[HN Gopher] US Judge invalidates blood glucose sensor patent, op...
___________________________________________________________________
US Judge invalidates blood glucose sensor patent, opens door for
Apple Watch
Author : walterbell
Score : 411 points
Date : 2025-02-21 05:55 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.patentlyapple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.patentlyapple.com)
| friendzis wrote:
| Most good inventions are "obvious" in hindsight.
| ljsprague wrote:
| Like the Blonsky birthing table for instance.
| drannex wrote:
| This is why patents are Regressive and should be done away
| with. They no longer protect small-time inventors, only
| corporations. They stifle all innovation.
| DecentShoes wrote:
| If they exist, they should be 3 - 5 years. Not 20. That's
| insane and creates monopolies.
| tombert wrote:
| At least it's not as terrible as the US copyright system,
| which is more than 90 years.
| mcny wrote:
| That should also be three to five years.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| No, copyrights make sense to be longer. But not "century"
| long. But something like 15 years for a copyright,
| renewable each year after for a growing cost, up to 30
| years total, seems reasonable to me.
|
| The main point being, if you're still making money hand
| over fist from your book you wrote, or film you made, you
| can keep the copyright. But at some point, you have to
| prove it has value by paying for it, with a fast growing
| price each year after, and still a finite time where the
| copyright goes away entirely. This prevents dead
| copyrights where you can't even find the copyright
| holder, because they died 50 years ago, and the work is
| obscure, but you want to license it. But if you create
| some original song or story or whatever, it's totally
| fair that only you get to make money from that for a very
| long while.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > The main point being, if you're still making money hand
| over fist from your book you wrote, or film you made, you
| can keep the copyright.
|
| > But if you create some original song or story or
| whatever, it's totally fair that only you get to make
| money from that for a very long while.
|
| Why is this "very long while" based on how much money you
| are making, and why would it be different from creating
| anything else?
|
| The point of taxpayer funded legal and police protection
| for owners of patents and copyright terms is to
| incentivize creating something, not to maximize rent
| seeking abilities for the creator.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I don't think preventing you from diluting the brand I
| created is rent seeking. Creating a work is an
| investment, which, almost never pays off (think of how
| many unknown musicians, authors, and artists there are).
| So when you find something that people like en masse, you
| should be allowed to reap those benefits. I hardly
| consider that rent seeking. But the escalating cost
| prevents actual rent seeking - if your work stops
| producing value, squatting on it IS rent seeking, and so
| you have to pay escalating amounts, or relinquish it, and
| let someone else have a stab at it. You are also allowed
| to continue to create new derivative works, and you have
| a huge head start on any future competition, since you
| have that time limited window. So if you continue to
| create new value, your timer "restarts" on those new
| works, so I think that's sufficient incentive to continue
| creating.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Trademarks protect brands, not copyright and patents.
| That is a different discussion, but trademarks already
| work that way, where if the trademark owner keeps using
| the trademark, then they get to keep it. A creative work
| is not a brand, the name of the person or company that
| produced it is a brand.
|
| > if your work stops producing value, squatting on it IS
| rent seeking
|
| "Producing value" is far too nebulous of a parameter to
| legally enforce. Again, the point of a copyright and
| patent is to incentivize creation. At a certain point, it
| moves from incentivizing to rewarding those that sit on
| previous accomplishments.
|
| That is why old movies, music, and games are locked away
| or only accessible via pirating, why TV shows from the
| 1990s and 2000s have different soundtracks if streamed
| legally today, and why patent trolls exist.
| tombert wrote:
| I actually think copyrights could have the exact timeline
| that patents do right now and I'd be more or less happy;
| twenty years with a possible ten year extension seems
| pretty fair to me.
|
| That's enough time to realistically make money off your
| creation, but not so much time that your great grandkids
| are also making money off of it.
|
| The fact that a lot of things are invented and patented
| in the US shows that the comparatively shorter timespan
| doesn't appear to be _discouraging_ innovation and
| creativity, and I think that would hold with copyright as
| well.
| michaelt wrote:
| Copyright should be shorter, but IMHO it's a lot less bad
| than patents.
|
| If copyright worked like patents, Disney wouldn't have a
| monopoly on the Star Wars franchise
|
| Patents tend to be super-broad, so instead they'd have a
| monopoly on all space-related fictional media.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| There's a pretty fundamental difference between patents
| and copyright that I think justifies copyright being
| longer: a copyrighted work could not exist without its
| creator. IE, the Beatles catalog would not exist without
| the 4 Beatles, specifically. However patents are
| discoveries and can be discovered by other people.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't disagree, though I would argue that bullshit like
| "design patents" blur that line somewhat.
|
| Even within patents, you're not supposed to be able to
| patent a "fact", which is why most math is non-
| patentable, and it gets into kind of weird territory when
| you get into stuff like algorithms: is an algorithm part
| of mathematics and therefore a fact and therefore non-
| patentable? or is it closer to an invention and
| engineering, and therefore should be patented? Or is
| coding "creative" enough to where we should actually be
| copyrighting algorithms?
|
| I have no idea the answer to that question, or where the
| line should be drawn (though I gravitate towards the
| "math" side).
|
| I don't know where I'm going with this; intellectual
| property law is weird.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Yeah, as in all things, the categories start to blur at
| the edges. Most algorithms seem like mathematical
| discoveries to me, whereas the source code for a piece of
| software has pretty clear corollaries to copyrighted
| works like novels (including passing the test that I
| propose: it could not exist without it's creator).
|
| I kind of think that patents should not exist. I'm not a
| scholar in the area, but I am not aware of good evidence
| that, without patents, we would be bereft of the many
| inventions of human history and especially the last 200
| years. And actually, the open source movement
| demonstrates that there is a very strong human impulse
| that will create and invent things without material
| recompense. My reading of patent history is that people
| who were inventing things anyway wanted a way to profit
| from it, not that there was a lack of invention and
| patents were arrived at as a solution to that problem.
|
| Perhaps someone could object that companies are
| responsible for a lot of invention and they need to be
| incentivized in a way that individual inventors do not.
