Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

Not the most neutral article.<p>Worth to note that is not just some obscure small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple. Masimo is a decades-old medical equipment company, with several developments and patents for non-invasive PPG. Apple is obviously well-aware of their developments, and was in touch with them already in 2013, more than a year before the launch of the Apple Watch.<p>From the actual lawsuit filed by Masimo in 2020 [1]:<p>&quot;In 2013, Apple contacted Masimo and asked to meet regarding a potential collaboration. Apple told Masimo that Apple would like to understand more about Masimo’s technology to potentially integrate that technology into Apple’s products. Apple and Masimo later entered into a confidentiality agreement, and Masimo’s management met with Apple. The meetings included confidential discussions of Masimo’s technology. After what seemed to Masimo to have been productive meetings, Apple quickly began trying to hire Masimo employees, including engineers and key management.&quot;<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fingfx.thomsonreuters.com&#x2F;gfx&#x2F;legaldocs&#x2F;byvrlojrdve&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fingfx.thomsonreuters.com&#x2F;gfx&#x2F;legaldocs&#x2F;byvrlojrdve&#x2F;</a>...

<p><pre><code> a plurality of emitters configured to emit light, each of the emitters comprising at least two light emitting diodes (LEDs); four photodiodes arranged within the user-worn device and configured to receive light after at least a portion of the light has been attenuated by tissue of the user; a protrusion comprising a convex surface including separate openings extending through the protrusion and lined with opaque material, each opening positioned over a different one associated with each of the four photodiodes, the opaque material configured to reduce an amount of light reaching the photodiodes without being attenuated by the tissue; optically transparent material within each of the openings; and one or more processors configured to receive one or more signals from at least one of the four photodiodes and output measurements responsive to the one or more signals, the measurements indicative of the oxygen saturation of the user. </code></pre> How was this granted a patent? With some fudging, we can stretch this to describe <i>every single</i> pulseoximeter made in the past 50 years.<p>I would like to assume good faith on behalf of the plaintiffs, but this seems like patent trolling by an otherwise legitimate company.

This seems like a problematic patent based on two of the doctrines, both of which the courts have largely abandoned. Firstly, it’s patently obvious. The pulse ox technology in a transmissive mode is very old, and so is HRM in a reflective mode, and the only difference is in the subtleties of the engineering, none of which is reflected in the patent nor the claims. The second reason, relatedly, is the requirement for “replicability by a person of ordinary skill”. The patent reveals nothing that would enable someone to do that, and certainly doesn’t add anything to the ability of a skilled person to do so. The whole thing is just an idea, not an original one, and ideas are not supposed to be patentable.

Patents in question:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10912502B2&#x2F;en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10912502B2&#x2F;en</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10945648B2&#x2F;en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10945648B2&#x2F;en</a><p>They look identical to me btw? both files on 2020-02 and have title of &quot;User-worn device for noninvasively measuring a physiological parameter of a user&quot;. From summary:<p>&gt; light source comprises LEDs and super-luminescent LEDs. The light source emits light at at least wavelengths of about 1610 nm, about 1640 nm, and about 1665 nm. In an embodiment, the detector comprises a plurality of photodetectors arranged in a special geometry comprising...<p>there are 30 claims and some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art (&quot;a storage device configured to at least temporarily store at least the measurement&quot;).. I wonder what&#x27;s the real innovation is there?

Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess. Apple has been busy patenting obvious VR&#x2F;AR features and I have no doubt we will see them attempting to aggressively exercise these in future years to shut down alternatives to Vision Pro in the future.

All these intellectual property lawsuits look like an economic loss overall. The laws don’t work as intended if they aimed to encourage innovation

I think we need a different form of patent.<p>Current patents attempt to claim: this thing I figured out is novel and nobody else should copy me.<p>Many times, they claim this so someone else can&#x27;t claim it and thus avoid arbitration.<p>It would be nice if we could also file: this thing I figured out is not novel and is a natural progression to the current state-of-the-art.<p>I guess the only means of doing this currently is to attempt to invalidate a patent? Or maybe, a whole swath of patents?<p>There is nothing truly-novel here (IMHO.) This is like a toothbrush patent with a slightly different number of bristles than every other toothbrush patent in order to sell a toothbrush legally.

