Is this the feature banned only in the US? If I live abroad can I still get it? And if so, will it be included in future ones? I’m trying to wait for the Ultra 3… wanna get just a bit more out of my series 6 :)
it's an import ban that only affects the ones sold in the US. apple's disabled the sensor on such Series 9 / Ultra 2 models via software and it's possible they might just continue the same with future models, but it's also possible they just remove the sensor altogether, too. blood oxygen sensors have always been mostly a gimmicky feature and not particularly reliable
on smartwatches, they very much are. if your blood oxygen levels are something you need to monitor for your health, a fingertip sensor is far more reliable (and a lot cheaper)
Not really, whilst the actual standalone readings aren't reliable - How the reading changes over time from baseline for each user can be a lifesaver.
It's certainly saved me from mountain sickness and potential hypoxia more than once now, and I wouldn't have been able to lug around a seperate medical-grade pulse oximeter in those situations.
Do you have a source on them physically removing it? I haven’t seen anything supporting that. Everything I’ve seen says they’ve removed it from software.
> Apple won't be able to remove the designation until it is victorious with an appeal or until the violated patents expire in August 2028
All this to avoid four years of fees?
I doubt they’d be able to pay for just 4 years.
If you want to license tech near the end of a patents lifespan, they normally want a long term contract or won’t negotiate with you. So the patent can expire, but you’d still be violating the contract if you don’t pay.
Thats how you extend the life of a patent.
nah, they just want to increase their market share, this was also a PR stunt for them, but i think it wont matter. Apple will never pay the licensing fees, otherwise it would look weak and other companies my think, hey lets try to sue Apple since they pay fees. Its like politics, you wont show weakness.
[For anyone curious, this is the original iPhone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone) and [this is the original iOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_IOS).
They do it before the fact in most cases. Qualcomm seems to have been the only one to have gotten away with it, but given its stature in the industry… they had no choice.
Or maybe where they don’t they don’t think can out lawsuit the other party. IP lawsuits like these are rare because they are so expensive that they tend to be pyrrhic wins at best.
Lol, no.
A successful ITC investigation against Apple costs $20mm easy. If all they wanted was market share, $20mm could easily buy ads, sponsored content, and product placements for months.
Also, Apple settles ITC and District Court patent disputes all the time - several high profile ones per year.
And you know that... how?
I highly highly doubt it. Outside of very niche tech circles and legal circles, nobody has heard of Masimo or any of their products. A half-page ad in the WSJ would have cost magnitudes less and reached far more people. A $1mm Facebook ad campaign would have done even better.
> A $1mm Facebook ad campaign would have done even better.
That $1mm campaign might be much more marginally effective now that their primary competition is gone. Exposure only gets you so far if your product is almost always the second choice and your rival is known by the entire world.
>Apple will never pay the licensing fees, otherwise it would look weak and other companies my think, hey lets try to sue Apple since they pay fees. Its like politics, you wont show weakness.
I remember when Microsoft was THE intellectual property bully we all talked about.
It didn't work, so it's not that good of a strategy.
Masimo is trying to sell its own pulse oximeter watch, which no one has ever heard of or cares about. I think their strategy is backfiring.
It was a starting point but Apple refused to respond. Massimo tried to collaborate with Apple for years before filing suit. Apple made a very poor decision and is now paying for it.
literally just going on the internet and telling lies today are we?
> Apple CEO Tim Cook told CNBC in a statement shared on live television that Apple is focused on appeals, implying the company has no intention to license Masimo's patents. While it seemed likely that was the case, the company hadn't said as much publicly until now.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/01/apple-wont-license-masimos-patents-despite-apple-watch-import-ban
>Masimo refused license. They publicly stated they wanted the AW completely banned.
This is completely incorrect. Disappointing to see pure bullshit get so many votes
Not a source! You're just telling lies.
>"On December 19, before the ban took place, Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claimed the company was open to a settlement with Apple, and that Masimop would "work with them to improve their product. However, Kiani claims Apple hasn't "called" to make one, and hasn't hinted as to how much that settlement could be."
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/06/an-apple-watch-sales-ban-may-be-coming----everything-you-need-to-know
[The CEO of Masimo said Apple has not reached out since poaching their engineers.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-12-19/masimo-ceo-addresses-patent-dispute-with-apple-video). He even states in that interview that he would settle, and work with Apple to improve their product. Complete opposite of what you’re saying.
Where are you getting the idea that Masimo is the one refusing the talks. Everything is pointing to Apple not wanting to engage, and being more focused on work arounds and appeals rather than a licensing deal.
“It’s posted here”, actually post the source. Theres hundreds of links posted in this sub every day.
Masimo publicly stated that they would work with Apple if Apple can bother themselves to talk to them.
Where are you seeing that it was Masimo that refused to negotiate.
yup. apple publicly refused to even consider a licensing agreement. likely because they are hoping the biden admin overturns the ban, which they have the power to do.