| But I'm not convinced that making a better mousetrap
| isn't enough of an incentive. After all, companies spend
| an incredible amount of money on sales and marketing
| (usually a larger line item than R&D on a company's
| income statement) and neither of those gives you a
| legally enforced competitive advantage.
|
| I think the best argument for patents is to encourage
| drug discovery, since the costs are enormous due to the
| testing requirements. But if the main cost is in testing,
| then perhaps the solution is to require that copycat
| medications also go through the testing process, at least
| for some period of time. Or just have patents for drugs
| but not for other things. Or just have the government
| engage in drug discovery and validation directly
| (normally I'm against the government doing stuff, but I'm
| not convinced that the lack of a profit motive would be
| worse than the presence of a profit motive when it comes
| to drug discover).
| varjag wrote:
| An R&D cycle itself can be 5 years, a 1-2 year patent
| approval time is typical. Industrializing research for
| production is at least a year, not to mention finding a
| market fit. And you are supposed to recoup all that in 3-5
| years? Just tooling amortization can take that much.
| brookst wrote:
| Lots of small companies only get funding because investors
| believe the IP will be worth something even if the company
| fails. I'm not wild about our current patent situation, but
| we have to recognize that a less restrictive recision would
| impact small business pretty hard.
| mplewis wrote:
| I don't care about the impact on small business. I care
| about the impact on real people being able to access life-
| saving technology.
| bawolff wrote:
| Shoe goes on both feet though. Lots of companies are not
| viable due to the legal burden of one small neccesary part
| being patented.
| brookst wrote:
| For sure. It's complicated, and it's different people and
| companies when you get to the specifics.
| survirtual wrote:
| It is not complicated. Patents are regressive instruments
| of the rich to shackle minds and generate artificial
| scarcity over abundant goods.
|
| It is a mechanism of slavers and connected lineages, and
| completely puts of a boot on the neck of unconnected
| innovators, which are abundant in today's age.
|
| They must be abolished.
| brookst wrote:
| So if you invent something you're cool with a giant
| company just stealing it and marketing it?
| IsTom wrote:
| In the current system if a giant company just steals
| something, will you be able to last through years of
| legal proceedings while they're the ones reaping the
| profits?
| abduhl wrote:
| Willful patent infringement provides for treble damages
| based on damages that are often determinable from the
| infringer's sales/profits and provides for recoupment of
| attorney's fees. If you have a truly patentable idea then
| the juice of attorneys fees is often worth the risk-
| adjusted squeeze of litigation.
| polymatter wrote:
| But that happens anyway. Patent litigation is expensive
| and time consuming and is far more often used to punch
| down, regardless of merits.
|
| The fairy tale of the solo patent holder fighting off
| giant mega corporations is worthy of a Hallmark movie and
| just as realistic.
| curiouscavalier wrote:
| I'm not following the "unconnected" part. There are
| definitely problems with our patent system (referring to
| US), especially around software, but in my experience
| examiners are indifferent to your background and lineage
| (though not indifferent to their own status at USPTO).
| There is absolutely a monetary barrier to entry on using
| a lawyer to draft your patent application, but I feel
| like that's more an issue of private law firms than
| patents in general. Though I'm sure others might have
| comments on how those intertwine.
|
| But filing fees, etc (ie those things set by the USPTO)
| are really quite reasonable imo. Strictly speaking you
| don't have to use a lawyer to file (I know that can be a
| minor concession in the landscape of practical success).
| Maybe you can clarify what you mean by "connected" vs
| "unconnected"in this case? I'm missing how patent law
| directly related to connections/lineage beyond what
| sister comments have said re: ability to litigate or be
| patent trolls. But I think that's the point of the sister
| comment on it (at least ideally) cutting both ways.
| procaryote wrote:
| The original point of a patent is a good one: document your
| work publicly and in return get a window of time to profit
| from said work. It was intended to improve innovation by
| making people not hide their work.
|
| It wasn't really designed for people patenting vague
| concepts, math or ideas.
|
| If you build a better mousetrap, a patent is pretty good. If
| you have a vague idea you might show ads in elevators, you
| should A: just be shot, and B: not get a patent
| codedokode wrote:
| But today with software you can publish just a generic
| description and do not disclose actual algorithms and
| formulas, so there is no value for everyone else. For
| example, you could patent a program that "chooses the best
| investment options using AI" without describing any details
| even if you don't know how to actually implement this.
|
| (Well after I posted this comment you can't anymore)
| matsemann wrote:
| "Add something to a digital shopping cart", "Minigames on
| a loading screen". If I can replicate it without reading
| any details in your patent, it's not patent worthy.
| xienze wrote:
| > For example, you could patent a program that "chooses
| the best investment options using AI" without describing
| any details even if you don't know how to actually
| implement this.
|
| That's not true. I have several issued US patents and
| while you don't publish the code, you certainly have to
| disclose enough high level details that another person
| versed in the art would be able to implement it.
| pembrook wrote:
| Patents come from a quaint time when startup capital was
| non-existent.
|
| Today, they are simply a giant anchor on the speed of
| innovation.
|
| The software world has flourished with effectively very
| little patent protection and very lax IP enforcement.
|
| And in the hardware world China quickly commoditizes and
| copies everything, regardless of US patents anyways.
|
| The only real moats in modern capitalism come from talent,
| marketing, distribution, and regulation.
|
| Patents are now just a weaponized form of regulation useful
| for kneecapping domestic competitors. They hurt the local
| economy more than helping it.
| m0llusk wrote:
| No, this has had extensive research. Patents slowed down
| both inventors and industries deploying new technologies.
| The story that it would enable a period of time for direct
| profits turned out to be false. There is more to be made by
| simply moving forward with adoption of new inventions.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, you can live in that world by observing China. IP
| doesn't exist. All things are open source. You have to be
| careful doing things but people still do them and a cheaper
| product shows up on Aliexpress the next day.
| ikekkdcjkfke wrote:
| I believe apple is struggling to implement the 5g spec due to
| patents, how do you square that? Just confuses me
| g_p wrote:
| A lot of the patents needed to implement mobile standards are
| designated as "standards essential patents", meaning that the
| party bringing them up the table in the standards committees
| needs to disclose them and agree to licence them on a FRAND
| basis to anyone who asks (fair, reasonable and non-
| discriminatory).
