importing Apple Watches (theverge.com) 36
Medical device maker AliveCor announced today that President Biden has upheld an International Trade Commission ruling that could result in a potential import ban on the Apple Watch over its EKG feature. The Verge reports: Back in December, the ITC issued a final determination (PDF) that Apple had infringed on AliveCor's wearable EKG tech. In the ruling, the ITC recommended a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order for Apple Watch models with EKG features. If enforced, that would mean that Apple would no longer be able to import Apple Watch with EKG capabilities into the US for sale. According to Apple spokesperson Hannah Smith, the company will appeal the ITC's decision to the Federal Circuit.
A veto from Biden would have rendered the issue moot. According to The Hill, while presidents generally don't interfere with ITC rulings, in 2013, former President Obama vetoed a similar import ban after the ITC ruled that iPhones and iPads infringed on Samsung tech. It's possible that Apple was hoping for history to repeat itself, as it reportedly amped up lobbying last week ahead of Biden's decision.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/11/23550036/the-apple-watchs-blood-oxygen-feature-is-at-the-center-of-a-potential-import-ban Biden's decision doesn't mean every Apple Watch from the Series 4 to the Apple Watch Ultra (excluding both generations of the SE) is about to disappear off shelves. Apple's Smith told The Verge the ITC's ruling doesn't have any real impact at the moment. That's because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently ruled that AliveCor's EKG tech isn't actually patentable, and AliveCor would have to win its appeal (PDF) to that ruling for any potential ban to take effect. However, AliveCor isn't the only medical tech company that's seeking an import ban on the Apple Watch via the ITC. Masimo also sued Apple for allegedly infringing on five of its pulse oximetry patents. Last month, an ITC judge also ruled in Masimo's favor and will decide whether a potential import ban is warranted in May. If so, that import ban would impact any Apple Watch with an SpO2 sensor (i.e., the Series 6 or later, excluding the SE.)
A veto from Biden would have rendered the issue moot. According to The Hill, while presidents generally don't interfere with ITC rulings, in 2013, former President Obama vetoed a similar import ban after the ITC ruled that iPhones and iPads infringed on Samsung tech. It's possible that Apple was hoping for history to repeat itself, as it reportedly amped up lobbying last week ahead of Biden's decision.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/11/23550036/the-apple-watchs-blood-oxygen-feature-is-at-the-center-of-a-potential-import-ban Biden's decision doesn't mean every Apple Watch from the Series 4 to the Apple Watch Ultra (excluding both generations of the SE) is about to disappear off shelves. Apple's Smith told The Verge the ITC's ruling doesn't have any real impact at the moment. That's because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently ruled that AliveCor's EKG tech isn't actually patentable, and AliveCor would have to win its appeal (PDF) to that ruling for any potential ban to take effect. However, AliveCor isn't the only medical tech company that's seeking an import ban on the Apple Watch via the ITC. Masimo also sued Apple for allegedly infringing on five of its pulse oximetry patents. Last month, an ITC judge also ruled in Masimo's favor and will decide whether a potential import ban is warranted in May. If so, that import ban would impact any Apple Watch with an SpO2 sensor (i.e., the Series 6 or later, excluding the SE.)
Apple sucks, but (Score:3)
Re:Apple sucks, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. One side is what I'm assuming is a medical products company, an industry known for being absolutely horrible in regards to their patents. On the other side is Apple, a company that, IIRC, patented rounded corners.
I kinda feel like that Grumpy Cat meme about this: "I hope they both lose."
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the economy is becoming a judged sport.
Re:Apple sucks, but (Score:5, Informative)
On the other side is Apple, a company that, IIRC, patented rounded corners.
While technically true, it needs to be pointed out that it was a design patent, not a utility patent. A design patent is a distinct form of IP protection that bears more similarity to a trademark than a utility patent, in that it is intended to protect brand and product recognition and can be maintained in perpetuity. Notably, it cannot cover any form of utility.
Rather than having a utility-impinging patent on all rounded corners—which is what most people seem to take away when they hear that Apple patented round corners—Apple actually only has a design patent on those particular rounded corners, the same way that Coca-Cola has a design patent on the particular curves that define the iconic Coke bottle. About the only time Apple actually brought it up in court, IIRC, was the Samsung suit where Samsung’s lawyers had to admit to the judge that they couldn’t tell from just a few feet away which device was theirs and which was Apple’s when he asked if they could even tell.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Rounded corners seem like a utility to me. 90 degree angles would make a device difficult to take in and out of a pocket, and would wear down the fabric much faster.
The Coke-bottle curve doesn't give you a better grip on the bottle.