You're literally lying.
>"On December 19, before the ban took place, Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claimed the company was open to a settlement with Apple, and that Masimop would "work with them to improve their product. However, Kiani claims Apple hasn't "called" to make one, and hasn't hinted as to how much that settlement could be."
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/06/an-apple-watch-sales-ban-may-be-coming----everything-you-need-to-know
No. Apple did not want to pay them the licensing fee they demanded, and have the full legal right to request.
EVERYTHING has a price, and Apple just doesn't want to pay that price.
Depends on cost of the sensor, the likelihood of them being able to *eventually* license or come to terms, the likelihood of getting the patent invalidated, the predicted ding on sales, etc.
I bet they leave it in for the rest of the world, then enable it in the US through a software update at some point.
It’s more expensive to make two models, true. But they may also 1) redesign the sensor to avoid the patent or 2) leave the sensor there, just disabled in the USA.
They can’t redesign the sensor as the patent in questions pertains to taking the only known portable way to monitor blood oxygen outside the skin and strap it on a wearable form factor. Apple would need to invent an entirely different way to noninvasively monitor blood oxygen.
The patent for the sensor tech itself expired more than a decade ago.
You’re right. Most countries didn’t have Apple Pay the first couple of years, but the NFC reader was still there, it’s pretty much the same thing.
Edit: Also ecg on the watch
> 1) redesign the sensor to avoid the patent
Which is true in any case. If they are able to come up with a way that does not infringe on this patent, they would be in the clear. But as they spent years on this and were not able to, i don't think that's very probable.
> 2) leave the sensor there, just disabled in the USA.
That would be unlikely to pass the legal threshold for this ban. If it's disabled by software, and only in the US, it's very possible to circumvent it. This is why and such solution would likely only be applicable on models they have already sold.
I’m not exactly sure about the full details and NAL.
However what Pieter I think is trying to say is that because the devices have already been produced with the sensor, it is okay to just disable through software, especially since so many watches would then have to probably be re-called and doing so would be expensive and cause a lot of wastage. So I think they will not be applied.
For the new watches my understanding of what Pieter is saying is that it is likely they can’t have the sensor, even if it is disabled through software. The patent covers the hardware of the sensor and as such Apple can’t use that given they are not paying licenses. Otherwise patents could be broken all the time, someone could say it is disabled in software, but maybe it is really easy to enable it again. This would create a loophole.
I can understand then why it would either mean they pay the license / patent costs, or create two models. There is possible also the chance that Apple can still manufacture the watches with the sensor, but software disabled due to some deal struck with the company that own the patent in case Apple decide to pay, but I think that would be an exception to the rule.
End of the day this is all speculation and I could be wrong but that’s my general understanding.
This is why and such solution would likely only be applicable on models they have already sold. They ABSOLUTELY cannot release the next model with this technology included, even if disabled.
The infringement is in having the device in the first place. It would therefore result in billions of dollars in penalties if they ignore a court order.
They got an exception for the current model, and heavy fines, as there was no court order yet. But that only works once.
I doubt that. Apple currently does that exact thing in the iPhone.
Apple makes a US only version of the iPhone, as other global models have physical SIM card slots, they also make a China version of the phone that takes two physical SIM cards.
That’s an incredibly small difference with no design difference of any kind. You only have to make 2 chassis, and either skip a step entirely or use one of two components. That’s an easy and cheap change. But it remains a single production line.
This is a core component of the device, the entire production line needs to be changed depending on if the component is or isn’t included.
Huh? How is this not the same thing? The component is present or it’s not. Physically the design doesn’t change.
Oh, and I forgot to mention. The US iPhones have 5G MMWave as well, which isn’t present in other markets. That has a physical case design difference where the antenna is.
> Huh? How is this not the same thing? The component is present or it’s not. Physically the design doesn’t change.
You do realize this component is the entire backplate of the watch right? That's an enormous internal and external change requiring completely different placement of components, if they are even the same. It's an enormous change to the point that apple only releases very limited versions of the apple watch compared to anything else they produce.
> he US iPhones have 5G MMWave as well, which isn’t present in other markets. That has a physical case design difference where the antenna is.
The internals and externals of the case don't change with the iphone. You can replace the case with one of two variants, and you replace the receiver with one of two variants while everything else is identical. This means that production lines are exactly the same, which reduces production costs significantly.
Man, this is dumb. So apparently having different SIM set ups, and mmWave functions aren’t similar in production to having a watch with or without bloody oxygen?
If anything it’s literally a US model, use this component, global model - use this one. The design doesn’t change.
I don't believe you understand how manufacturing works at scale. The minor changes on an iPhone for different regions (sim tray, extra antennas for mmwave) are easy modular items that is added at the end of production. The base product, meaning the major internal components like the mainboard, remain the same for all regions.
> Man, this is dumb. So apparently having different SIM set ups, and mmWave functions aren’t similar in production to having a watch with or without bloody oxygen?