|
| In many cases there are patent pools you can license that
| cover large areas of the standards, without needing to
| negotiate each one individually.
|
| Many very fundamental parts of 4G/ 5G are patented and you'll
| not be able to get your device to work on the network without
| those patents, so Apple will have licensed those patents
| under FRAND for their new C1 modem.
| bawolff wrote:
| Some are more obvious than others.
|
| I think that is a major problem with patents - all inventions
| are treated the same. However there is a big difference between
| something reasonably new that took a decade of r&d work to get
| right and a tiny change to an existing invention which took a
| day and is an obvious logical progession from what came before
| which everyone would have came up with.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Indeed, therefore if an invention is "obvious" in hindsight it
| must be good ;)
| tzs wrote:
| I once attended a patent trial and it was interesting. The
| defendant claimed the patent was obvious.
|
| The plaintiff had some pretty good evidence that it was in fact
| not obvious:
|
| * The defendant was one of the largest companies in the field
| with a very accomplished and impressive R&D department. The
| plaintiff introduced documents they got from the defendant
| during discovery where the CEO had called solving the specific
| problem that the patent solved to be vital to the future
| existence of their company and made solving it a top priority.
| Yet they failed to make any progress on it.
|
| * Two of the other largest companies in the field, also with
| impressive R&D departments, had also been working on this and
| failed to come up with anything.
|
| The jury found that the patent was obvious.
|
| What I think happened is that both plaintiff and defendant had
| presentations that explained to the jury what the patent did.
| Both presentations did a great job of finding a problem from
| everyday life that was kind of analogous to the problem the
| patent involved, and translating the patent's solution to that
| everyday life problem. The presentations made it easy to
| understand the gist of what the patent did.
|
| There's a natural tendency to mistake easy to understand for
| obviousness, and I think that by explaining the invention in a
| way that made it easy to understand it also made the jury think
| it was obvious.
|
| But if you don't explain the invention in a way that the jury
| can understand how are they supposed to be able to make
| decisions?
|
| This reminds me of college. Many a time I'd read some theorem
| named after a mathematician and think "how the heck does this
| obvious theorem get named after someone?". The answer is that
| it wasn't at all obvious when that mathematician proved it 400
| years ago. I'm seeing it after 400 years of people figuring out
| how to present the subject in a way that makes that theorem
| obvious.
|
| That reminds me of a classic math joke: A professor says "It is
| obvious that" and writes an equation. Then he pauses, and says
| "...wait, is that obvious?". He goes to another board and
| starts deriving the equation, not saying anything while doing
| this. After 20 minutes he had gotten it, says "I was right! It
| is obvious!" and goes back and resumes his lecture.
| jjk166 wrote:
| The patent law definition of obvious is different from the
| common understanding.
|
| Specifically, it only counts if it was obvious before the
| patent filing to a person of ordinary skill. It's actually
| really hard for a patent claim to be rejected for obviousness.
| A poking stick for pressing buttons on a TV without getting up
| counts as a non-obvious invention.
| whycome wrote:
| Final decision:
| https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/USPTOPT...
| shakna wrote:
| 12 of the 23 claims invalidated by being "obvious", in light of
| previous patents.
|
| The rest invalidated against Apple, through "alternative claim
| construction". That is, Apple's reading of the patent and its
| specific claims, showed it was narrower in scope than their
| particular usage.
|
| None of this seems really surprising, and whilst it does open the
| door for Apple, it probably doesn't much open the door for other
| implementations to flourish - not without a lawyer guiding your
| particular tech choices.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10517484B2/en
|
| Note how similar this is to the pulse oximeter, which was
| invented in Japan in 1972 and patented in the US in 2004.
|
| https://www.nihonkohden.com/technology/aoyagi.html
|
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050049469A1/en
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| > Note how similar this is to the pulse oximeter, which was
| invented in Japan in 1972 and patented in the US in 2004.
|
| How could an invention from 1972, which I assume was
| publically disclosed around that time, be patented in 2004?
|
| Were the details kept secret for 32 years?
| jolmg wrote:
| It's the same person in both patents, Takuo Aoyagi. You can
| register a patent in separate jurisdictions, because
| they're separate jurisdictions.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| You can, but a patent is still limited to around 20
| years. How can a 1972 invention be still be patented in
| 2004?
| SSLy wrote:
| Because the USAnian companies kept lobbying to keep the
| Patent Office working that way.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > USAnian
|
| Do you mean American? Or US and Asian?
| ddulaney wrote:
| Often used by people who are American (from the Americas)
| but not from the US. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Columbia,
| and the rest of North and South America.
| HappySweeney wrote:
| Canadians don't use that.
| Snoozus wrote:
| They might start soon
| ThatMedicIsASpy wrote:
| This is the first time I have seen this in my life.
| crazygringo wrote:
| No it's not.
|
| In English, American means from the US, and there's no
| word to refer to an inhabitants of the Americas (both
| continents combined). You can say North American or South
| American if you want, though. Since those are continents.
|
| You won't find "USAnian" in any authoritative published
| dictionary, not even the OED:
|
| https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=US
| Ani...