The patent in question: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10945648B2&#x2F;en?oq=US-10945648-B2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;patents.google.com&#x2F;patent&#x2F;US10945648B2&#x2F;en?oq=US-1094...</a>

Intellectual property purports to foster innovation and reward idea-havers. It does the opposite, stifling innovation and rewarding rent seekers over tinkerers.<p>See case study of a notable IP monopoly, Watt&#x27;s steam engine: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fee.org&#x2F;media&#x2F;5345&#x2F;122008freeman-boldrin.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fee.org&#x2F;media&#x2F;5345&#x2F;122008freeman-boldrin.pdf</a>

&quot;Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo&quot;<p>&quot;Joe Kiani, the chief executive of Masimo, said in an interview that Apple had not engaged in licensing negotiations. Instead, he said that Apple had appealed to President Biden to veto the I.T.C. ruling, which Mr. Kiani knows because the administration contacted Masimo about Apple’s request.&quot;<p>“If they don’t want to use our chip, I’ll work with them to make their product good,” Mr. Kiani said. “Once it’s good enough, I’m happy to give them a license.”<p>Super interesting case, thought Apple would be less sloppy than this.

What&#x27;s new in this patent? Cheap ($10) pulse ox sensors operating on similar principles have been available since well before this patent has been filed.

Masimo, the company who is suing apple, has a market cap around ~$6B. Apple&#x27;s wearable business (which might include the audio products as well, I guess), at least according to the article, &quot;generated $13.48 billion in revenue&quot;. Don&#x27;t think this is as big of a threat as someone like Samsung suing iPhone.

Samsung phones (Note 8?) had a pulse oximeter that was downgraded via software updates (you could still access if installing an older APK). I wonder if it was in response to something similar. And, could Apple have similarly complied with a simple software change?

Since Masimo is a publicly traded company, can’t Apple just buy enough shares to have a controlling interest in the company and just force them to back out?

Interesting that the president of the USA has the duty to also review this kind of disputes. If he can pardon people and in USA corporations are people could in theory the president pardon a company for some crime they did ?

Apparently third-party resellers can still sell Apple Watches that have already been imported to the US (but Apple cannot import anymore, nor can it sell any first-party).<p>I wonder if Apple has been importing like crazy, and selling to big retailers like Amazon and Walmart. That way customers can continue to purchase (albeit not from Apple) for the next several months. Then Apple can perhaps release a new version in May, using different technology that either doesn&#x27;t infringe, or at least would require a new trial to establish infringement.<p>If this is the case, I think Apple could even continue to have AW showcases in their stores, where people could try them on, see how the features work, and see which size fits best. After all, this wouldn&#x27;t violate the ban on importation (assuming the store models were already in the US), nor would it violate the ban on first-party sales (since Apple wouldn&#x27;t be selling the store models).

I wish there was a functional alternative to patents. It seems like if you have a good idea there should be some protections afforded to you to use it. At the very least attribution. But who can afford the cost of registering patents and then defending them? The system is not setup in a way that fosters innovation. It would be really cool if you truly could own an idea for some (sane) period.<p>It would be cool to build up an intellectual portfolio of stuff that you&#x27;ve thought of uniquely apart from everyone else. To me this would be like (1) a unique challenge of designing novel processes, systems, concepts (2) the reward of having a new IP which would be useful for your portfolio (and may lead to future business opportunities) (3) incentivising people to think more since intellectual work could be &#x27;owned&#x27; and the result monetized (either directly or indirectly.)<p>But IMO - it would have to be cheap so that ideas could easily be registered; efficient - so that authorship could be managed fast (or revoked if &#x27;prior art&#x27; is found); and those falsely claiming authorship could be pursed without the patent owners having to act as police for their IP. Ideally, registration fees would cover attorney costs, patent research, and policing the patents (am I being naïve.) Maybe a revenue sharing agreement between patent-owners back into the system could even make patent registrations free which would be massive? Governments could also help back this if it made more jobs (which seems possible to me.)

Initially I presumed this was a patent troll sitting on something obvious and trying to extort a big player. Reading about the actual story reveals a very different situation, and it&#x27;s one in which Apple needs to pay an extremely heavy toll for scumbag behaviour.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;technology&#x2F;story&#x2F;2023-10-05&#x2F;column-joe-kiani-masimo-apple-watch-pulse-oximeter-lawsuit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;technology&#x2F;story&#x2F;2023-10-05...</a><p>Apple did <i>precisely</i> the sorts of things that big companies are reviled for, and the only good outcome is that this costs them an enormous sum of money, and every scumbag manager involved in this behaviour lose their jobs.

This stuff is ancient technology. It&#x27;s a pulse oximeter. We&#x27;ve had those for decades. And then this is a pulse oximeter with computer storage attached. That&#x27;s a nonsense patent. If Apple is fighting it, perhaps there&#x27;s a chance it will invalidate. That&#x27;s a good thing for us.