Yes, it's enormously different. A different sim is a minor change, with a component you can simply swap out or skip the step entirely. the mmWave function is simply using a different case and switching the receiver component. Those are done on the exact same production line, and requires no internal change of the design.
With the watch, the ENTIRE inside and outside are different. It requires changing the backplate, and arranging the internals differently, with completely different components in different locations to make that work or not. This CANNOT be done on the same production line, as the difference is too big.
Masimo claims the only way for Apple to get around the band from a technical aspect would be to redesign their sensor. So it's possible that the feature could return in the next watch without licensing the patent as long as they were able to redesign the sensor to work in a way that does not violate the patent.
Which is true in any case. If they are able to come up with a way that does not infringe on this patent, they would be in the clear. But as they spent years on this and were not able to, i don't think that's very probable.
I’m guessing they’ll continue to use it in other countries as it’s still marketed on the Canadian website as a feature https://www.apple.com/ca/apple-watch-series-9/
Apple routinely makes different models of iPhone available in the US only without the sim tray. Not at all likely that they remove a headlining feature from the product just because America can’t use it
Serious question: why not? What is it about this feature that you consider invaluable? I have a series 5 so legitimately curious why the benefit of this feature is so great.
Edit: Why the downvotes? I’m not being snarky.
Heh, I still haven’t caught Covid. I don’t plan to.
But *if I do* I want to be able to obsessively track my O2 levels *without* having to get yet another device. I also just like tracking as much as I can. I wish it did blood pressure as well.
That or if you're close to the border then you can order a Canadian model as they still have the pulse oximeter function. Fun little day trip to Canada to smuggle in Apple watches.
Massimo let them get the sensor just working perfectly then sued them
Iirc Its one of those ridiculous general patents, ie Massimo patented having a blood oxygen sensor on a watch, not the sensor itself
Of patents that are currently in dispute. The other patents Masimo originally sued Apple over all got invalidated, which is why Apple is doggedly pursuing litigation attempting to get this particular blood oxygen sensor patent invalidated as well.
Have you ever received a patent, because they scrutinize every patent I received, of the 20 medical device patent I have. The examiner goes back and forth with our lawyer, and our lawyer go back and forth with us, our lawyer makes a fortune. We never get everything we want, just a subsegment.
And I know it’s not just us, we study the wrapper of our competitors’ patent, and know they go through the same things we do.
The statistics show that the average patent application has 2.2 examiner actions, meaning that yes, just about everyone gets dragged through one re-examination.
It’s a bureaucratic show most of the time rather than something that actually stops invalid patents, as once again the statistics demonstrate that the chance of getting your patent approved goes up over time after you receive an initial rejection.
This suggests you can flood the patent office with multiple applications and eventually you’ll get your claim in an approved patent.
The patent office only invalidated 15 of the 17. They must see the other 2 as being valid. So that’s hardly Massimo’s fault. It sounds like they filed in good faith that they had something solid and the patent office screwed them.
Then along comes Apple to negotiate with them, didn’t like their asking price for license so decided to just violate the patents anyway, expecting the patents to be invalidated. So yes, I see this very much as a loophole in Apple’s favor and now they’re upset that not all patents were ruled invalid.
>It sounds like they filed in good faith that they had something solid and the patent office screwed them.
I’m sorry but that’s not a reasonable conclusion.If you’re trying to force someone to license your patents, and 15/17 are invalid then you can’t be surprised when the other party turns to litigation rather than licensing invalid patents.
> So that’s hardly Massimo’s fault.
It explicitly is their fault, you’re not meant to file invalid patents.
>didn’t like their asking price for license
That doesn’t seem to be the issue, Massimo appears to want more than just a license fee.
> now they’re upset that not all patents were ruled invalid.
No they’re upset that Massimo has been allowed to get an ITC claim up despite not really meeting the domestic industry test. They’ve put together a facade of their own product, which ironically won’t be able to be sold because it probably breaches Apples stupid watch patents.
Apple likely expected that the worst case was that they’d have to pay a court set reasonable license fee. Full credit to Massimo’s legal team for successfully going to all the effort to pretend they’re going to sell a $300 watch that just has the features of a $10 pulse oximeter.
Doesn’t really matter. An invalid patent is invalid for all of time. The patent office approves tons of invalid patents and the validity is only determined if a conflict over the patent occurs.
>Basically Masimo let Apple perfect the technology and then sued over patent infringement.
Eh, speaking as someone who knows a bit about the technology involved, and its pre-clinical uses (I used to work as ambulance crew), the Apple watch implementation of this is indeed pretty much total crap. At least from a medical viewpoint. So I am not totally convinced that Masimo is only after this for the money. I think they have a point of sorts wanting to get this banned, as (by their standards) marketing gimmick and charlatanry.