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Urban dictionary has an entry from 2007
|
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=usanians
|
| And anyway, official dictionaries are largely historical
| records, not authoritative sources for living languages.
| Words mean what people who use them intend them to mean.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Parent said "often used".
|
| It's not.
|
| Anyone can put anything in Urban Dictionary, c'mon.
| Nobody said _no one_ has uttered the term before.
|
| If something is "often used", it winds up in
| dictionaries, with a lag of only a few years.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| It is in dictionaries, at least two.
|
| https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Usanian
|
| I've heard or read the term at least once or twice along
| the way, I've even muttered it myself.
|
| It might not ever rise to a common enough usage that the
| big dictionaries list it, or maybe it will.
|
| I probably wouldn't say it's frequently used, but
| probably not rarely either.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The six references provided in that entry are all obscure
| and none are dictionaries.
| genewitch wrote:
| Can I ask what the point of this thread is? Is it because
| of the single word "often"?
|
| Seems like a waste of talent and energy.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| The digressions started with the first mention of the
| term in question by SSLy, not just the descriptor you
| mentioned. That user was probably pointlessly baiting,
| knowing that the nonstandard term would set someone off,
| which has led to the digressions that followed.
| SSLy wrote:
| I've been using that term on and off. This was the first
| time someone came forward saying it's incorrect. I don't
| disagree with your assessment of my intentions, but it
| wasn't that usage, it was the politics part.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| By your definition of _dictionary_. Again, words mean
| what people who use them intend them to mean. Urban
| Dictionary and Wiktionary are both dictionaries as far as
| I 'm concerned.
|
| Anyway, Meriam Webster has United-Statesian
| https://www.merriam-
| webster.com/dictionary/United%20Statesia...
|
| How do you cope with Modern English previously never
| having been a language anyone spoke or wrote?
| TeaBrain wrote:
| From what I've seen, it's mostly used by Americans who
| are trying to be edgy.
| lucasban wrote:
| Doing a bit of digging online, while there is evidence
| that /some/ people use it, it appears to be very limited.
| I understand the desire some people have for an
| unambiguous English term to refer to things from the US
| separately from those of the Americas in general, and see
| the value in doing so. Personally, as a native English
| speaker, I find USAnian to be clunky - maybe someone has
| thought (or will think) of a term that feels more
| natural. It feels analogous to the push from (largely
| English-speaking) activists in the US to use the term
| "latinx", much of the intended audience doesn't run into
| issues with the current terminology and aren't looking
| for a new term, and the term doesn't feel natural to
| existing speakers.
| anotherhue wrote:
| Are we not allowed say Yanks anymore?
| mh- wrote:
| Yank here, you've certainly got my blessing. Can't
| imagine someone being bothered by it. I think of it as a
| demonym just like Brits or anything else.
| ASUfool wrote:
| Those with deep Confederate roots might be bothered.
|
| Or Red Sox fans.
| SSLy wrote:
| Is the term also fine to use when trying to include the
| BIPOC citizens?
| lucasban wrote:
| You can say what you want, whether or not people will
| understand what you mean or interpret it the way you
| intended is the more relevant question, in my opinion.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| I grew up in the US and sometimes refer to us as USian,
| especially if I want to be clear I'm not referring to
| Mexico/Canada. I've never seen USAnian.
| SSLy wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification, I'll switch to the other
| term in the future.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Because the patent system is broken
| pjc50 wrote:
| See discussion on first-to-file:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125638
|
| The "clock" does not start when the invention happens,
| which is anyway a very hard thing to pin down. But as you
| say, it creates very counter intuitive results.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| 1. That's not how first-to-file works. It's a sadly
| common misunderstanding.
|
| 2. This case was from way before first-to-file even went
| into effect anyway.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| I haven't looked at the patent documents, but I'd bet money
| it's not the same. The later US patent is probably for an
| improvement on the original device.
| theli0nheart wrote:
| It must have been different in some key way, or the 1972
| invention lacked several key improvements that the 2004
| patent claimed.
| derektank wrote:
| Was the Omni MedSci patent used in any existing commercial
| products?
| medhir wrote:
| Is this patent the only thing that is holding them back?
|
| Or are there still quite a few challenges ahead and this is
| merely one roadblock removed.
| arijo wrote:
| You probably can use these physics to measure many other
| molecules in a continuous non invasive way.
|
| This will be a revolution in personalized medicine.
|
| Ketones next please.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| A search tells me its for type 1 diabetics. Are there other
| applications, like keto dieters?
| pbmonster wrote:
| Huge market for endurance athletes. Just like heart rate and
| blood oxygen, blood glucose is a definitive marker whether
| you're going to fast or not. Having that information allows
| you to perform at the very edge your body is capable of
| performing, without ever exceeding that limit and crashing
| out.
|
| There have been blood glucose sensors using needles for a
| long time, and many sports banned them because they are a
| huge advantage - but they didn't want to de-factor force
| every athlete to constantly prick an IV under their skin and
| then run around with it for hours.
|
| Once those come in smart watches, every semi-advanced runner
| (and those who'd like to feel like one) will need one.
| paulcole wrote:
| Endurance athletes are a small market and the market for
| endurance athletes who would benefit from a CGM is even
| smaller.
|
| > every semi-advanced runner (and those who'd like to feel
| like one) will need one
|
| This, however, is the truth. Every semi-advanced runner
| (and wannabe) knows that they need to run more, run slower
| on most of their runs, run fast occasionally, and eat well
| in order to improve their performance. But they'll buy
| literally anything that might offer them an "edge" instead.
| pbmonster wrote:
| > Endurance athletes are a small market and the market
| for endurance athletes who would benefit from a CGM is
| even smaller.
|
| It's not that small. Garmin made billions in revenue
| here, expanding it on the process. Most of their
| customers don't really need blood oxygen either, but they
| all have it anyway.
| arijo wrote:
| Many chronic illnesses are currently being researched as a KD
| treatment target.
|
| Continuous ketones measurement is a big deal.
| tehjoker wrote:
| does anyone with relevant scientific background know how accurate
| this kind of sensor could potentially be?
| m463 wrote:
| that's an interesting question.
|
| there's sort of a usefulness threshold, and then there's a "can
| calculate insulin" threshold.
|
| I think a LOT of people could benefit from plain high, medium,
| low with the understanding that you wouldn't make insulin
| decision based on it.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| I have a friend who tried one of the invasive continuous
| glucose monitors and finding out which common foods spiked
| their blood sugar the most and the least was useful.
| bythreads wrote:
| Pretty accurate since this works of averages - discarding
| outliners and norming get you close to the actual number pretty
| quickly - also with glucose your're interested in fluctuations
| more than absolutes
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Probably accurate enough to learn how your body responds to
| different foods and exercise, to help prevent pre-diabetes, to
| help with general weight loss, and to help endurance athletes
| in their training.
|
| But there is no universe it will be accurate enough to make
| insulin dosing decisions. Insulin dependent diabetics will
| require CGMs or finger pricks for another couple decades.
