Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Apple

Apple Watch Import Ban Takes Effect After Biden Administration Passes on Veto (reuters.com) 122

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
U.S. President Joe Biden's administration on Tuesday declined to veto a government tribunal's decision to ban imports of Apple Watches based on a complaint from medical monitoring technology company Masimo. From a report: The U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC) order will go into effect on Dec. 26, barring imports and sales of Apple Watches that use patent-infringing technology for reading blood-oxygen levels. Apple has included the pulse oximeter feature in its smart watches starting with its Series 6 model in 2020. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai decided not to reverse the ban following careful consultations, and the ITC's decision became final on Dec. 26, the Trade Representative's office said Tuesday.

Apple can appeal the ban to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The company has paused the sales of its Series 9 and Ultra 2 smartwatches in the United States since last week. The ban does not affect Apple Watch SE, a less expensive model, which will continue to be sold. Previously sold watches will not be affected by the ban. Masimo has accused Apple of hiring away its employees, stealing its pulse oximetry technology and incorporating it into the popular Apple Watch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Watch Import Ban Takes Effect After Biden Administration Passes on Veto More

Apple Watch Import Ban Takes Effect After Biden Administration Passes on Veto

Comments Filter:

  • Guarantee you Trump would have vetoed (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anything that will put someone in his debt or create a "favor" to be redeemed later is like catnip to that corrupt bastard.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by atheos ( 192468 )
      do you think Tim Apple would have offered up an appropriate bribe?
    • on which corporation offered him the best bribe. I think Apple would've lost here because they wouldn't want to risk the bad press if (likely when since Trump can't keep his mouth shut) the bribe went public.

    • Umm... While I'm not a fan of Trump, at all, you know Obama actually did exactly this right? In fact, it was even worse than this. Apple did some patent trolling against Samsung and got several of their phones import banned, and Obama didn't veto it when asked. Samsung then did the same to Apple to get a similar import ban, and guess what happened? Obama vetoed it. Obama literally held a double standard here, and zero justification was offered for why. That's a load of bullshit if you ask me.

      Anyways when yo

  • I'm confused. Isn't anything Apple makes a product of the USA?

    • Re:Import? (Score:4, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @09:04AM (#64106221) Homepage Journal

      No. Only things Apple makes in the USA are a product of the USA. They closed down almost all of their manufacturing facilities, and let Foxconn build everything. A number of their suppliers have factories in the USA, but Apple no longer does.

      So sure, everything Apple makes is a product of the USA... but Apple makes almost nothing. They do final assembly on the Mac Pro here, but only a minority of the preliminary assembly.

    • Only thing they did recent was i think one the mac's but that was only "assembled" as in all the parts were made in taiwan, china, etc then shipped here to be put together. 98% of their products only "designed" in the US which means nothing.

  • Hahahahahaha

  • The real discussion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @09:11AM (#64106235) Journal

    There is way more interesting discussion on this than politics or Big Company Bad. Some of the more interesting topics:

    Is this even a legitimate patent? Where's the informed technical discussion on this? How can a patent not be worked around, as Masimo claims? Shouldn't an "unavoidable" patent be immediately disallowed, because it must inherently be implementing a goal, not a specific mechanism?

    What happens to the thousands (millions?) of watches sitting in quarantine in shipping containers somewhere? Talk about e-waste...

    Should a company be allowed to make an attractive offer to hire people away from other companies? Why is this good or bad? Is it bad for employees if they cannot be "poached"? Or - who is it bad for if this behavior occurs? Should this be restricted based on size of the company, or not?

    How is general society impacted by this? At least thousands of people wanting one of these devices can now no longer buy one, or at least have to defer a purchase. Is it worth protecting Masimo to deny the public access to this product, to uphold the principles of antitrust? Or does blind adherence to a principle also produce harm? How do you balance these public concerns?

    Is there a public health concern? How many health issues would have been detected by these products, but now aren't, because of the ban?