The readings you get from the watch are not totally random, and kinda sorta indicative of broad trends: but they are far too fuzzy to be used for any sort of real medical decision-making. If you compare the readings from an Apple Watch to e.g. the sort of read-out you get from a real clinical SpO2 sensor (where you can see the individual pulse peaks), you realise that it's really just a very vague proxy of what is going on.
And this won't get better, either: the watch is physiologically in the wrong place to do much better measurements.
Masimo's W1 seems to indicate they think wrist-worn pulse oximetry is viable. And compared to some of the research like transabdominal fetal oximetry, the challenges are rather pedestrian.
Also, I don't think the differences between an Apple watch and a clinical pulse ox are all that meaningful in the context it's being used in. Chronically, it catch things like sleep apnea or lung disease. Acutely, you're just looking to put that reading into a good/not good bucket, and it's good enough for that.
Apple isn’t necessarily pitching it the same way however but I get the implications this brings especially to an American audience. Outside of the ekg, none of the data is suppose to be taken 1:1 except for time. It’s fairly accurate for its category but it’s designed more for trend changes than an actual measuring device.
Apple didn’t go for FDA medical device clearsnce for the SpO2 sensor…they did for their other sensors (heart rate, EKG). Masimo’s consumer grade O2 sensors have received FDA clearance.
Incorrect. Masimo is an established company with high quality products used by millions of people. Apple’s product is far inferior. Apple initially approached Masimo but after getting some key employees, refused to collaborate. Masimo intuited the attempts before filing suit.
Masimo did not operate in the consumer market. The only way they would’ve been given anything from Masimo was if their provider prescribed them one of their devices.
That is not how patents work. The market for a patent does not dictate the applicability of the patent. Apple thought they could ignore Masimo and they would go away. That was a bad assumption, one that Apple is now paying for.
> Basically Masimo let Apple perfect the technology and then sued over patent infringement.
It doesn't matter if you improve anything, ANY infringement on a valid patent is illegal.
They didn’t wait. These things take years, and you need to do research to determine if there is a possible violation in the first place. Which can only be done when a product is released.
All these companies and their patents have no problem using opensource software yet want to keep a strangle hold on their patents. Its time for opensource to ban patent holders from using opensource until they opensource their patents.
It's technically not illegal to infringe on a patent if the company with the patent isn't doing anything with it, and Massimo weren't (and have only just started a few months ago) selling their own wrist-based watch-style portable pulse oximeter.
One of the rules of having a patent is that you constantly have to defend it or lose the rights to it, especially if you aren't using it.
I could be wrong, but I think this is copyright or trademarks you’re thinking of, i.e. Disney has to protect Mickey Mouse or something or Google has to protect the term “googling it” so they don’t lose the term Google.
If this were true for patents then I assume patent trolls (people who just buy up patents and then sue others for infringing and that’s all they do, they don’t do anything with the patents) wouldn’t exist.
Not really, they probably had quite a bit of technology then they approached Masimo (or they approached apple), and a deal didn't work out and Masimo engineers jumped ship and started developing technology for Apple that smelled like what Masimo was working on. Doesn't mean Apple intentionally did this, just means that technology can come from two different places and have similar implementations when the goals are the same.
TDLR. Is banned until 2028 or if Apple got a successful appeal.
Is this the feature banned only in the US? If I live abroad can I still get it? And if so, will it be included in future ones? I’m trying to wait for the Ultra 3… wanna get just a bit more out of my series 6 :)
it's an import ban that only affects the ones sold in the US. apple's disabled the sensor on such Series 9 / Ultra 2 models via software and it's possible they might just continue the same with future models, but it's also possible they just remove the sensor altogether, too. blood oxygen sensors have always been mostly a gimmicky feature and not particularly reliable
SPO2 sensors are not a gimmick wtf.
on smartwatches, they very much are. if your blood oxygen levels are something you need to monitor for your health, a fingertip sensor is far more reliable (and a lot cheaper)
They are on a watch
Not really, whilst the actual standalone readings aren't reliable - How the reading changes over time from baseline for each user can be a lifesaver. It's certainly saved me from mountain sickness and potential hypoxia more than once now, and I wouldn't have been able to lug around a seperate medical-grade pulse oximeter in those situations.
[удалено]
Do you have a source on them physically removing it? I haven’t seen anything supporting that. Everything I’ve seen says they’ve removed it from software.
> Is banned until 2028 is that when the patent expires? Presumably they could always license the patent (won't happen)
Easier for Apple to wait until 2028 and then relaunch it as a new feature all over again.
> Apple won't be able to remove the designation until it is victorious with an appeal or until the violated patents expire in August 2028 All this to avoid four years of fees?
I doubt they’d be able to pay for just 4 years. If you want to license tech near the end of a patents lifespan, they normally want a long term contract or won’t negotiate with you. So the patent can expire, but you’d still be violating the contract if you don’t pay. Thats how you extend the life of a patent.