| UomoNeroNero wrote:
| I manage my diabete with a "sensor" (Dexcom), an insulin pump,
| and a "loop device." I would NEVER use Apple Watch for therapy,
| and I don't think Apple wants to step into this minefield. BUT
| I guarantee you that having your glucose level as an
| (instantaneous/statistical) data point is a game-changer. There
| are "pre-diabetes" phases where even mild monitoring (and an
| alert) can be essential. And for those already in the tunnel,
| knowing you can have an additional "backup" alarm for
| hypo/hyper is very interesting (though, thinking about it,
| another alarm... no, better not :-D).
| rasz wrote:
| Went better than last time when they were stealing Masimo
| patented tech.
| z3t4 wrote:
| Petens where invented so that the big companies wouln't steal
| your ideas and outcompete you in the market. I know that many of
| the people in this community is against patents, but they are
| ment to protect you guys in particular. So that your startup have
| a chanse against the big corporations.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| Seems like they're mostly accomplishing the opposite these
| days.
| bawolff wrote:
| Road to hell is paved with good intentions.
| drannex wrote:
| Originally intended, not the way they are used now, especially
| with the costs involved.
| TheDong wrote:
| I really like the tool for the little guys which requires a
| $100/hour+ lawyer both to create, and to enforce, and to gain
| any other benefit out of.
|
| Patents were created not to protect the little man, but with
| the intent of creating a vibrant commons of knowledge.
|
| Not that the original intent matters at all at this point,
| we're so far from that that it's only really of interest to
| historians.
| hgomersall wrote:
| Where does one find a $100/hour lawyer?
| jamiek88 wrote:
| 1998
| pjc50 wrote:
| Since the system was changed from first-to-invent to first-to-
| file, it's now completely possible for a big corp to copy
| someone's invention, overtake them in the patent process, and
| lock them out of being able to patent or use their own
| invention.
| tzs wrote:
| That's not how it works. First-to-file (FTF) did not change
| the requirements for patentability. You still have to have
| invented the thing you want to patent, and in your scenario
| Big Corp did not invent the thing.
|
| All FTF changes is what happens when multiple inventors
| invent the same thing.
|
| Under first-to-invent (FTI) your priority date was the date
| you conceived the invention _if_ you then worked diligently
| toward reducing the idea to practice up until you filed your
| patent application. If you stopped working diligently on
| reducing the idea to practice and then resumed it, the date
| you resumed became your new priority date.
|
| What counts as a break in working toward reduction to
| practice sufficient to reset your priority date? How much
| documentation do you need to prove you were working
| continuously on it from your claimed priority date?
|
| Figuring all that out can be expensive and time consuming and
| often gives results that seem wrong. It's almost random
| whether the priority date by this method actually matches who
| seems to morally most deserve the patent.
|
| FTF gives priority to whoever files first. It doesn't produce
| any worse outcome than FTI and saves a lot of time and money
| for both the patent office and applicants.
| nmstoker wrote:
| This is entirely inaccurate (patently so!)
|
| A couple of 30 second Google searches would show how their
| invention pre-dated the prevalence of big companies by
| centuries.
| jjk166 wrote:
| Patents were invented as a way for governments (and really at
| the time monarchs) to regulate commercial activity and attract
| skilled craftspeople. Modern patents were a reform of this to
| stop monarchs from abusing this power as effectively a tax.
| This starts in Venice in 1474. By the time the US patent system
| was created, the goal was to promote publication of technical
| information, rather than it being kept secret. This was a few
| decades before the first industrial corporations in the US.
| pyaamb wrote:
| This is great news and I can only hope for something similar to
| transpire with e-ink patents. _fingers crossed_
| userbinator wrote:
| Many of those may be actually getting close to expiry if not
| expired already - the technology is over 20 years old by now.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I remember doing a report in high school chemistry class, 75
| years ago, on the promise of e-ink technology.
| choeger wrote:
| You talked about e-ink in high school in 1950?
| pentamassiv wrote:
| That must have been a typo, sarcasm or trolling. Looking
| at the users other submissions, they seem to have parents
| [1], go to the gym [2] and use Tinder [3] which seems
| unlikely if they are ~90 years old.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38133254 [2]
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39370419 [3]
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35006052
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| It was an exaggeration. High school was decades ago, but
| it feels like a million years. We thought e-ink tech
| would be widespread within a handful of years. Little did
| we know.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| interesting, what kinds of things are being held back in the
| meantime? Or, just price/competition?
| zdw wrote:
| Note that this isn't the Blood Oxygen sensor (Masimo being the
| other party in that case), which is still stuck in court.
| jurmous wrote:
| The blood oxygen sensor does work outside the US
| andriesm wrote:
| Wow! Really - this is the one patent-restricted feature I was
| hoping they were going to solve. I'm curious if a decent
| quality blood oxygen meter could give me additional data
| about my sleep apnea. I've previously trief several blood
| oxygen meters ordered from Amazon, and the results were very
| low accuracy and low confidence, and the only decent ones
| couldn't log data continuously over time. (At least not when
| I bought a few different ones a handful of years ago)
| procaryote wrote:
| Perhaps you could try a Garmin watch or activity band?
| Afaict they don't have the same geo restriction. They're
| less smart as smart watches go, but in return they have
| better battery life
| MartinMond wrote:
| Did you try the ones from https://getwellue.com/? In my
| informal testing against "medical-grade" SPO2 monitors they
| were accurate and they record all night long.
| buddy27 wrote:
| Oura gives an averaged overnight blood oxygen reading, and
| gives insight into breathing regularity and any
| disturbances that it caught.
|
| https://support.ouraring.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/7328398760851...
| Terretta wrote:
| > _averaged overnight_
|
| Which is the opposite of what's needed to understand
| whether scattered short term variations are breathing
| stops to worry about.
|
| > _regularity_
|
| Their variation feature does mark moments of (selectable
| low/med/high) variance, without the medically diagnostic
| information that seems to get patent claimants going.
|
| One would then need to get a pre-ban Apple Watch (as it's
| a software toggle and the ban was not retroactive watches
| registered before that date continue to support the
| feature) or other device to monitor and record the data
| one's doctor needs.