Damn need to go get one. Still have the series 3.

Arbitrage opportunity on Ultra 2? I’d love to have one of these and thought about running out today to get one before I’m locked out.<p>Will others be willing to pay more next month when that lock is in effect?

Apple has a history of stealing timepiece technology:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;tech-industry&#x2F;apple-accused-of-ripping-off-famous-swiss-clock-design&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnet.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;tech-industry&#x2F;apple-accused-of-rip...</a>

I wonder if it&#x27;s sometimes advantageous to lose a patent case. Maybe an unscrupulous company (not Apple) could intentionally lose a patent case, to help widen the moat between them and any would-be clones, because they can afford to pay the patent troll and clones cannot.

The cynic in me, believes that Apple pulling them now is a marketing ploy ahead of Christmas. Waiting until actually needing to pull them would have not really impacted sales, but this way they get to generate demand right before the big giving day.

There are many works on this topic which are of academic nature? Oura (as in Oura Ring) is referring to some of those and is also holding patents on the subject. I wonder how Oura is dealing with this as their ring also has an SpO2 sensor.

This kind of case is why I hate patents. As many other commenters pointed out, the fact that light through the skin can be used to measure biometrics is arguably &quot;obvious&quot; given that many people noticed it around the same time. The patent simply measures which group had the $, time, and motivation to submit a patent before any of their peers did. In this situation, the basic measurement method appears all over the place, like in cheap pulseoximeters. Sticking the same device in a wearable or other device isn&#x27;t a giant leap that deserves being defended via patent law to protect an &quot;inventor&quot;.<p>I&#x27;m sure patents have a place in the modern world, but I rarely see a case where they are being used as intended - more often than not, it&#x27;s as I said above : a measure of who from a bunch of peers who &quot;invented&quot; the same thing at the same time made their submission to a patent office first with the goal of squelching competition or building revenue streams via licensing. Basically, scummy practices abusing the system. Apple certainly is not innocent in this regard - I hate it when they play this game just as much as I hate it when others do too.

from a couple of months ago, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2023&#x2F;10&#x2F;apple-watch-facing-potential-ban-after-losing-masimo-patent-case&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2023&#x2F;10&#x2F;apple-watch-faci...</a>:<p>&quot;The ITC&#x27;s ruling upholds a January ruling that found that the Apple Watch infringed on a Masimo patent. The exclusion period recommended on Thursday is supposed to go into effect after 60 days, during which time President Joe Biden can overturn the ruling. Biden previously declined to veto an ITC ruling that found the Apple Watch violated patents of a different company, AliveCor.&quot;<p>&quot;Masimo has accused Apple of entering discussions with it for a potential partnership, including a potential acquisition, in 2013, only to steal Masimo&#x27;s idea and poach some of Masimo&#x27;s engineers to implement it.&quot;<p>&quot;As noted by Reuters, Apple and Masimo&#x27;s legal battles are ongoing. In May, Masimo&#x27;s lawsuit against Apple in California federal court ended in a mistrial, and Apple has also sued Masimo in Delaware. Flipping the script, Apple has accused [PDF] Masimo&#x27;s W1 smartwatches of violating Apple Watch patents.&quot;<p>&quot;Meanwhile, Apple is also in an Apple Watch patent battle with California-based AliveCor. AliveCor is currently appealing the revocation of three patents that it claims the Apple Watch infringes upon. Before then, the ITC ruled that the Apple Watch infringes [PDF] on electrocardiogram sensor-related patents. But there&#x27;s no import ban in effect because the US Patent and Trademark Office revoked the patents in question. Like Masimo, AliveCor has accused Apple of initiating a potential partnership but ultimately poaching AliveCor workers and infringing on its patents instead.&quot;<p>Looks like the patent lawyers are going to do well...

