| > On the other hand though, if Apple's legal right to continue locking them out was as certain as you make it sound, wouldn't it make sense for them to file a lawsuit and set precedent for anybody walking in Beeper's footsteps? Prefacing this by saying that I’m not privy to what, if anything, Apple is cooking up. But such a case isn’t something you cobble together in an afternoon. In my experience a lead time for something like this is at least about a month, a week if it’s urgent and less if it’s really urgent and you seek an injunction (and then you try to flesh it out afterwards). But ideally you want to take your time so you can discuss your strategy both internally with higher ups as well as with outside counsel, collect exhibits and draft up a solid initial filing. Part of these discussions is also what kind of exposure you’ll have during discovery.
Apple for example genuinely believes that Masimo used Apple’s internal confidential documents that Masimo received during discovery in the California trial to create the competing W1 smartwatch. It could be that they’re weary of having to share more internal information, especially since so much has already come out during the last couple of years full of cases.
Or wary that Beeper would learn more about the inner workings of iMessage. I wouldn’t characterize it as a high priority matter with urgency either because they seem able and effective in blocking Beeper, with little loss in device sales as a result. A lot of effort is going towards the Apple Watch issue with Masimo that prevents them from selling the newest models. Lastly, while only of minor importance, it’s slightly more beneficial for Apple if Beeper would sue them while they keep successfully blocking Beeper than Apple suing Beeper. All in all, it’s a lot of weighing pros and cons, even when you’re in the right. That’s one of the reason why there are so many settlements, because it often is cheaper, faster and easier than a whole trial. |