Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple

The Late-Night Email To Tim Cook That Set the Apple Watch Saga in Motion (bloomberg.com) 48

Posted by msmash from the blast-from-the-past dept.
Apple's hiring of a key engineer 10 years ago helped spark a fight that led its watch to be banned from the US. From a report: At about 1 a.m. California time in 2013, a scientist emailed Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook with an irresistible pitch. "I strongly believe that we can develop the new wave of technology that will make Apple the No. 1 brand in the medical, fitness and wellness market," he wrote in the email, which was later included in legal documents. Some 10 hours after the message was sent, an Apple recruiter was in touch. And just weeks after that, the engineer was working at the tech company on a smartwatch with health sensors.

A flurry of activity began. Within a few months at Apple, the employee asked the company to file about a dozen patents related to sensors and algorithms for determining a person's blood-oxygen level from a wearable device. But this wasn't just any engineer. He had been the chief technical officer of Cercacor Laboratories, the sister company of Masimo, which went on to get to the US to ban the Apple Watch. Apple's decision to hire this technical whiz -- a Stanford engineering Ph.D. named Marcelo Lamego -- is seen as the spark that sent Masimo's lawyers after Apple. While the iPhone maker denies it did anything wrong, Masimo cited the poaching of employees as part of claims that the iPhone maker infringed its patents. The dispute culminated this month in Apple having to pull its latest watches from the company's US stores, hobbling a business that generates roughly $17 billion in annual sales. On Wednesday, Apple scored a victory as a U.S. appeals court paused a government commission's import ban on some of its popular Apple smartwatches.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Late-Night Email To Tim Cook That Set the Apple Watch Saga in Motion More

The Late-Night Email To Tim Cook That Set the Apple Watch Saga in Motion

Comments Filter:

  • If the summary is correct in what happened, and in which order, I can't really in good faith agree that Apple 'poached' this guy. He approached Apple with an idea; Apple essentially hired him on the spot.

    • Also, Masimo is sertiously barking up the wrong tree in playing the "poaching" card against a California company like Apple. The state takes a very, VERY dim view on businesses trying to forbid or control peoples' employment once they're no longer employees. With a very few limited exceptions... mostly for high-ranking executives with large equity stakes... non-competes and anti-poaching agreements are illegal here. In fact, it wasn't too long ago that Apple themselves got in trouble, and slapped down wi

      • What California thinks about non-compete agreements is 100% irrelevant to patent law, which is Federal law. All the California law means is that Masimo can't sue the guy for going to Apple or Apple for hiring him. And they are not. They are suing for patent infringement. The alleged poaching is evidence.

        • What California thinks about non-compete agreements is 100% irrelevant to patent law, which is Federal law. All the California law means is that Masimo can't sue the guy for going to Apple or Apple for hiring him. And they are not. They are suing for patent infringement. The alleged poaching is evidence.

          And they haven't won that suit. They got a ruling from the ITC (which is not a court, so they obviously did more than just suing), which got overturned. And if their evidence is as good as their "poaching" claim, not to mention circumstantial, good luck with that. This is a patent case, they have to show that Apple actually violated the patent, not that they could have because they hired someone who read the patent, or even was the actual inventor.

          • And they haven't won that suit. They got a ruling from the ITC (which is not a court, so they obviously did more than just suing), which got overturned.

            The ITC ruled against Apple. The appeals court temporarily halted the ITC ruling pending appeal. The ITC ruling has not been overturned, at least not yet.

            Apple still hasn't resumed sales of the affected watches, likely because they're not willing to risk financial penalties if the appeal doesn't go in their favor.

            • Again, the ruling by the ITC didn't make them win the patent suit. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

            • Apple still hasn't resumed sales of the affected watches

              Incorrect. In-store sales of the affected models had already resumed even before you posted your comment, and online sales are resuming today, according to Apple.

              likely because they're not willing to risk financial penalties if the appeal doesn't go in their favor.

              Of what financial penalties do you speak? This is a ban by the federal government, not an injunction in a civil case (which Masimo failed to secure). Failure to comply would result in seizure of the relevant goods.

    • I believe the claim is that Apple hired more Masimo engineers than just that one guy.

      • Re:Order of actions (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday December 27, 2023 @03:43PM (#64110149)

        Yes, and? Masimo doesn't own its employees. "Poaching" is nothing more than a dysphemism for "paying more", which is—and, more importantly, should be—perfectly legal and celebrated.