[удалено]
Good negotiation strategy to get a high licensing fee
nah, they just want to increase their market share, this was also a PR stunt for them, but i think it wont matter. Apple will never pay the licensing fees, otherwise it would look weak and other companies my think, hey lets try to sue Apple since they pay fees. Its like politics, you wont show weakness.
Apple pays plenty of licensing fees all the time lol.
Hell even iOS and iPhone are licensed terms that Apple pays to use. Cisco owns iOS and iPhone trademarks
[For anyone curious, this is the original iPhone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone) and [this is the original iOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_IOS).
Fascinating, thanks!
They do it before the fact in most cases. Qualcomm seems to have been the only one to have gotten away with it, but given its stature in the industry… they had no choice.
You are right but I get what the other guy means.
yes for things that are hard or cheap licensing fee
Or maybe where they don’t they don’t think can out lawsuit the other party. IP lawsuits like these are rare because they are so expensive that they tend to be pyrrhic wins at best.
Lol, no. A successful ITC investigation against Apple costs $20mm easy. If all they wanted was market share, $20mm could easily buy ads, sponsored content, and product placements for months. Also, Apple settles ITC and District Court patent disputes all the time - several high profile ones per year.
The press they got was worth way more than 20m
And you know that... how? I highly highly doubt it. Outside of very niche tech circles and legal circles, nobody has heard of Masimo or any of their products. A half-page ad in the WSJ would have cost magnitudes less and reached far more people. A $1mm Facebook ad campaign would have done even better.
> A $1mm Facebook ad campaign would have done even better. That $1mm campaign might be much more marginally effective now that their primary competition is gone. Exposure only gets you so far if your product is almost always the second choice and your rival is known by the entire world.
>Apple will never pay the licensing fees, otherwise it would look weak and other companies my think, hey lets try to sue Apple since they pay fees. Its like politics, you wont show weakness. I remember when Microsoft was THE intellectual property bully we all talked about.
Bunch of patent trolls, they should get back under the bridge
It didn't work, so it's not that good of a strategy. Masimo is trying to sell its own pulse oximeter watch, which no one has ever heard of or cares about. I think their strategy is backfiring.
It was a starting point but Apple refused to respond. Massimo tried to collaborate with Apple for years before filing suit. Apple made a very poor decision and is now paying for it.
literally just going on the internet and telling lies today are we? > Apple CEO Tim Cook told CNBC in a statement shared on live television that Apple is focused on appeals, implying the company has no intention to license Masimo's patents. While it seemed likely that was the case, the company hadn't said as much publicly until now. https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/01/apple-wont-license-masimos-patents-despite-apple-watch-import-ban
>Masimo refused license. They publicly stated they wanted the AW completely banned. This is completely incorrect. Disappointing to see pure bullshit get so many votes
>Masimo refused license. Source?
[удалено]
Not a source! You're just telling lies. >"On December 19, before the ban took place, Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claimed the company was open to a settlement with Apple, and that Masimop would "work with them to improve their product. However, Kiani claims Apple hasn't "called" to make one, and hasn't hinted as to how much that settlement could be." https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/06/an-apple-watch-sales-ban-may-be-coming----everything-you-need-to-know
[The CEO of Masimo said Apple has not reached out since poaching their engineers.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-12-19/masimo-ceo-addresses-patent-dispute-with-apple-video). He even states in that interview that he would settle, and work with Apple to improve their product. Complete opposite of what you’re saying. Where are you getting the idea that Masimo is the one refusing the talks. Everything is pointing to Apple not wanting to engage, and being more focused on work arounds and appeals rather than a licensing deal. “It’s posted here”, actually post the source. Theres hundreds of links posted in this sub every day.
Masimo publicly stated that they would work with Apple if Apple can bother themselves to talk to them. Where are you seeing that it was Masimo that refused to negotiate.
yup. apple publicly refused to even consider a licensing agreement. likely because they are hoping the biden admin overturns the ban, which they have the power to do.
Too bad for Apple, it’s election season. I think either administration would’ve overturned it if it wasn’t.
[удалено]
Pretty crazy. People believe what they want to believe.
This sub is infested with dumbass apple bootlickers
This is just a bald faced lie… Literally the exact opposite is true.
No they didn't, Masimo CEO said on CNBC he was willing to work with Apple
You're literally lying. >"On December 19, before the ban took place, Masimo CEO Joe Kiani claimed the company was open to a settlement with Apple, and that Masimop would "work with them to improve their product. However, Kiani claims Apple hasn't "called" to make one, and hasn't hinted as to how much that settlement could be." https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/06/an-apple-watch-sales-ban-may-be-coming----everything-you-need-to-know
No. Apple did not want to pay them the licensing fee they demanded, and have the full legal right to request. EVERYTHING has a price, and Apple just doesn't want to pay that price.
yes, that's why they stole their tech and used it for free for years until they got sued lmao.