This seems to be great marketing.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;9to5mac.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;12&#x2F;18&#x2F;apple-halting-apple-watch-series-9-and-apple-watch-ultra-2-sales&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;9to5mac.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;12&#x2F;18&#x2F;apple-halting-apple-watch-ser...</a><p>&gt; <i>In a statement to 9to5Mac, Apple has announced that it will soon halt sales of its flagship Apple Watch models in the United States.</i><p>&gt; <i>The Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 will no longer be available to purchase from Apple starting later this week.</i><p>And <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;12&#x2F;18&#x2F;tech&#x2F;apple-halt-sales-apple-watches&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2023&#x2F;12&#x2F;18&#x2F;tech&#x2F;apple-halt-sales-apple-w...</a> cleverly paired the story with a file photo of people lining up outside an Apple Store.<p>&gt; <i>The company confirmed to CNN it will no longer be selling its Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, starting Thursday on Apple.com and from retail locations after December 24.</i><p>Get more people captive shoppers in their brick&amp;morder stores during the shopping frenzy.<p>&gt; <i>In October, the International Trade Commission ruled that Apple was in violation of Masimo’s pulse oximeter patent, which uses light-based technology to read blood-oxygen levels. President Biden has 60 days to review the ruling before a ban could go into effect.</i><p>&gt; <i>“While the review period will not end until December 25, Apple is preemptively taking steps to comply should the ruling stand,” the company said in a statement.</i><p>It&#x27;s nice for review of the ruling to drag its feet until after the Christmas shopping period.<p>With the news hype, Apple might even come out ahead?

I was curious about Apple appealing to the Biden administration to veto the ruling because it sounded quite arbitrary from the last paragraph &quot;Apple has had success persuading presidents in the past to veto I.T.C. rulings. In 2013, the Obama administration overturned a ban on the sale of some iPhones and iPads, after the court determined that Apple had violated a patent that Samsung owned.&quot; However, turns out the veto was just on blocking the sales rather than stopping the patent litigation, so even if Apple do get the Biden administration to veto the block and they can start selling phones again, that doesn&#x27;t solve the dispute. As far as I understand it, this is the judge getting fed up with one or both of Apple and Masimo (presumably Apple given that they&#x27;re the one being told to stop selling products) dicking about rather than coming to a settlement.

Why would Apple take their devices off the market or disable the feature instead of parting with a minuscule fraction of the pile of gold they&#x27;re sitting on for a patent license?<p>I mean obviously for now it makes more sense for them to wait and hope they win on appeal or get the import ban veto&#x27;d, but if it actually comes down to not being able to sell the device, surely the lost revenue would exceed the licensing cost?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;P2GeG" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;P2GeG</a>

Why can’t Apple just disable the oxymeter feature in the interim and continue selling Apple Watches?

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;P2GeG" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;P2GeG</a><p>TL;DR: the blood oxygen sensor is patent encumbered somehow.

Is it a good idea to buy Ultra 2 now or will Apple nuke this functionality ?

Why doesn&#x27;t Apple just buy this company instead of fighting with them?

Good to see usa justice system rediscovering their spine against large behemoths (granted that that 60mil would have helped to grease palms of judges &amp; others).<p>would have been better to see a criminal like jobs behind bars. Sadly they never found the courage<p>Hope cook goes

Anyway, there are reports from Bloomberg’s Apple reporter that Apple will ship all new models of watches with a different form factor and new features like BP monitoring in 2024.<p>PS: Was all set with an app design for the Samsung devices a few years ago, but Tizen turned out to be not worthy of any mindshare and I don’t support Google’s surveillance capitalism business model (so no WearOS for me). Meanwhile, Apple doesn’t have a well known procedure for vetting app developers enough to trust some with full access to their crypto-locked devices. With no other similar platforms, there is no real opportunity to advance mankind in this regard at this time anyway…but dang, love those Activity reminders &#x2F;not

Why are you able to halt someone else’s product when you don’t even have a product?<p>It’s supposed to protect first movers, not randos who show up 10 years later and demand cash.

<i>If Biden sides with Masimo and Apple’s appeals are unsuccessful, it may have to modify the Watch’s software to remove the blood oxygen feature in order to resume sales.</i><p>Not that I use the feature all that often, but if I did, I guess it would be time to turn off automatic updates until it gets sorted.<p>TFA is extremely light on details, given that Apple is effectively ordering a stop-ship on their hardware. Was there an attempt at negotiation? If so, that failed because...? If not, why didn&#x27;t that happen? Apple has a bit of cash, but their pockets aren&#x27;t infinitely deep; was Masimo asking too much?

Perfect timing for the holidays.

Sans paywall: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;xJL66" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;xJL66</a>

Well patents are kinda bad and only signify that someone got there first instead of signifying that they were the only ones ever to do so.<p>However, seeing this happen to Apple is a bit of schadenfreude, this is the company that filed lawsuits for smartphones having rounded corners.

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die.<p>EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work when governments grant arbitrary legal monopolies on ideas like this.

IP&#x2F;patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong.<p>You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.

So is there some little guy working out of his&#x2F;her garage here losing out because Apple wouldn&#x27;t honour a patent? Or is it all just big corporations now? I just hate patents in general.