[hedora]

Apple certainly isn’t a an innocent player here (they have shut down competitors with bogus patents), but that doesn’t mean the system isn’t completely broken.

The import ban is due to them using a technology that was invented in 1935, then improved to more or less match what Apple shipped in 1970. Ironically, the inventor from 1970 opted not to patent it. The history section of this article has a good overview: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry

On top of there obviously being prior work, the “court” that blocked imports is part of an expedited process, so even though the real court will definitely consider invalidating the patent (and will probably invalidate it) that hasn’t happened yet.

There are good examples in this discussion of Apple using equally bogus patents to block imports, but I hope something (maybe this case) becomes a poster child for this sort of legal abuse, and leads to real reform.

[zamadatix]

I generally agree when how bogus this kind of thing usually is is brought up but in this case I'm not sure I can agree what happened here was fair play tarnished by misguided law after reading the backstory these past few weeks. The rub between the two here isn't pulse ox was used at all it's a specific implementation of a certain part of several patents Marino claims Apple stole when they were working together then abandoned the relationship. This isn't something where Apple did something obvious in a vacuum and suddenly a troll came out of the woodwork. "Prior work" doesn't mean someone did light based pulse ox before it means the specific implementation which improves it was already known and in use at the time the patent was filed, which is not the case here.

[Despegar]

There was no partnership as far as I know. Masimo met with Apple's M&A team, they didn't do a deal, then Apple hired Masimo employees to do it themselves.

This complaint of Apple meeting with some company and then stealing their technology is the narrative put forward by every company or VC that meets with Apple and doesn't result in an acquisition. As if it's impossible to know who to hire from LinkedIn, patents, knowledge of the field, etc.

[ajross]

> As if it's impossible to know who to hire from LinkedIn, patents, knowledge of the field, etc.

That's misunderstanding the argument: it's not "They poached our employees and that isn't fair!", it's "Clearly our technology was legitimate and innovative, they had to poach our employees to duplicate it!"

It's an argument toward the standing of the patent(s?), not a complaint of unfair trade practices.

[jhugo]

> That's misunderstanding the argument: it's not "They poached our employees and that isn't fair!", it's "Clearly our technology was legitimate and innovative, they had to poach our employees to duplicate it!"

This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos, even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation. So of course you're going to hire them if you can.

[hnlmorg]

> This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos

You're basically agreeing to the GP's "thin" argument by saying you need people who already successfully did it to have a higher chance of succeeding.

> even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation

You can't do a clean-room re-implementation if you're hiring people who already worked of the original implementation. Plus clean-room design only circumvents copyright claims. They don't defend against patents.

[ajross]

> This seems a pretty thin argument. Hiring some people who already successfully did it has a higher chance of success than hiring randos, even if they have to do a clean-room re-implementation.

That's... literally the argument. If the patent was obvious to a practitioner in the field, you wouldn't need to hire experts. And not just any experts, experts from the company that holds the patent in question!

Honestly this part of the argument seems pretty sound to me. Whether patents should have this kind of power on the whole is I think an excellent question. But given the system we have, as I see it Apple is screwed here. They're going to end up cutting a very big check to get out of this.

[noirbot]

Isn't the question what the "field" is? Does it have to be obvious to a random college grad in Electrical Engineering? Biomed Engineering? Someone who's worked in Medical devices before? Someone who's worked on any other Pulse/Ox before?

I can very easily see a case where it's obvious to anyone who's worked on this sort of device before, but only 1-2 companies make that sort of device, so if you want to hire someone to make that sort of device without starting from literally 0 experience, it would have to be from one of the few companies that have patents in that field.

Once you're talking about specific methods of accomplishing a specific task in a field, there aren't that many experts or practitioners.

[c0pium]

Those dates are all incorrect (or at a minimum not applicable). As is stated in the cited Wikipedia article, those dates are for detecting pulseox via transmission of light through a thin part of the body, such as a finger or ear, as opposed to reflectance. Reflection pulse oximetry from a thick part of the body, such as a wrist, is a much more recent invention and is the subject of these patents.

[withinboredom]

This. Is this it? "The scattered light through the tissue came back instead of through, so this is totally novel!"

Like literally, we are arguing over the vector of the light?

[c0pium]

Technically yes, but that’s a bit like saying rocket engine patents are about the vector of hot gasses. There are a lot of issues with creating one chip that both emits and receives light which are not present in a transmission model. In particular, if you look at the actual claims in the case, this is what many of the areas which were infringed upon deal with.

[withinboredom]

A rocket engine (in its entirety) is probably not something you'd patent, probably because of precisely this issue. A sensor that can detect light is also likely not patentable, even if how it does so is novel. That seems ridiculous to me; there needs to be a point at which a patent, no matter how novel, shouldn't be possible.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd love to be on that jury.

[az226]

I think that has to be decided by jury/judge.

[c0pium]

What do you think this article was about, if not a judge and jury deciding this issue?

[gnicholas]

Why do you think that a District Court will invalidate the parents? The ITC determined they were valid, and they’re a competent specialized court that deals exclusively with this sort of case.

[orbital-decay]

Did they patent pulse oximetry, though? The referenced patent seems to be for their specific detector design and signal processing method. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2

[c0pium]

That’s how patents always work; the concept cannot be patented, it’s the method which is. Garmin for instance has their own (patented) method which works differently from the infringing Apple implementation.

[jevoten]

That's how they should work. Unfortunately, concept patents get granted all the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-pa...

[AlbertCory]

both of your examples are from the 90's.

It's simply incorrect to say "concept patents get granted all the time." No, they don't. You patent an invention. The claims on it may be inappropriately broad, but there have always been mechanisms to address that.

[jevoten]

Unless you have a source showing things have changed for the better, I don't see how the age of my examples is relevant. Especially since they may have been granted in the 90s, but expired only very recently.

[AlbertCory]

You can find sources about the changes in patent law since the 90's. For the most salient example: CLS Bank v. Alice.

Many of the abuses since then have been corrected. That's how the age is relevant.

[c0pium]

Clicking once and having a thing show up at your house is not a concept, it’s a process. There are lots of ways to have a streamlined payment experience which do not violate this patent.

[asadotzler]

You are correct and OP is burying the actual crime. OP is correct, however, that this is Apple's SOP as well. They don't amass tens of thousands of patents for the joy.

[jjtheblunt]

> they have shut down competitors with bogus patents

this is an interesting point, but what are some examples?

[spogbiper]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-gets-u-s-ban-on-htc-andr...

[jjtheblunt]

wow; that's nuts. thanks for sharing it.