    Why is Masimo not treated the same as, say, Shkreli for basically hiking up prices on potentially life-saving technology? Is there a difference other than "Apple is the apex company, and Shkreli had the apex company, but Masimo isn't, so it's OK for the non-apex company to try and hike prices?"

    • Re:The real discussion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @09:23AM (#64106257)

      As someone who believes the patent system is almost strictly harmful: with Apple using patent warfare themselves, including very dubious "inventions", they deserve to be treated the same way they treat others. This particular patent should be viewed through criteria that Apple uses in their own patent lawsuits.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        As someone who believes the patent system is almost strictly harmful: with Apple using patent warfare themselves, including very dubious "inventions", they deserve to be treated the same way they treat others. This particular patent should be viewed through criteria that Apple uses in their own patent lawsuits.

        Indeed, Apple is getting a taste of their own medicine.

        I agree with you that the current patent system is broken, at least in the way that too many patents are being granted for obvious or dubious things like rounded corners or anything "with a computer".

        But Apple knew, they just thought they could step on the little guy so my sympathy for them getting a bit of comeuppance even though the system has flaws is limited. Very limited.

    • From my understanding, unlike patent trolls, this company pioneered and produces a product. Apple hired their employees to get around licensing the tech. Now if apple's implementation of the idea is sufficiently different, that's for the courts to decide, and they decided it was not. In this case, I agree with Biden to not provide relief to Apple. Apple should continue to appeal or attempt to license the tech. I say this as a person with an aging Apple Watch 6 who really wants a new one.

      Things are working a

      • Pulse oximeter (Score:2, Troll)

        by DrYak ( 748999 )

        This isn't someone inventing "email, but on a phone" and suing.

        Indeed, no. This is instead someone inventing "pulse oximeter, but on a smartwatch" and suing.

        (Pulse oximetry is around half a century old. Ironically the Japanese inventors didn't apply for a patent outside of Japan, so in the USA, it was an open tech to further expand. Wikipedia has the detail.
        Further back in history, light based oximetry itself is older than WW2, and adapting it to a pulsating target made entirely sense as soon as progress of electronic allowed it.
        And packaging everything into a smartwa

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luthair ( 847766 )
          Remember that patents aren't about an idea, Masimo may have developed a better mousetrap... Unfortunately none of the articles I saw in some searches listed which patents were violated.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            They did. In the 90s. Their patents are now expired, except for some software stuff and a few other inconsequentials.

            Of everything Masimo took to the ITC, they only found Apple infringing on claims 24 and 30 of one patent. This one: https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]

            Claim 24 is for using an opaque material to block light. Claim 30 is for chamfered edges.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              They did. In the 90s. Their patents are now expired, except for some software stuff and a few other inconsequentials.

              Of everything Masimo took to the ITC, they only found Apple infringing on claims 24 and 30 of one patent. This one: https://patents.google.com/pat... [google.com]

              Claim 24 is for using an opaque material to block light. Claim 30 is for chamfered edges.

              So... the company that sued Samsung over rounded corners just lost a major product line because of rounded corners. That is, not to put too fine a point on it, karma. Live by the patent claim, die by the patent claim.

              • It wasn't "because of rounded corners." It was because Samsung aped the design of the iPad so closely that even their own employees couldn't tell the difference. [gizmodo.com]
                Now, if you think design patents should not be a thing and only utility patents should ever be granted; that would be a discussion worth having. But so long as design patents are a thing... well... go ahead and try selling grape juice in a bottle that's such a clone of Coca Cola's design that your own people can't tell it apart from the real thi

                • Gah! C&P'd the wrong link:

                  https://gizmodo.com/even-samsu... [gizmodo.com]

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  It wasn't "because of rounded corners." It was because Samsung aped the design of the iPad so closely that even their own employees couldn't tell the difference. [gizmodo.com]

                  It's a tablet. It looks like a plastic or metal back and a glass front. Rounded corners are at least arguably a functional element to reduce the risk of injury and prevent it from getting snagged on things, rather than a design element. So about the only thing they really had was the fact that Samsung had a round home button. Whee! And that's a multi-billion-dollar settlement.