| eps wrote:
| Pretty much any modern Garmin will do that really well.
| genewitch wrote:
| I have an amazfit bip 2 or 3 and iirc I can enable spo2
| monitoring "constantly" I don't because mine is always 99
| so I shut it off and just test manually.
|
| It tracks movement and breathing during sleep. I think it
| now tracks snoring too, wakeups, rem/deep sleep times, and
| steps, heart rate, and stress levels.
|
| The app is called zepp and I don't know if any of this is
| exportable but I only care about a cheap watch that has
| heartrate on it.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Mine doesn't seem to. I have a US Apple Watch that I use
| outside the US all the time. Non-US account/app store too.
| plausibility wrote:
| My understanding is it's like iPhone purchased in Japan
| always having the shutter noise no matter where they're
| taking a picture.
|
| Apple Watches purchased and activated in USA after the
| patent lawsuit cut off date won't have the feature enabled,
| even if you travel or move.
| gwervc wrote:
| That's plain wrong. iPhone uses sim data or something to
| enable/disable that noise. Source: myself with two
| iPhones bought in Japan and used both there and in the
| EU.
| kalleboo wrote:
| This is a recent change, until about 3 iPhone models ago
| it worked how GP described it
| jurmous wrote:
| I was reading it is based on the part numbers and it is a
| different number for US bought watches.
|
| If number ends with LW/A you will not have it
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/120359
| tylrprtr wrote:
| This is correct. You could order a Series 10 from a
| Canadian source and have a working blood oxygen sensor.
| tedd4u wrote:
| Can verify this works. Use reship.com to get a Canadian
| mailing address and have it forwarded.
| bqmjjx0kac wrote:
| I'm in the US and I totally forgot about the blood oxygen
| patent fiasco. I have an Apple Watch Series 8 and it
| continues to work. Maybe it's only newer models that are
| affected?
|
| (Aha, this article says it's Series 9 and Ultra 2 that are
| affected:
| <https://www.tomsguide.com/wellness/smartwatches/apple-
| wins-p...>.)
| adrr wrote:
| Blocked by the International Trade Commission from being
| imported which is why watches prior to block still work. Patent
| case ended up in a hung jury trial with all but 1 juror siding
| with Apple.
| bschne wrote:
| Aside: I was surprised to read "dental caries" in the list of
| things detectable through similar methods in the court filing
| screenshot in this post. Is that about a device that could
| optically detect caries from tooth surfaces through similar
| principles?
| schiffern wrote:
| If you've ever put a bright light up to your teeth in a mirror,
| it's pretty incredibly how translucent dental enamel actually
| is, and the level of internal detail you can see just by eye.
| nkrisc wrote:
| That's how dentists check for issues as well: they very
| briefly shine a light through your teeth and capture a
| picture the resulting shadow.
| genewitch wrote:
| "Light"?
|
| Most light won't make electrons frolic in your body.
| JoshTko wrote:
| Startup opportunity for a light based 3rd tooth scanner?
| genewitch wrote:
| Check if glidewell has a patent on it first. They have the
| smallest intra-oral scanner I've seen, and I saw it 12
| years ago. It's like a cigar. I may be wrong and they
| didn't make the scanner.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Also a nice way to realize how cracked your teeth might be.
| benmccann wrote:
| Check out https://www.perceptive.io/
| oliyoung wrote:
| Is this a software or hardware patent, because afaics the sensors
| on the newer Watches would already support this so it could just
| be a software update?
| codelion wrote:
| Yeah, the 20-year limit is definitely a thing. Maybe the 2004
| patent was for some specific _improvement_ to the original pulse
| oximeter tech? Patent law is tricky like that.
| tzs wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that this patent was keeping Apple from
| adding blood glucose sensing. Yes, I know a patent on blood
| oxygen level sensing stopped Apple, but there is a huge
| difference between oxygen level sensing and glucose sensing.
|
| For oxygen sensing there are numerous readily available
| inexpensive stand-alone sensors available at any drug store or
| online. They are non-invasive and painless. Yes, a continuously
| wearable sensor would be better for some people but most people
| don't need that. Accordingly it is something that while nice
| wouldn't really sell a lot of watches, and so something that
| might not be worth licensing if it is under patent.
|
| Glucose sensing on the other hand is a literal pain to test and
| has ongoing costs due to consumables used for the testing. Non-
| invasive painless glucose sensing on a watch is a feature that
| would sell a lot of watches. I think demand would be high enough,
| even if they have to raise prices, that it would easily be worth
| it.
| analog31 wrote:
| I work in a related area. Non-invasive blood glucose has been a
| holy grail for analytical science, for decades, and remains a
| brutally difficult problem.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Yup. But there's hope that computational techniques can
| extract the signal from the noise.
|
| If they can it'll be huge. Maybe even Ozempic-huge. There's a
| theory of weight loss that you can objectively manage your
| weight by never allowing your blood sugar to go over a
| certain level.
| bubblethink wrote:
| >There's a theory of weight loss that you can objectively
| manage your weight by never allowing your blood sugar to go
| over a certain level.
|
| That doesn't work, even if it were true. You can also
| manage your weight by never allowing the weight on the
| scale to go over a certain level.
| crazygringo wrote:
| What do you mean it doesn't work? How do you know?
|
| And no -- your weight on the scale varies drastically
| with water levels and food in the gut. By up to five
| pounds. It is useless for figuring out if you can eat
| another bite of rice.
|
| While glucose levels are literally minute-by-minute.
| They're fine-grained enough to actually tell you when to
| eat more and when to not.
| ac29 wrote:
| I think the point was that it is easier said than done.
|
| Losing weight is simple in theory, you can just eat less.
| In practice, eating less is very hard for some people.
| Having real time glucose information isn't going to help
| those people.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Actually, it may _very well_ help those people.
|
| Losing weight is hard because it can be incredibly
| difficult to "just eat less" _by the right amount_.
|
| If you "eat less" too little, you won't lose weight.
| While if you "eat less" too much, your health suffers and
| willpower becomes too difficult.
