[HN Gopher] U.S. judge rules Apple Watch infringed Masimo's puls...
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. judge rules Apple Watch infringed Masimo's pulse oximeter
patent
Author : bj-rn
Score : 39 points
Date : 2023-01-12 21:10 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| sosodev wrote:
| Is there room for "convergent evolution" with patent law? It
| seems to me that the odds of developing similar systems are very
| high if two companies with light based sensors try to develop
| pulse oximetery.
| [deleted]
| mmastrac wrote:
| Nope, you need to be quick to file.
|
| There is, however, an exception: if an invention is likely to
| be obvious to a person skilled in the art given access to prior
| art, the invention is not considered not patentable
| taeric wrote:
| That exception is laughably weak in bleeding edge fields.
| That is, if "skilled in the art" is limited in audience, than
| that someone else "did it first" could be reduced to them
| being the first to need to do it. Which is terrible in the
| cases where everyone that goes down a route will have to
| solve the same problem.
| amelius wrote:
| No. According to patent law, independent discovery does not
| exist. And should it ever be proved otherwise, thousands of
| patent attorneys would be found crying on the floor in fetal
| position.
| donmcronald wrote:
| Are they even accurate enough to be useful? Today my Garmin watch
| told me I was at 85% in the middle of the afternoon when I was
| feeling pretty good and 100% towards the end of the day when I
| was feeling a bit tired.
|
| The way I understand it, and I could be totally wrong, that's
| somewhere between dead and impossible within the span of 2 hours.
| chollida1 wrote:
| No mention of Garmin whose main watches all have Pulse ox sensors
| in them, so either they licensed the tech or they have their own
| implementation.
|
| I'm glad I couldn't find Garmin here, I love their sensor data.
| zamadatix wrote:
| This article has a bit more detail
| https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-loses-first-round...
| t-writescode wrote:
| Interesting bit from this article:
|
| > In November, a California federal judge ruled that a former
| Masimo engineer stole trade secrets related to Masimo's pulse
| oximetry technology. The judge blocked US sales by True
| Wearables Inc.--a company launched by the engineer after a
| stint at Apple--of the Oxxiom device "in its current iteration
| that includes the trade secrets."
| bdcravens wrote:
| I hope they license it rather than disable the feature.
| BuckyBeaver wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| factsarelolz wrote:
| [flagged]
| amf12 wrote:
| Its not racist because it wasn't meant to be prejudicial or to
| treat different races discriminately. It has an unfortunate
| bias (without racist intent), that hopefully will reduce and go
| away with better models. Apple and Google have already started
| with their real skin tone processing in cameras.
| a4isms wrote:
| The comment you're replying to is obviously being sarcastic
| and trying to "stir the pot."
|
| But I will respond to you seriously. Most Americans who use
| the word "racist" mean "intentionally and adversarially
| racist," e.g. The three boys who called me a "spook" and
| assaulted me on a Toronto subway platform in the early 1970s.
|
| Apple and their feature is manifestly not that kind of
| racist, and I think it's misleading to use the word racist by
| itself as an adjective, because this is the connotation most
| people associate with the word." (I personally only associate
| that connotation with the noun "racist," as in "Hitler was a
| racist.")
|
| There is also a systemic kind of racism, where no one person
| participating in a system is a racist, but the overall
| outcome of the system's behaviour is to be discriminatory in
| an unjust manner against people of a particular race. I think
| that's something you acknowledge by saying that the outcome
| of a bunch of people making what they felt were reasonable
| choices in the system ended up making something with an
| "unfortunate bias."
|
| And from what I've read, Apple realize that sometimes a
| product needs to evolve to be more inclusive and takes steps
| to address that.
| amf12 wrote:
| That's a fair point. I agree that there could be systemic
| racism, which is exactly what it is in this case. When most
| people say "racist" they don't mean "bias" or "systemic
| racism", but the overt kind.
|
| I think there should be a difference in the perception of
| the two kinds, even though we should improve in both cases.
|
| I'll also add that when people responsible don't take any
| steps to correct systemic racism, it should be considered
| the overt kind.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _when people responsible don 't take any steps to
| correct systemic racism, it should be considered the
| overt kind_
|
| The problem with the state of our debate is people
| smeared a word used for overt, intentional racism across
| all manner of unintentional behaviour. That not only
| reasonably infuriated folks. It also gave cover for the
| original kind of racism to duck under. (A similar thing
| has happened to the term violence.)
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >...obviously being sarcastic and trying to "stir the pot".
|
| Is that the one that called the kettle 'black'?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-12 23:01 UTC)