[HN Gopher] Apple wins $250 US jury verdict in patent case over ...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple wins $250 US jury verdict in patent case over Masimo
smartwatches
Author : mistersquid
Score : 63 points
Date : 2024-10-26 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| bell-cot wrote:
| Suggested Title change: s/wins $250/wins only $250.00/
|
| That'd minimal editorializing - while making it quite clear that
| there is no missing 'K', let alone missing 'M'.
| stillwaitingpls wrote:
| It's already old news at this point. The major damage you
| highlighted is already done.
| altairprime wrote:
| Email the mods (footer contact link) if you'd like to see the
| title changed; make your case, or link your comment here, and
| they may agree with you. Otherwise they probably won't see this
| comment (whether it's upvoted or not).
| lttlrck wrote:
| "wins token $250"
| mirekrusin wrote:
| A quarter of a cost of monitor stand.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Title really doesn't do the article justice. There's a BIT more
| going on there than just the $250 that Apple got.
| gnabgib wrote:
| Small discussion (13 points, 17 hours ago, 5 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41950858
| runjake wrote:
| In case the point is missed: Apple asked for $250, stating their
| cases was on principle. The courts aren't slighting Apple.
| borski wrote:
| > Apple's attorneys told the court the "ultimate purpose" of
| its lawsuit was not money, but to win an injunction against
| sales of Masimo's smartwatches after an infringement ruling.
|
| But on this point, they lost. $250 is the statutory minimum in
| the US for infringement. Apple did not successfully win an
| injunction, which was what they really wanted.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Interesting, I figured now they're going for an injunction,
| now that they have the ruling, no?
|
| I don't think you can get a jury ruling then immediately ask
| for an injunction with the same judge and all
|
| Fwiw I'm a bit confused overall, it seems like either Apple
| is full on Baghdad Bob'ing or there's still an injunction to
| go for. More I think about, it's probably A :p
| borski wrote:
| Apple sued for infringement of their design patents, for
| Masimo's old watches and chargers, and asked for $250 in
| damages. They won that set of claims, meaning Masimo's old
| watches and chargers infringe.
|
| Masimo's current products did not infringe, and Apple tried
| to sue on the basis that they infringed their
| technical/utility patents. On this set of claims, the jury
| disagreed, and the damages Apple was asking for there was
| injunctive relief against Masimo's current products (aka
| taking them off the market). They lost that. They can't go
| for an injunction since the jury ruled that Masimo's
| current products do not infringe.
| selimnairb wrote:
| But now someone at Apple can treat themselves to a very nice
| dinner.
| sph wrote:
| $250 for a nice dinner? In this economy?
| selimnairb wrote:
| In America 2024, $250 dinner eats you!
| refulgentis wrote:
| Well, no.
|
| They didn't say it was on principle, they said they were going
| for a ruling so they could then apply for an injunction.
|
| They got a judgement on a discontinued charger, which makes it
| seem unlikely they'll be able to go for an injunction on
| today's watches.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Does this mean watches will get their blood oxygen sensors back?
| The news hasn't yet seemed to clear this up for me
| inquirerGeneral wrote:
| No
| mauriciob wrote:
| That's a separate case (Masimo suing Apple) which is still
| ongoing. Apple countersued to try to block Masimo from
| releasing their own smartwatch, this article refers to this
| case.
| MBCook wrote:
| Right. Quite possibly to have a better bargaining position in
| negotiations to be allowed to turn that feature back on.
|
| Interesting to see what happens next. I never thought the
| original injunction would go into place, let alone be allowed
| to go on this long.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Yes, but not because of this specific verdict. This was a
| (failed) attempt to impact the ability of Masimo to sell its
| own smartwatch, in which case Masimo would've lost the ability
| to continue blocking imports of Apple Watches with an enabled
| pulse oximetry feature in the U.S.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Can you convert $250 to number of apple smart watches?