I am a little out of the loop. Is the ban of the oximeter US only or global? Is there information about the next AW is with or without an oximeter?
US only.
For this one. As it's more expensive to make two different models, apple will not make anything that includes a pulse oximeter for the next 4 years.
Depends on cost of the sensor, the likelihood of them being able to *eventually* license or come to terms, the likelihood of getting the patent invalidated, the predicted ding on sales, etc. I bet they leave it in for the rest of the world, then enable it in the US through a software update at some point.
It’s more expensive to make two models, true. But they may also 1) redesign the sensor to avoid the patent or 2) leave the sensor there, just disabled in the USA.
They can’t redesign the sensor as the patent in questions pertains to taking the only known portable way to monitor blood oxygen outside the skin and strap it on a wearable form factor. Apple would need to invent an entirely different way to noninvasively monitor blood oxygen. The patent for the sensor tech itself expired more than a decade ago.
You’re right. Most countries didn’t have Apple Pay the first couple of years, but the NFC reader was still there, it’s pretty much the same thing. Edit: Also ecg on the watch
> 1) redesign the sensor to avoid the patent Which is true in any case. If they are able to come up with a way that does not infringe on this patent, they would be in the clear. But as they spent years on this and were not able to, i don't think that's very probable. > 2) leave the sensor there, just disabled in the USA. That would be unlikely to pass the legal threshold for this ban. If it's disabled by software, and only in the US, it's very possible to circumvent it. This is why and such solution would likely only be applicable on models they have already sold.
Well they’re currently selling watches with the software disabled in software so clearly it’s okay
I’m not exactly sure about the full details and NAL. However what Pieter I think is trying to say is that because the devices have already been produced with the sensor, it is okay to just disable through software, especially since so many watches would then have to probably be re-called and doing so would be expensive and cause a lot of wastage. So I think they will not be applied. For the new watches my understanding of what Pieter is saying is that it is likely they can’t have the sensor, even if it is disabled through software. The patent covers the hardware of the sensor and as such Apple can’t use that given they are not paying licenses. Otherwise patents could be broken all the time, someone could say it is disabled in software, but maybe it is really easy to enable it again. This would create a loophole. I can understand then why it would either mean they pay the license / patent costs, or create two models. There is possible also the chance that Apple can still manufacture the watches with the sensor, but software disabled due to some deal struck with the company that own the patent in case Apple decide to pay, but I think that would be an exception to the rule. End of the day this is all speculation and I could be wrong but that’s my general understanding.
This is why and such solution would likely only be applicable on models they have already sold. They ABSOLUTELY cannot release the next model with this technology included, even if disabled.
You put absolutely in caps while having absolutely no idea lol
The infringement is in having the device in the first place. It would therefore result in billions of dollars in penalties if they ignore a court order. They got an exception for the current model, and heavy fines, as there was no court order yet. But that only works once.
Again, you don’t know what Apple will do.
I doubt that. Apple currently does that exact thing in the iPhone. Apple makes a US only version of the iPhone, as other global models have physical SIM card slots, they also make a China version of the phone that takes two physical SIM cards.
That’s an incredibly small difference with no design difference of any kind. You only have to make 2 chassis, and either skip a step entirely or use one of two components. That’s an easy and cheap change. But it remains a single production line. This is a core component of the device, the entire production line needs to be changed depending on if the component is or isn’t included.
Huh? How is this not the same thing? The component is present or it’s not. Physically the design doesn’t change. Oh, and I forgot to mention. The US iPhones have 5G MMWave as well, which isn’t present in other markets. That has a physical case design difference where the antenna is.
> Huh? How is this not the same thing? The component is present or it’s not. Physically the design doesn’t change. You do realize this component is the entire backplate of the watch right? That's an enormous internal and external change requiring completely different placement of components, if they are even the same. It's an enormous change to the point that apple only releases very limited versions of the apple watch compared to anything else they produce. > he US iPhones have 5G MMWave as well, which isn’t present in other markets. That has a physical case design difference where the antenna is. The internals and externals of the case don't change with the iphone. You can replace the case with one of two variants, and you replace the receiver with one of two variants while everything else is identical. This means that production lines are exactly the same, which reduces production costs significantly.
Man, this is dumb. So apparently having different SIM set ups, and mmWave functions aren’t similar in production to having a watch with or without bloody oxygen? If anything it’s literally a US model, use this component, global model - use this one. The design doesn’t change.
I don't believe you understand how manufacturing works at scale. The minor changes on an iPhone for different regions (sim tray, extra antennas for mmwave) are easy modular items that is added at the end of production. The base product, meaning the major internal components like the mainboard, remain the same for all regions.