                  This right here is why I can't take the U.S. patent system seriously.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                Rounded corners is a neat Internet joke, but it's not really true. Samsung was convicted of copying the design of particular iPhones closely enough that they were easily confused. That included rounded corners, but a bunch of other things too. That doesn't mean design patents are a good idea, but it is more than "lol, rounded corners."

                Those two claims Apple was found to infringe on are in a practical patent. They're supposed to be non-obvious, necessary features of a device to measure "physiological signals

        • Looks like their claim is on the implementation which is patentable. In fact, in defense of Apple, they actually claim their implementation is more accurate than apples, which seems to be a counter argument to the patent violation.

          I also agree with you on the claims they make. My Apple Watch frequently claims my O2 is like 94%, but a real finger tip sensor shows it at 98% If I trusted my watch for medical advice I'd never leave the ER.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shilly ( 142940 )

          Out of curiosity: which claims that they make are dubious? I don't doubt you, but haven't got the training you have to know.

    • Those are all good questions if this were just an allegation, but this already went to court, and Masimo won [reuters.com]. So, this is no longer about kneejerk generalities like "big company bad," it's about what happened in this particular case. Apple needs to pony up.

      • I thought there was a mistrial in the patent case, where all but one juror thought the claims were invalid?

        I can't say I understand why a jury decision has to be unanimous, I'm an engineer not a lawyer...

    • > it must inherently be implementing a goal, not a specific mechanism

      Say more. What does this mean?

      Separately, it seems like Apple would rather spend $7B to launch a hostile takeover of $MASI than $2B to reform the patent system.

      Apple Health seems inevitable at this point.

      It makes more sense than Apple Autos, really.

    • Is this even a legitimate patent?

      This is being appropriately left up to the courts. You don't want the President bypassing that if it wasn't Apple.

      What happens to the thousands (millions?) of watches sitting in quarantine in shipping containers somewhere?

      Apple was never going to offer a patent settlement if they thought they could keep selling watches while this plays out in court. Now Apple is likely ready to negotiate. Unless they really think they can't possibly be violating the patent.

    • Is this even a legitimate patent?

      Apple hires some of the best IP attorneys on the planet. If they were unable to prove the patents were illegitimate, then they patents probably are legitimate.

      How can a patent not be worked around, as Masimo claims?

      Patent claimants always exaggerate the difficulty in working around their patents. It's posturing that provides a bit more leverage during licensing negotiations. Apple may be able to develop a competing technology, but how long will that take and what do the

      • Apple hires some of the best IP attorneys on the planet. If they were unable to prove the patents were illegitimate, then they patents probably are legitimate.

        The office that handed down this ban doesn't consider questions of validity, just infringement.

        I may be off here, but I believe the sequence of events is:
        1. Masimo sued Apple for patent infringement. Masimo did not win an initial injunction against Apple to halt sales of the devices alleged to be infringing Masimo's patents. That suit is still ongoing and is separate from this ban.

        2. Apple challenged the validity of the patents with the US patent office via an expedited review process that's intended to hel

        • That is good info to add to the conversation. With that said, many companies have tried to apply import bans on Apple and almost all have failed. Perhaps that's because the courts were easily able to see that the products likely didn't infringe on the patents, or perhaps: Apple's lawyers were better than those of the opposition or the courts favored Apple, especially since a number of the patent holders were foreign companies. Whatever the case, in this instance it would probably have been more cost-effe

    • Well, this is slashdot, after all. So Apple is an evil, incompetent, beleaguered and lame failure of a company with no wireless and less space than a Nomad; that's also a dominant all-powerful monopoly so large and otherwise untouchable that the government *MUST* be tasked to destroy it or $unspecifiedBadThings are inevitable and the entire tech industry and world at-large will suffer horribly.

    • Is there a public health concern? How many health issues would have been detected by these products, but now aren't, because of the ban?