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| Not sure if this request is serious, but it's approx 0.5 Apple
| smart watches
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| Apple sued for violations of both design patents and tech
| patents. Apple won that Masimo's design infringes on Apple's
| design patents, for which they only asked for $250. Apple lost
| the other technology patent infringement parts of the case, for
| which they were asking for an injunction against Masimo selling
| their watches.
| borski wrote:
| To be clear, Masimo's _old_ (and previously discontinued)
| design infringes on Apple's design patents, not the one
| presently on the market.
| jijji wrote:
| It looks like Apple's claims were related to the charging of the
| watch itself... Which brings me to my question of why not use
| standard USB Type-C charging ports instead of some proprietary
| charging method? It seems like from the very beginning it is a
| poor choice, on both parties, to charge a device using a non-
| standard charging device.
| arjvik wrote:
| It makes sense to have wearables like watches and smart rings
| charge via wireless inductive charging, because the physical
| space of even a USB-C port inside a watch is quite limiting for
| the electronics that can be placed inside the watch, and
| physically wouldn't fit inside of a ring.
| sjm-lbm wrote:
| Wireless inductive charging also allows for a (more) sealed
| case design, which is helpful for a device that will almost
| certainly encounter moisture in normal use cases.
|
| I can keep my phone somewhere dry when it's raining, I've
| never thought to take off my watch when it rains.
| MBCook wrote:
| Even just sweat would be a problem, especially with fitness
| being such a big selling point.
| chedabob wrote:
| Ye it's a big issue with Garmin's pogo-pin charge port.
| The pins corrode, and for some unlucky people, create
| quite serious skin irritation.
| paultopia wrote:
| Can someone please explain why Apple doesn't just buy Masimo in a
| fight like this? Their market cap is like 5% of Apple's annual
| profit...
| adtac wrote:
| so that the next company won't sue
| sxg wrote:
| Masimo's CEO and board have to approve the purchase, but it
| appears that Masimo isn't interested in being bought.
| MBCook wrote:
| The CEO wasn't. Rumors were he was single-handedly refusing
| to listen to any offer, which is why (supposedly) he was
| pushed out recently.
|
| Somewhat surprising a deal wasn't made after that. Perhaps
| Apple though this would strengthen their bargaining position
| and was waiting to see how this would go.
| dagmx wrote:
| The CEO has resigned as of a month ago (or forced out rather)
|
| The primary investors seem quite upset with his handling of
| this. Rumours are that he was hostile to a buyout but in his
| lawsuit has also invalidated a lot of their own patents.
|
| So it's a pyrrhic victory at best for him. I assume the new
| CEO will be expected to look to play better and reduce the
| damage.
| andrewoneone wrote:
| With this case it seems like Apple is just going to take them to
| court again and again until the well runs dry and Masimo's
| patents can be purchased for pennies on the dollar.
| https://www.masimoconsumer.com/ Their products feel
| simultaneously like knock offs and 5 years old all at once.
| qwtree wrote:
| Seems like a good outcome. Patent trolls should occasional
| suffer some consequences of their actions (I know that Masimo
| sells actual products but they pulse oximetry patent is just
| silly...)
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Masimo basically came up with the idea of how to do it
| accurately long before anyone else right? Is that really
| trolling? I don't recall the details but I remember thinking
| they actually had a legitimate claim.
| dagmx wrote:
| They actually had the majority of their patents invalidated
| during the legal process.
|
| The one patent they have remaining (that is what Apple are
| dealing with) is on a very particular sensor configuration
| not the concept or technology in general beyond that.
| amar0c wrote:
| Why do hackernews people share links behind paywalls and pop-up's
| that want me to disable ad blocker ?
| ryanobjc wrote:
| In every single press release Masimo complains apple hired away
| staff.
|
| Um, you are in California. There are no non-competes.
|
| You just are confessing every single time you can't retain
| talented staff.
| wombatpm wrote:
| Any reason that Apple just doesn't buy the company outright?
| Market cap is only 7.5B.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-26 23:04 UTC)