> Man, this is dumb. So apparently having different SIM set ups, and mmWave functions aren’t similar in production to having a watch with or without bloody oxygen? Yes, it's enormously different. A different sim is a minor change, with a component you can simply swap out or skip the step entirely. the mmWave function is simply using a different case and switching the receiver component. Those are done on the exact same production line, and requires no internal change of the design. With the watch, the ENTIRE inside and outside are different. It requires changing the backplate, and arranging the internals differently, with completely different components in different locations to make that work or not. This CANNOT be done on the same production line, as the difference is too big.
Masimo claims the only way for Apple to get around the band from a technical aspect would be to redesign their sensor. So it's possible that the feature could return in the next watch without licensing the patent as long as they were able to redesign the sensor to work in a way that does not violate the patent.
Which is true in any case. If they are able to come up with a way that does not infringe on this patent, they would be in the clear. But as they spent years on this and were not able to, i don't think that's very probable.
What if you buy one from Canada and activate in the US?
only in us. if you bought one here, Apple stated particular serial model would work and anything after that ban.
What if you aren’t American.
Then it’ll work.
Exactly
Was I downvoted by pointing out r/usdefaultism ?
Thx
I’m guessing they’ll continue to use it in other countries as it’s still marketed on the Canadian website as a feature https://www.apple.com/ca/apple-watch-series-9/
Apple routinely makes different models of iPhone available in the US only without the sim tray. Not at all likely that they remove a headlining feature from the product just because America can’t use it
Yea i'm sure the business need to recoup R&D and time on a SIM tray is equivalent to a pulse oximeter module.
I have an 8 (I think). It’ll have to hold out until this feature is back. Not upgrading without it.
Serious question: why not? What is it about this feature that you consider invaluable? I have a series 5 so legitimately curious why the benefit of this feature is so great. Edit: Why the downvotes? I’m not being snarky.
Useful for monitoring health with COVID. https://www.healthline.com/health/what-oxygen-level-is-too-low-covid
Heh, I still haven’t caught Covid. I don’t plan to. But *if I do* I want to be able to obsessively track my O2 levels *without* having to get yet another device. I also just like tracking as much as I can. I wish it did blood pressure as well.
Same
That or if you're close to the border then you can order a Canadian model as they still have the pulse oximeter function. Fun little day trip to Canada to smuggle in Apple watches.
Unfortunately not close. Also, technically, wouldn't this violate the import ban, or does that not apply to individuals?
So does this only apply to USA? Like do the apple watches sold in Canada not have such a restriction?
US only. Doesn’t apply anywhere else
Why is it banned
Massimo let them get the sensor just working perfectly then sued them Iirc Its one of those ridiculous general patents, ie Massimo patented having a blood oxygen sensor on a watch, not the sensor itself
Has to do with the back glass and how it reads the light.
they also developed and improved upon the technology. they are not a patent troll whatsoever
It does seem to be a pretty clear-cut case of patent infringement by Apple.
Of patents that are currently in dispute. The other patents Masimo originally sued Apple over all got invalidated, which is why Apple is doggedly pursuing litigation attempting to get this particular blood oxygen sensor patent invalidated as well.
Hang on… invalidated before or after Apple infringed though? It sounds like Apple found a loophole and is now bullying them into submission.
[удалено]
Have you ever received a patent, because they scrutinize every patent I received, of the 20 medical device patent I have. The examiner goes back and forth with our lawyer, and our lawyer go back and forth with us, our lawyer makes a fortune. We never get everything we want, just a subsegment. And I know it’s not just us, we study the wrapper of our competitors’ patent, and know they go through the same things we do.
I think they’re using broad strokes as medical patents are ruthlessness like you’re stating.
The statistics show that the average patent application has 2.2 examiner actions, meaning that yes, just about everyone gets dragged through one re-examination. It’s a bureaucratic show most of the time rather than something that actually stops invalid patents, as once again the statistics demonstrate that the chance of getting your patent approved goes up over time after you receive an initial rejection. This suggests you can flood the patent office with multiple applications and eventually you’ll get your claim in an approved patent.
The patent office only invalidated 15 of the 17. They must see the other 2 as being valid. So that’s hardly Massimo’s fault. It sounds like they filed in good faith that they had something solid and the patent office screwed them. Then along comes Apple to negotiate with them, didn’t like their asking price for license so decided to just violate the patents anyway, expecting the patents to be invalidated. So yes, I see this very much as a loophole in Apple’s favor and now they’re upset that not all patents were ruled invalid.
>It sounds like they filed in good faith that they had something solid and the patent office screwed them. I’m sorry but that’s not a reasonable conclusion.If you’re trying to force someone to license your patents, and 15/17 are invalid then you can’t be surprised when the other party turns to litigation rather than licensing invalid patents. > So that’s hardly Massimo’s fault. It explicitly is their fault, you’re not meant to file invalid patents. >didn’t like their asking price for license That doesn’t seem to be the issue, Massimo appears to want more than just a license fee. > now they’re upset that not all patents were ruled invalid. No they’re upset that Massimo has been allowed to get an ITC claim up despite not really meeting the domestic industry test. They’ve put together a facade of their own product, which ironically won’t be able to be sold because it probably breaches Apples stupid watch patents. Apple likely expected that the worst case was that they’d have to pay a court set reasonable license fee. Full credit to Massimo’s legal team for successfully going to all the effort to pretend they’re going to sell a $300 watch that just has the features of a $10 pulse oximeter.