Re: (Score:3)
They patented a particular rounded corner. Rounded corners as a whole would have utility, sure. A particular rounded corner is simply an aesthetic choice, however. Their design patent covers the latter, not the former, as I already said.
Re: (Score:1)
Hit yourself on a rounded and square corner and tell me again they are not functionally different.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is Apple's design was ripped off from Samsung, who released a nearly identical digital photo frame - black slate with rounded corners - a few years earlier. Apple picked a court they knew tended to rule in favour of American companies. Elsewhere they had already lost similar actions, e.g. in the UK. The judge in the UK actually forced them to post an apology on their website for damaging Samsung's reputation.
The other issue is the shear absurdity of being able to patent a simple design that is a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
patents if used correctly can protect the little guy getting screwed by the big guy
This is the patent fairytale. I mean, you can't even defend your patent against the big guy unless you have very deep pockets, so holding a patent would usually just mean you get pushed into the arms of another 'big guy' who will pay your legal fees in exchange for also screw you over.
Re: Apple sucks, but (Score:2)
Reminds me of how Ford stole a guys design for a windshield wiper with an adjustable delay between wiping.
They simply stole it and made him spend decades fighting.
It's called "efficient infringement". If you can make $X in profit by ignoring the patent, but you calculate that even in the unlikely event the person can afford to go to court, they'll only be able to get https://cip2.gmu.edu/2017/05/1...
https://www.autonews.com/artic... [autonews.com]
https://thehustle.co/windshiel... [thehustle.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple loves patents.... except when other people have them.
Illegal (Score:3)
In the name of true journalism, I think we should start calling everyone's Apple Watch "illegal".
To friends: "hey, that watch is illegal!"
Awesome, my watch is a collector's edition now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What about other watches? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I bet you're one of those people that come home from work and bitches about how "becky" gets away with XYZ but its no fair you can't either
Re: (Score:2)
Other watches also have these features.
A good litigation strategy is to not spread yourself thin. Other companies may be in the same situation as Apple but it makes little sense to sue everyone since the results of one case will have knock-on affects on the others. When this is over, expect either a) more lawsuits or b) more royalty payments. ... Assuming it isn't as you say and that other companies are already paying.
Disclaimer (Score:3)
I guess Apple did not realize it's watch with an EKG feature might be practicing medicine without a license in the USA.
Perhaps Apple needs a disclaimer screen for their EKG app that says:
The EKG feature is for entertainment purposes only. Do not use it for medical diagnosis.
obligatory sarcasm tag
Re:Disclaimer (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple went through great lengths to get FDA approval for their EKG feature before release. They've always made it clear it's not intended to diagnose any medical condition. It's in-line with their FDA approval.
Who needs an EKG if you can't pay the hospital? (Score:4, Interesting)
The medical treatment isn't included in your Apple Watch subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some people feel they don't need to go to the hospital because they can take their own EKG.
Remember, half of what Apple sells (probably more by dollar volume) is feeling.
A has been... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is silly on the face of it, especially in the context of this story. I like to shit on Apple as much as anyone (probably more so) but the reality is ECG integrated into a smart watch was absolutely disruptive, it is like the textbook definition of it.
Prior to the Apple watch ECG feature wearable ECGs were single purpose bulky devices that users could not wait to remove. Even the very company that has the patent in question does not sell a device that continuously provides ECG on a wearable, the
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the Apple watch ECG feature wearable ECGs were single purpose bulky devices that users could not wait to remove.
I used to work in the medical device industry, and the reason it would have been like this is because there aren't that many people who would actually benefit from more compact continuous ECG monitoring. If you spent the money to make a fancy wearable ECG you'd find few doctors who saw the need to prescribe it, and even fewer customer who would want to volunteer to wear the thing, even if it was nice and compact. The reason it works as an Apple Watch feature is because it's just a bonus to the other stuff t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has not had any disruptive innovation in over 15 years now. For a company with market cap in trillions and a company that claims to hire the smartest engineers and pays them top dollar, its ROI on innovation must be pretty low. A poor refection on their upper management.
I think they just don't have the ability to take big risks anymore. They make crazy amounts of money from just cranking out an iPhone that's pretty much the same as the previous year's phone. It takes someone with huge institutional power, and a really maverick attitude, to risk that huge pipeline of cashflow for the sake of chasing the 'next big thing' (i.e. a Steve Jobs type character).
IMHO, the big miss for them has been in the iPad line. I think there was huge potential to push the whole 'post PC' thing
ECG or PulseOx? (Score:2)
It seems the summary is using the two features interchangeably. There is the PulseOx feature, which has been around quite a while. There is a separate feature that is newer, the ECG functionality.