|
| And counting calories doesn't work well if your calorie
| needs vary per-day, which nearly everyone's does -- how
| much did you walk, what temperature were the rooms you
| were in, etc.
|
| The idea is that real time glucose information will allow
| you to "eat just right" -- never eating so little that
| willpower becomes an issue, but never so much that you
| gain weight (or fail to lose weight).
|
| You shouldn't be so dismissive of the idea.
| RandomUser4976 wrote:
| Nonsense. Tell this to humans that die when their blood
| glucose is insanely high (500mg/dl), go into DKA and they
| are SKINNY!!! You're suggesting 20 calories can make you
| obese because it raises blood glucose lol! 3-5 grams (12-20
| calories) of a mild-glycemic index carbohydrate can send
| your blood glucose well above 120mg/dl and you would not
| gain weight because of an extra 12-20 calories.
| Additionally, 1,200 calories from fat (133 grams of fat)
| will not spike your blood glucose until 5-12 hours later
| and you you can gain weight, but that signal is lost
| because the rise in blood glucose happens 1-3 meals, or
| even the next day after eating the high fat meal. Blood
| glucose is VERY important but not predictive of weight.
| Diet, (the amount and macro composition of calories) is
| predictive of weight and exercise is predictive of weight.
| The are other factors, but those are the main predictors.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Tell this to humans that die when their blood glucose
| is insanely high (500mg /dl), go into DKA and they are
| SKINNY!!!_
|
| We're not talking about people with underlying health
| conditions. Exceptions don't invalidate a general
| principle.
|
| > _You're suggesting 20 calories can make you obese
| because it raises blood glucose lol!_
|
| Nothing "lol" about it. An extra 20 calories, 20 times a
| day, every day for months and years, above your caloric
| needs, is yes quite likely to make you obese. How else do
| you think most people get obese?
|
| > _fat... will not spike your blood glucose until 5-12
| hours later_
|
| And you can become aware of those patterns. You will
| know, for example, not to eat anything else during that
| window. Or learn to eat fat in gradual amounts, rather
| than large amounts in a single sitting.
|
| > _Blood glucose is VERY important but not predictive of
| weight._
|
| You seem quite confident about that. You're also quite
| possibly wrong. The underlying logic is pretty sound: we
| gain weight when our blood sugar goes up and therefore
| our insulin goes up to remove the sugar from the
| bloodstream and, eventually, store it as fat.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, there's always a hope that more advanced
| computation will crack this nut in the future. That's been
| a constant for a quarter century too.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Glucose sensing on the other hand is a literal pain to test
|
| I'd be hard-pressed to believe that someone trying the newest
| Dexcom G7 CGM would find it more discomforting than a mosquito
| bite. And for that literal pain you get 10 days of constant
| readings on your phone.
|
| > I think demand would be high enough, even if they have to
| raise prices, that it would easily be worth it.
|
| This is probably correct but I don't think many non-diabetic
| people would see an actual benefit from CGM data. It's the kind
| of thing people love to think is useful but in reality it'll be
| just one more thing to ignore.
| JoshTko wrote:
| The market is likely for folks that are unaware that they
| have some glucose issue.
| paulcole wrote:
| I agree with the idea that the market that this will be
| sold to is people who believe they will benefit from CGM
| data.
|
| My point is that CGM data is very very very unlikely to
| change behavior in the overwhelming majority of people.
| genewitch wrote:
| If apples app explains everything simply and factually,
| maybe users can set alerts if a meal spikes tbem more
| than a meal normally does. I don't know much about
| diabetes so flip that around if I said it backward.
|
| I would have probably quit drinking alcohol a lot earlier
| if I had seen the hell it plays with sugars in your blood
| iirc.
|
| Sometimes a notification that you did something unhealthy
| might be enough? Like my watch buzzes if it detects less
| than X steps in the last hour, tells me to get up. The
| app tells me I get to sleep too late most days.
|
| If it told me that food I just ate is something I'll have
| to be careful with...
| sgmoore wrote:
| > you get 10 days
|
| Isn't that the key point and means Dexcom/Libre would cost
| you (or your insurance company) several thousands of
| dollars/pounds/euros/etc every single year. For many people
| they already have an iphone and just need an Apple watch
| which could last for several years.
| paulcole wrote:
| Right... my comment was arguing against the assertion that
| testing is a literal pain, not a metaphorical pain in the
| wallet.
|
| Yes, obviously if Apple could figure out how to get
| accurate BG numbers on an iPhone it would be better than
| the currently available CGMs.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| I have type-1 diabetes, brought on late in life after going
| through a miserable 2 years of stress after my wife was in a
| coma due to medical negligence. She came out of it, but the
| damage was done, she won't recover, and she is a shadow of
| who she was. Prolonged extreme stress can trigger type-1
| diabetes, and once you have it, you have it for the rest of
| your life.
|
| Right now, I'm on glipizide which manages (along with a low-
| carb diet) the situation, but I need the GCM so I know when
| this "honeymoon" period (before I start needing insulin)
| starts to end.
|
| Unfortunately I have an extreme needle phobia too. My
| insurance doesn't cover the G7, just the G6, so I don't know
| if it's different, but if I try to apply the G6, my heart
| rate will massively speed up, I will start to hyperventilate,
| and typically pass out when I click the button on the
| applicator. I'm out for only a few minutes, but it's not a
| pleasant experience... I have to make sure I'm lying on a bed
| to do it now, after learning the hard way that it's possible
| to fall when just sitting down, and head wounds don't stop
| bleeding when you're unconscious.
|
| I would dearly love the ability to measure glucose non-
| invasively. It's actually nowhere near as bad for me if I
| don't have to click it myself, but my wife wouldn't
| understand what to do, and my son is too young for me to feel
| comfortable asking. Theres no-one else around to help, so
| sometimes I make a dr appt, for a 10-second "click". Most of
| the time I just put up with it. The hope is that the phobia
| starts to diminish, but so far it hasn't, and yes I've tried
| psychologists.
|
| Every 10 days, and [sigh] as I write, I recall that today is
| the day. Again.
