Apple Watch import ban stay opposed by ITC

This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits

macdaddy1944 said:

This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits

It is in their own interest to never pay licensing fees unless forced to in the short term, and then design their way out of it in the next iteration. Every single company must play it this way. Masimo plays it this way. For some things, the lawyers say they can't win the patent fight for this or that feature, wherein there is no other way to do it, so they license. For others, it is cheaper to fight than to pay.

You have to remember no technology, no data was "stolen" here. It's the nature of the US patent system to award patents that are as generalizable as possible, such that the patent is basically an idea that anybody can think of, and they leave it to courts to have the patents invalidated, modified, and to have the companies fight it out. For example, Apple can get out of violating a section of Masimo's patent by simply not using a chamfer, which is one of the claims the ITC say Apple is violating. There's always a "rainmaker" patent. That one, two, or three set of patents that are sufficiently general enough that it could apply to company's product, so these court cases arise.

So, if you are Apple, or own a company that produces any kind of product, it really is in your best interest to always fight against patent license fees. Always. If you don't, you won't be able to afford to actually make a product. So if they can't get the patents invalidated, they will have to design around it.

macdaddy1944 said:

This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits

Why would Apple pay Masimo if they don’t believe they infringed on their patents?  I don’t believe they set out to steal or infringe on someone else’s technology.  The ITC gave their opinion, other courts will give their opinion, and in the end we will know what will come from this.  People can believe what they want to believe, but to assume that there is legitimacy to an infringement claim based on a subjective opinion is foolish.

Hopefully Apple patents their new design this time so Masimo doesn’t steal it again. This patent Apple violated came out after the series 6 and just blatantly copied Apple’s design.

You have to remember no technology, no data was "stolen" here. It's the nature of the US patent system to award patents that are as generalizable as possible, such that the patent is basically an idea that anybody can think of, and they leave it to courts to have the patents invalidated, modified, and to have the companies fight it out.

Right. And if you want to read the patent it is very clear this is what is happening. Not only that, one of the two patents was Masimo patenting Apple’s design after they released it. I saw on one patent news site that observed this was a strange aspect that rarely happens. Apparently so trivial that Apple forgot to patent it themselves. The second patent was struck down as prior art, contested, then brought back in. It is also very trivial.