      Zero. Alternate products are available on the market. You choosing not to buy them is not a public health issue. My watch has this functionality, and the manufacturer of it has not only licensed the patent but actively partnered with Masimo for development of the software.

      Apple being cunts does not make something a public health concern. Actually one of the complaints here is that Apple watch isn't FDA approved for the functionality advertised.

      Why is Masimo not treated the same as, say, Shkreli for basically hiking up prices on potentially life-saving technology?

      Because Masimo has not hiked any prices, and the cost of the lic

    • Itâ(TM)s not about patents. The CEO of Masimo invested millions in Bidenâ(TM)s campaign and as thanks to the bribery, is now in the cabinet of advisors that supposedly advise the White House on these decisions. Bidenâ(TM)s son-in-law received a cushy CxO job in a Masimo subsidiary which exists solely to send through a few millions to SuperPAC for Biden.

      • It’s so true!!

        https://freebeacon.com/biden-a... [freebeacon.com]

        One of President Joe Biden’s top donors and “closest friends” has scored millions of dollars in federal contracts and a prestigious job in the White House, according to a Washington Free Beacon review of government records.

        Biden in September [2021] of last year placed close confidant Joe Kiani, the founder and CEO of the medical technology company Masimo Corporation, on the influential President’s Council of Advisors on Science an

    • Is this even a legitimate patent? Where's the informed technical discussion on this? How can a patent not be worked around, as Masimo claims? Shouldn't an "unavoidable" patent be immediately disallowed, because it must inherently be implementing a goal, not a specific mechanism?

      If Apple lawyers lost it's legit as you can get. From the previous story it sounded like Apple engaged in some dubious behaviour like hiring away people to rebuild the tech instead of licensing.

      What happens to the thousands (millions?) of watches sitting in quarantine in shipping containers somewhere? Talk about e-waste...

      Well it's not e-waste unless they sit so long as to get thrown out (or go obsolete).

      Should a company be allowed to make an attractive offer to hire people away from other companies? Why is this good or bad? Is it bad for employees if they cannot be "poached"? Or - who is it bad for if this behavior occurs? Should this be restricted based on size of the company, or not?

      Poaching employees is fine. But poaching them to steal the other company's IP is not.

      How is general society impacted by this? At least thousands of people wanting one of these devices can now no longer buy one, or at least have to defer a purchase. Is it worth protecting Masimo to deny the public access to this product, to uphold the principles of antitrust? Or does blind adherence to a principle also produce harm? How do you balance these public concerns?

      Is it worth letting Apple break the law because a bunch of people like their products?

      Is there a public health concern? How many health issues would have been detected by these products, but now aren't, because of the ban?

      Why is Masimo not treated the same as, say, Shkreli for basically hiking up prices on potentially life-saving technology? Is there a difference other than "Apple is the apex company, and Shkreli had the apex company, but Masimo isn't, so it's OK for the non-apex company to try and hike prices?"

      I don't think this is a live saving product in nearly the same

    • At least thousands of people wanting one of these devices can now no longer buy one, or at least have to defer a purchase.

      The horror!

      Is it worth protecting Masimo to deny the public access to this product, to uphold the principles of antitrust?

      This is a straight up intellectual property dispute and has nothing to do with antitrust.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The public health aspect would be more compelling if the Apple Watch wasn't so expensive. If someone was making these for 30 bucks (like the Xiaomi Mi Band, which has SpO2 but it's not very accurate) then it might be worth looking at making them more widely available.

  • lol (Score:3)

    by RegistrationIsDumb83 ( 6517138 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @09:12AM (#64106237)
    Forces devs to pay exordinate fees, but doesn't want to pay the inventors of the tech they stole

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by iwrks ( 6306230 )
      did you mean exorbitant? not sure exordinate is a word

    • Devil's advocate: I thought Apple hired the actual inventors of the technology, and is probably paying them quite well?