| lolc wrote:
| The G7 has a smaller applicator. To me it looks less
| "needly" than the G6 did. The libre applicator is even
| smaller. There's less of a need to look at the underside
| because the applicator is set on the skin without having to
| pull free the sticker. That could make it easier for you.
|
| But obviously they all have a needle because they need to
| get something under your skin. Which is I guess what
| triggers you.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Doesn't really matter what the G7 offers, it's not
| covered by the insurance :( I was originally on the
| Libre-3 but they stopped making them (now it's virtually
| the same thing but called the Libre-3+ and my insurance
| doesn't offer that either, even though the difference is
| just in Bluetooth).
|
| So G6 it is. And yeah, the difference between the non-
| invasive and invasive is what causes the problem. It's
| weird, I don't have any other phobias, but I found out
| about this one when we all stabbed our fingers to test
| our blood-groups in school. Fell off the stool in the
| lab, 14 stitches in my scalp. Not the last time, either.
| paulcole wrote:
| I'm T1 as well and the G7 is night and day better than the
| G6. Total game changer for me.
|
| Hopefully you get access to it soon.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > I'd be hard-pressed to believe that someone trying the
| newest Dexcom G7 CGM would find it more discomforting than a
| mosquito bite.
|
| Not diabetic, but I've tried a set of two of these out of
| curiosity. The insertion pain is nothing, but having
| something bonded to your skin with adhesive constantly is
| kind of a pain.
|
| I also got some irritation at the insertion sites around the
| 1-week mark, though that might have been because I don't have
| much fat on that area of my arm.
| officialchicken wrote:
| Huh? The G7 requires an app on your phone. Being slim and
| hitting muscle when using any kind of subcutaneous device
| burns like hell.
|
| The CGM that wins is the one that doesnt stop working when
| batteries die. Or piercing the skin.
| ijustlovemath wrote:
| we're building an artificial pancreas for hospitals, so I know
| a good bit about CGMs. Noninvasive blood sugar sensing is
| horrifically difficult. Every few years, people come along and
| say "oh this is just some simple DSP on spectroscopic
| information, piece of cake" before inevitably running up
| against:
|
| - skin conductivity changes over time
|
| - the ways in which skin tone changes signal absorption (which
| itself changes over time)
|
| - the ways in which different levels of fitness affect blood
| flow, material density etc.
|
| You also can't use it in a hospital setting, due to how your
| skin and bloodflow changes during serious conditions like
| sepsis (though I'm guessing they're not thinking about that
| market).
|
| Really smart people have been trying to use Raman spectroscopy
| to solve this problem for decades at this point (early patents
| go to early 2000s). Apple is an extremely strong hardware
| vendor, and I wish them luck, but I would not hold my breath
| for this. Plus, I'm guessing they will not open the signal up
| for looping, which would really leave the T*DM community out to
| dry.
| cookingmyserver wrote:
| Honestly, none of those sound like blockers for the use case
| I and many other diabetics would like - monitoring for
| general blood sugar responses (rough curve) after eating.
| Sure, you wouldn't be able to use the measurements to dose
| insulin or even measure your actual (numeric) glucose level,
| but measuring my A1C every three months is good enough to do
| that in mine and many other cases. I've had my blood sugar
| controlled through diet and metformin with it being in the
| range of 5.9 - 6.2. I could do so much better if I had a
| better understanding of how my body, specifically, reacts to
| certain foods, mealtimes, routines (exercise after eating),
| etc.
|
| It would be super helpful to know (relative to other foods)
| how my body reacts to claimed low-carb foods. Is there a
| large spike (don't need to know the number) or is it a much
| more flat curve? How long in general does it take for the
| line to return to pre-meal levels? What does that trend look
| like over many months? Heck, I could even run a rudimentary
| and simple test to do comparative insulin response to a known
| amount of carbs to see if my insulin response is improving
| over time (using the period of the curve). I would love to
| get an alert that hey, we think your glucose level shot up a
| lot (don't care how much) so that I can remediate it through
| exercise then and there and avoid that food or timing going
| forward.
|
| Really hoping the people in Medtech don't make perfect the
| enemy of good in this case. Although maybe what you listed
| would still be blockers for even getting general glucose
| curves. I've been planning on getting a CGM for at least a
| few months to achieve all of this, but it would be great to
| just have it in a watch or other simple wearable.
| ijustlovemath wrote:
| Agreed that the value of a CGM is in the change
| information, and that adding a CGM is probably the biggest
| quality of life increase for anyone with diabetes. Highly
| pro CGM if you can get it!
|
| The issue with spectroscopic approaches is the amount of
| noise can be really hard to disentangle, to the point that
| you might get really unreliable trend information, where it
| might even be dangerous if you're making dosing decisions
| off it. And even if you aren't, getting incorrect trend
| information doesn't really help you any more than just not
| knowing it.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| I have always had the following idea. Show specificalists in the
| domain the end result and make them reproduce it without reading
| the patent. If they succeed - the patent is invalid.
| jmyeet wrote:
| This is your daily reminder that patents stifle innovation. This
| was evident over a century ago and the poster child for this is
| the so-called Wright Brothers patent war [1].
|
| The Wright brothers patented a method of flight control and then
| went on a litigation spree. The result was that the US was unable
| to build airplanes. This became a problem when the US entered
| World War One and the US military had to buy planes from France.
|
| This situation was so bad that the Federal government stepped in
| to force the major players to create a patent pool, a situation
| that lasted until 1977.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war
| fennecfoxy wrote:
| "Celebrating Apple's spirit of innovation" yeah, sure.
|
| Why only Apple? Wouldn't this allow every smart watch/sensor
| manufacturer to do the same thing?
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Going through BS patents would be a nice job for Musk's DOGE.
| That would do more good than firing people and two days later
| noticing that this people actually were important.
| bilsbie wrote:
| How accurate is it. I loved having a cgm for a few weeks. It's
| over the counter now.
|
| The strangest thing was keeping my blood sugar spikes really low
| but still gaining weight. I didn't think my body could really
| store fat without a spike but apparently it can.
| wdb wrote:
| I wish there was a way to measure blood pressure via an Apple
| Watch :) Don't think that's feasible
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-21 23:01 UTC)