[sokoloff]

Presumably the patent litigator also knows all of those facts and may have been holding out for too much money (in Apple’s calculus) and the long-run game is better for Apple if they take some short-term pain now in exchange for being known as a difficult target.

Apple will be fine without watch sales for a long time if needed.

[mthoms]

According to the Massimo CEO, Apple has not made any offer whatsoever to resolve this.

[sokoloff]

That not incongruent with a strategy to wait out a patent holder and thereby be known as a difficult target.

Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

[mthoms]

>That not incongruent with a strategy to wait out a patent holder and thereby be known as a difficult target.

For sure. But it does counter the suggestion you made that Massimo may have been "holding out" for more money.

>Apple’s under no obligation to offer a settlement.

Agreed. I never suggested otherwise.

[sokoloff]

Ah. In my mind “holding out” does not require a settlement offer to be proposed by the counterparty.

If you ask the price to buy my 2005 Honda CRV (license my patent) and I tell you $250K ($250M/yr), many would think I was holding out even if you (Apple) correctly roll your eyes and don’t engage.

[mthoms]

> If you ask the price

The point is… even that preliminary exchange of information never took place. Apple has not engaged whatsoever; There’s been no contact since the original meetings (2013 I think) where they discussed working together. Apple (allegedly) went dark very shortly after and started their own thing.

There would have to be some serious mental gymnastics going on to suggest Massimo was “holding out”.

To use your metaphor; If I’m selling my 1999 4Runner but no one ever approaches me to ask about details (ie price) it’d be very weird to suggest I was “holding out”.

[Grazester]

I don't know when this was said but wouldn't offering to resolve be acknowledgement that there was infringement on Apple's part? Maybe now there will be willing to negotiate something

[fsckboy]

no, you can have settlement discussions without affecting the case.

[dylan604]

Assuming Apple is in a 2-year cycle with the watch like its other devices, what are the odds the offending part of the series 9 watch is also in the series 10 watch with not enough time to remove it before the 10 release. it would make the 10 necessary to be pushed back while they retool the product or continue negotiating for a licensing agreement

[cozzyd]

Or they could remove the feature (I don't find the pulse ox particularly useful on my Garmin watch... When I go to high altitude I bring my cheapo pulse ox from Walgreens that is supposedly much more as accurate). Or find some other way to implement it (Garmin, at least, has implemented it differently).