      • If they did, then they didn't bother doing anything smart. The patent may have their names on it, but it's owned by the company they left. Thus, by hiring them, it only adds evidence that they were looking to steal the patented method.

    • Forces devs to pay exordinate fees, but doesn't want to pay the inventors of the tech they stole

      The medical device manufacturer wanted inordinate fees from Apple, Apple's fees are the industry average for app stores.

      • When you are the sole provider of a technology that the world's most valuable company needs to have in order to continue dominating a product sector, what exactly is an "inordinate fee" for this critical tech link in their strategy?

        Seems like Apple can choose to pay for licensing, or spend months to re-engineer their watches to not use the patent while not making any revenue because their existing products they already paid to manufacture are going to be sitting in a US Customs lockup. How much is that goi

  • Pulse Oximeters have been around for years, I am sure the original patent has expired by now. And there are umpteen different brands of them ( at least of the type that go on your finger)

    • There's not one single pulseox patent.

    • I am sure the original patent has expired by now

      If that was true, do you really think that Apple's lawyers would be unaware of that fact?

      And there are umpteen different brands of them ( at least of the type that go on your finger)

      Yes, the type that go on your finger have been around for a long time and many of the original patents on that technology have likely expired. However, your wrist is not your finger and the technology that measures O2 saturation on Masimo's watch is reportedly different from the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        They are, and they did. Masimo's patents are all expired except for some super specialized software ones and some vague hardware ones.

        Apple was found to be infringing on two claims of a patent titled "User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user". The claims were for using an opaque material to block light, and chamfered edges.

        • The reason Apple has taken the tack that they have is that they are forced to play the long game on this patent lawsuit - and they will make it as expensive as possible for the patent owner when it does get a day in court because the damages will be the potential Apple Watch sales over the period of the infringement. It is intended to make the patent holder demand an expedited judicial process to minimize any damage findings should the judicial process go against them. It will be interesting to see which wa

    • Congratulations on thinking that every pulse oximeter works exactly the same way, whether they are on your wrist or index finger.

      Not a good assumption, as evidenced by a company having a patent on a method which many pulse oximeters do not infringe, but Apple's smartwatch does.

  • Small price for Apple to pay (Score:3)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Tuesday December 26, 2023 @09:33AM (#64106279)

    One purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

    If the courts agree the decision is correct Apple did this because they thought they could get away with it. Apple needs to pay for what it's already sold based on the patent, fined heavily and maybe someone should go to jail for theft.

    • fined heavily and maybe someone should go to jail for theft.

      Corporations are people ... but not like that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Corporations are people

        Has the state of Texas ever sentenced one to death yet?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        Well, perhaps they should be. More corporate accountability at the top would be a great thing!

    • One purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong.

      Yeah, the US government sure is protecting us weak citizens against the hordes of predatory businesses. The police are under no obligation to save your life or to protect you from an aggressor. Are you sure you should even be making a statement about government protecting the weak? It seems more like it exploits the weak so that the strong can become stronger. (now if only all of these 'strong' people actually had any fucking brains other than for self-preservation and self service)

  • Apple must have a couple (ok, a LOT) of patents related to smart watches/things-attached-to-your-wrist. They will probably hit Masimo with patent infringement claims and force a settlement.

    • Yeah, they can get them on the idea of using silicone for the band.

    • If they could have, they would have. And then the resolution looks like a friendly cross-licensing of patents and everyone goes about their business.

      Because that's not what happened, my guess is that Apple has nothing to counter-sue over.

  • Glad I got one when it came out...
    I had an older watch - I probably could have gone another release cycle/generation of watch before updating but I use Siri on it a LOT and the "siri now on board watch" was just too good an improvement to pass up - along with several generations of incremental battery life improvements .. I went for it when it first came out.