        Even if Apple hired literally every single engineer from Masimo, what of it? Those employees left of their own volition, as they are free to do. Apple clearly offered them better terms than what they were receiving at Masimo, hence why they left. If it's true that a large number of employees actually left Masimo, that would suggest that working conditions or pay at Masimo were subpar for what the employees were worth, hence why Apple was able to hire them in large numbers.

        With the way the narrative gets twisted by using words like "poaching", it's hard to remember that Apple actually got in trouble a few years back with the state of California for a no poaching agreement they set up with several of the other big companies back when Jobs was around. Those sorts of agreements are illegal in many parts of the world because they depress wages and job mobility, which is bad for employees (lower wages than they'd command in a free market) and bad for consumers (the lack of horizontal mobility hampers the sharing of experiences that breeds competition). At least when it comes to jobs, poaching is a good thing.

        Honestly, I'm tempted to suggest that "poaching" is such a disingenuous turn of phrase that anytime you hear someone accusing another company of doing it, you'll know that the accuser is actually the villain, just as sure as when you see someone eating an apple on film [screenrant.com]. Though, to be fair, when we're talking about behemoth companies like Apple, there's plenty of room for everyone to be a villain.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      It doesn't matter if they did. Employees should be able to seek or entertain, and accept, any offers. This guy was apparently being underpaid and accepted a better offer from Apple. It's called the free market. Laws to the contrary are extremely hostile to employees.

    • While that's true, even if Apple poached him, what of it? They're deliberately using the word "poached" here because it's a loaded word that can twist conversations to fit a narrative.

      People are not chattel. Companies do not own their employees. Apple (and several other big names, including Google and Adobe) actually got in significant trouble a few years ago because they had non-poaching agreements with each other (a plan of Steve Jobs', in fact), effectively pushing wages down by decreasing job competitio

    • I agree that it's probably not poaching if the target of the poach approached Apple first.

      However, that doesn't mean there still isn't patent infringement going on here, because any work that engineer did on this patent was paid for by Masimo, and Masimo owns the patent even if his name is on it.

      Thus, the "poaching" is circumstantial in nature, and orthogonal to the patent infringement issue.

      • Thus, the "poaching" is circumstantial in nature, and orthogonal to the patent infringement issue.

        The poaching issue is indeed orthogonal to the patent issue. However, it's advantageous for Apple to redirect attention from the patent issue to the recruiting. It's a PR win.

        Note how much traction this PR redirection has gained in this venue, which should supposedly understand the technically related legal matter.

  • I have not read the intimate details, but from what I've seen it looks like Masimo has enough evidence to go after Apple. Of course Apple has a huge reserve of resources to rely on while it defends the case. So, whether or not Masimo can win is totally up in the air.
    How do you reconcile Apple halting sales to limit damages with its request to keep importing them?
    Is Apple betting that the courts will not hit them with the maximum damages? Or that by continuing to import them they think they will have the upp

    • Apple is probably betting on delaying implementation of the ban long enough to have redesigned around this patent and then probably settling for several truckloads of cash (but fewer truckloads that it would cost to license it going forward).

    • from what I've seen it looks like Masimo has enough evidence to go after Apple.

      They have enough to go after Apple, and they did so and they won. The case is currently in appeals.

      • You are absolutely correct. I was forgetting that little aspect. I really only heard about this case when Apple starting using it to invoke FOMO during the holiday season. Buy now or you might not get this cool watch. Totally amazing that the drop dead date was Christmas.

        • Apple starting using it to invoke FOMO during the holiday season. Buy now or you might not get this cool watch. Totally amazing that the drop dead date was Christmas.

          Good point.

          • Totally amazing that the drop dead date was Christmas.

            Good point.

            You're assuming ill intent on Apple's part on the basis of something over which they had zero control. This was a ban handed down by the federal government. As you might imagine, that whole process is dictated by law, not by Apple.

            The ITC review board handed down their ruling on October 26, which kicked off a 60-day Presidential review period, after which the ban would take effect. The Biden administration declined to intervene, so the Presidential review period expired 60 days later on, you guessed it, Chr

    • I have not read the intimate details

      It appears that you're conflating details from different cases/reviews involving Masimo and Apple. For instance, the ban this week has absolutely nothing to do with damages, nor did Apple do it of their own volition like you assume.