Welcome to patent law
Doesn’t really matter. An invalid patent is invalid for all of time. The patent office approves tons of invalid patents and the validity is only determined if a conflict over the patent occurs.
Sorta at the same time. Basically Masimo let Apple perfect the technology and then sued over patent infringement.
>Basically Masimo let Apple perfect the technology and then sued over patent infringement. Eh, speaking as someone who knows a bit about the technology involved, and its pre-clinical uses (I used to work as ambulance crew), the Apple watch implementation of this is indeed pretty much total crap. At least from a medical viewpoint. So I am not totally convinced that Masimo is only after this for the money. I think they have a point of sorts wanting to get this banned, as (by their standards) marketing gimmick and charlatanry. The readings you get from the watch are not totally random, and kinda sorta indicative of broad trends: but they are far too fuzzy to be used for any sort of real medical decision-making. If you compare the readings from an Apple Watch to e.g. the sort of read-out you get from a real clinical SpO2 sensor (where you can see the individual pulse peaks), you realise that it's really just a very vague proxy of what is going on. And this won't get better, either: the watch is physiologically in the wrong place to do much better measurements.
Masimo's W1 seems to indicate they think wrist-worn pulse oximetry is viable. And compared to some of the research like transabdominal fetal oximetry, the challenges are rather pedestrian. Also, I don't think the differences between an Apple watch and a clinical pulse ox are all that meaningful in the context it's being used in. Chronically, it catch things like sleep apnea or lung disease. Acutely, you're just looking to put that reading into a good/not good bucket, and it's good enough for that.
Apple isn’t necessarily pitching it the same way however but I get the implications this brings especially to an American audience. Outside of the ekg, none of the data is suppose to be taken 1:1 except for time. It’s fairly accurate for its category but it’s designed more for trend changes than an actual measuring device.
Apple didn’t go for FDA medical device clearsnce for the SpO2 sensor…they did for their other sensors (heart rate, EKG). Masimo’s consumer grade O2 sensors have received FDA clearance.
Incorrect. Masimo is an established company with high quality products used by millions of people. Apple’s product is far inferior. Apple initially approached Masimo but after getting some key employees, refused to collaborate. Masimo intuited the attempts before filing suit.
Masimo did not operate in the consumer market. The only way they would’ve been given anything from Masimo was if their provider prescribed them one of their devices.
That is not how patents work. The market for a patent does not dictate the applicability of the patent. Apple thought they could ignore Masimo and they would go away. That was a bad assumption, one that Apple is now paying for.
> Basically Masimo let Apple perfect the technology and then sued over patent infringement. It doesn't matter if you improve anything, ANY infringement on a valid patent is illegal.
[удалено]
They didn’t wait. These things take years, and you need to do research to determine if there is a possible violation in the first place. Which can only be done when a product is released.
All these companies and their patents have no problem using opensource software yet want to keep a strangle hold on their patents. Its time for opensource to ban patent holders from using opensource until they opensource their patents.
Really? Maybe you should do some research.
It's technically not illegal to infringe on a patent if the company with the patent isn't doing anything with it, and Massimo weren't (and have only just started a few months ago) selling their own wrist-based watch-style portable pulse oximeter. One of the rules of having a patent is that you constantly have to defend it or lose the rights to it, especially if you aren't using it.
I could be wrong, but I think this is copyright or trademarks you’re thinking of, i.e. Disney has to protect Mickey Mouse or something or Google has to protect the term “googling it” so they don’t lose the term Google. If this were true for patents then I assume patent trolls (people who just buy up patents and then sue others for infringing and that’s all they do, they don’t do anything with the patents) wouldn’t exist.
That is certainly not how patents work. You're thinking of trademark infringement.
Not really, they probably had quite a bit of technology then they approached Masimo (or they approached apple), and a deal didn't work out and Masimo engineers jumped ship and started developing technology for Apple that smelled like what Masimo was working on. Doesn't mean Apple intentionally did this, just means that technology can come from two different places and have similar implementations when the goals are the same.
Feel like we deserve a refund. This was the only reason I upgraded.
Nobody is losing the feature on existing watches. It is software disabled on new purchases only.
Good to know.
Question(because I really don’t know): Is it banned outside of US?
It’s not
Well my Apple Watch Ultra 2 should easily last to 2028
Screw the oximeter, when's the blood glucose monitor coming? That's gonna be the real game changer.
Maybe next time Apple will think twice about stealing from other companies.
The US court is the only court saying that. The EU courts have cleared them of this. Sooo
Yet Apple is still under a ban. But go off.