    As someone who has suffered a spontaneous pneumothorax (collapsed lung) in the past, I actually do have more than a passing interest in my blood 02 lev

    • Good luck with your purchase when apple has to disable the sensor. Perhaps they'll offer you a free itunes download for the trouble with a feature having to be disabled. If they are going to "fix" the yet to be sold watches so they don't infringe, those same updates are going to get pushed to the already sold watches too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        If they do that, I expect a partial refund of the purchase price! I'm not kidding, either. I expect to receive $0.50 after the class action suit when they disable functionality on already purchased devices that were advertised with the feature.

  • The founder and head of Masimo is a major Biden contributor. Guess no one told Biden.

  • We invented removing functionality like 3.5mm jack and a back cover that comes off and replaceable batteries and real Firefox vs reskinning. Also self-serving selective interoperabily. And customer lock in. So Apple pay up..
  • Does Masimo think they are going to come out with a competitor to the Apple Watch? They gain nothing by banning it! They need to reach an agreement for Apple to licence the technology. That would be a win-win. As it stands, everyone loses from this ban.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by flink ( 18449 )

      Apple decided they would rather steal this tech than license it in the first place. This injunction forces them to the table. They will probably get worse terms than if they did everything above board, but I think this will eventually get worked out.

    • Does Masimo think they are going to come out with a competitor to the Apple Watch?

      Masimo already has a competing watch [masimo.com]

      They gain nothing by banning it!

      Off the top of my head, they gain: reduced competition, increased mindshare as a result of this case (you and I didn't realize their watch existed before the import ban), and far more leverage during the negotiation of licensing.

      They need to reach an agreement for Apple to licence the technology.

      As I understand things, they've been trying but Apple has bee

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Apple has done itself a disservice by allowing the process to carry on for this long and now they'll likely to have to pay far more to license this technology after the import ban than they would have if they settled before going to trial.

        I hope Masimo asks for 30% of gross sales revenue. And refuses to budge.

        What's good for the goose ....

    • No. Masimo's market isn't the general public. Their market is people who have medical conditions, and hospitals. People who have medical conditions that require constant and highly accurate oxygen monitoring would buy their product instead of Apple's.

    • Apple is reducing their marketshare by taking away their customers who need constant oxygen monitoring. So yes Apple is causing them to lose money. They did try to negotiate with Apple on licensing fees but Apple decided to steal their tech instead of paying the amount they were asking for.

    • Does Masimo think they are going to come out with a competitor to the Apple Watch?

      No. They think they are going to come up with 10s of them, and already have. They license their patents to companies who very much have produced competitors to the Apple watch. I'm wearing one right now with precisely the functionality in question. Better still Masimo even partners with other companies on more than just this one feature.

      They are doing just fine without Apple, but thanks for your genuine concern. None of us give a shit if Apple customers lose because Apple are dicks. Everyone else hasn't los

    • They gain nothing by banning it!

      Wrong. They gain leverage.

      They need to reach an agreement for Apple to licence [sic] the technology.

      And don't you think holding an import ban over a highly successful and profitable product line from the richest company on the planet might give them some leverage in order to make that happen?

      Congratulations on not having any strategic business sense whatsoever.

    • They gain using this as a bargaining chip to get apple to relent and pay the licensing fees so they can sell the already produced stock of watches.

  • This helps.

  • No doubt the Apple Watch was banned. But did anyone get the feeling Apple wanted it this way? I mean, the ban was to ensure the Apple Watch would stop being imported after December 25.

    It seems to me that Apple was perhaps trying to pump up sales of the Apple Watch - by making everyone aware that after Christmas, it wouldn't be available. So anyone who wanted an Apple Watch pretty much had to buy one and stick it under the tree because after Christmas, it's whatever stock was in the country (or you go to Can

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Probably. The specific bits of the patent they infringed on are pretty trivial. So they got a bunch of free publicity, got the ITC to review all of Masimo's patents and point out the bits they might be infringing, maybe got to clear out some old inventory, and you can bet their new watch will make the necessary modifications to no longer infringe.

  • Apple vs. Samsung, Apple claims they patented rounded corners on devices. Live by the sword... die by the sword.

Slashdot Top Deals

An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.

Close