      Off the top of my head, there's the lawsuit that's still ongoing (which is where any damages would be sorted out, but which has nothing to do with the happenings of this week), the ITC review that resulted in this week's ban, the Presidential veto that didn't materialize this wee

  • Look. If Apple broke the law they should be punished. I am not arguing that.

    The patent here is what I have issue with. It's basically the same old blood-ox technology we've had for decades with an algorithm that accounts for movements and variations while it's not sitting perfectly still on your wrist (or finger). Similar to how motion-object tracking software works in final cut pro. It's in my mind FUCKING OBVIOUS.

    And what gives them the patent is that they put the obvious and most likely unpatentable software to do that on an encrypted chip. A ridiculous and obvious attempt to manipulate the system to get a patent. So fuck Masimo (and apple too for good measure).

    • It's in my mind FUCKING OBVIOUS.

      Lots of things are way more obvious in hindsight than with a blank slate.

    • It's hard to care if a big company is forced to pay a small company $X lots of money.

      The worrisome thing is whether this patent prevents small companies from creating new products.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Masimo is a silicon valley headquartered multinational with a multi-billion dollar market cap. It's not a small company.

        • Masimo is a small company compared to Apple.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            It is a smaller company than Apple. It is not a small company, and it's certainly not some poor Mom and Pop operation that doesn't have a bunch of lawyers on retainer.

            Even if it were, rulings enforcing stupid patents are bad, no qualifiers, and certainly no qualifiers on the qualifiers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      No, it's not. Read the actual decision. The ITC found that Apple infringed on two claims of one patent. Those claims are for blocking light with an opaque substance and chamfered edges.

      The patent is far dumber than you think.

    • There are lots of things that get patented, that are amazingly obvious after someone documents it in a patent. The funny thing about a lot of those methods? Nobody ever thought of them previous to the guy that patented it. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's why we have a patent office and a procedure for granting patents - to sort that shit out.

      I don't give a shit if it's obvious now - it wasn't obvious when they invented it and patented it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      And I think Apple intentionally played it up to goose sales during the most profitable quarter for Apple.

      "Oh no, the Apple Watch cannot be sold after Christmas, if you want an Apple Watch, buy it now!"

      If you want to promote sales of the Apple Watch, you can blame the ITC (a government agency - they don't care). You can beg for Biden to veto it, knowing Biden probably has dozens of more important issues on his plate.

      The last quarter of the year is traditionally Apple's best quarter of the year profit wise, a

    • It's basically the same old blood-ox technology we've had for decades with an algorithm that accounts for movements and variations

      So what you're saying is it's different. And no we've not had it for decades. Surface backscatter type blood-ox technology is only a decade (singular) old. The fact that it shares something in common with a method of doing the same thing that is decades old does not invalidate the patent.

      A ridiculous and obvious attempt to manipulate the system to get a patent. So fuck Masimo

      Nothing of the sort. Look the USPTO is fucked we all know that. But Masimo has similar patents the world over, including in countries which don't rubberstamp bullshit. If Apple thought the patent wasn't valid they could hav

      • If Apple thought the patent wasn't valid they could have argued that

        They are. The USPTO review is still ongoing and the civil suit that hinges on the validity is on pause, pending the result of the USPTO review. In the meantime, after Masimo failed to get an injunction against Apple in the civil suit they did an end run by pursuing an ITC ban, which does not consider questions of validity. That’s how we got here.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The idea of making something like that is obvious, the actual implementation is very complex. This is medical grade stuff, not a consumer level "indication only" sensor.

      Apple had to put a lot of effort into cloning it, even after they poached the staff.

  • Apple (AAPL.O) scored a victory on Wednesday when a U.S. appeals court paused a government commission's import ban ... Masimo shares were down 2.9%

    Well I guess Apple's lobbying effort paid off. I wonder what category US legal campaign donations and lobbying are expensed to ? (in most other countries, these is known as bribes).

  • "At about 1am Calofornia time..."

    California is not a timezone. Never was, never will be.

    Parts of areas in the state of California conform to PST and some PDT and the dates vary.

    Learn to use thsoe. That's what "standard" means. You don't get to make up your own idea
    of what "California time" is.... because there isnt'.

    Now say it all together: "UTC-0800 except when it's UTC-0700". The numbers are pronounced
    "OH" and "SEVEN" (or "EIGHT") and "HUNDRED".

    Two million people can't be wrong, but idiots writing for

  • $MASI is $7B cap.

    If I were Tim I'd buy it and fire the execs.

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close