I trust Apple's commitment to privacy as much as I do Google's, but when they both remove a product over a stupid patent rather than pay the patent holder (Sonos' sued Google with their multiroom audio patent), we can see that it's possible for corporations to hold principled views about things.
Google doesn't do business in China because they won't agree to the privacy violating terms of doing so, that is at least a $1T principle if you compare it to the amount of hardware and services that Apple sells there.
Apple's mobile "privacy" features are about monopolizing advertising on their mobile products so that Apple is now the number one iOS advertising company.
Principled is defined as “acting with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong.”
How is abiding by the decision of a court not following a principled view? Wouldn’t going against the rule of law be non-principles behavior? Apple is not required to license the patent nor is the holder required to ever license their patent. They can tell Apple to go pound sand as this isn’t the seemingly typical cell phone FRAND dispute.
Trying to find a way to build an Apple Watch 9 that doesn’t infringe on a patent is a valid and principled way of behaving, even if it’s perhaps a bad business choice. If it takes them a week or two and stands in court it’ll be seen as a good decision. If they can’t and pony up anyway it’ll be seen as a poor choice of action. We’ll certainly know soon enough.
Selfishly* principled. There's no exclusively abstract benefit here the way there is with e.g privacy rights; there's both the benefit of not having to pay royalties if they prevail as well as the second order benefit of deterring others from submitting patent litigation because other plaintiffs will know that Apple would rather burn cash reserves on litigation than on paying.
It's precisely for that reason that Apple should lose.
This isn't a principled stand. Or rather it is but not a principle that matters to you: it's about not setting a precedent that they'll cave to patent trolls to avoid future patent trolls seeing them as an easy target. So they have to fight every patent suit to make it eceonomically unviable for patent trolls to sue them.
As for privacy, as an aside, Apple's track record is substantially better than Google's.
I can't decide if I'd be a fool to buy an Apple Watch right now. I'm ready for an upgrade, but I fear what happens long term if hardware changes are necessary.
Apple has increasingly moved towards a disposable tech paradigm. They seem to want, expect, and maybe even contrive a reason for you to throw away your device and buy a new one every year.
Patents. The classical government-granted monopoly. Incidentally the only type of undefeatable monopoly. Created with the best intentions, of course: to “encourage innovation”.
Most initiatives are not purely good without any downsides. A principle to consider is: Just because there are some negative aspects sometimes, do those outweigh the good? In this case, how many negatives actually come from patent law? (Btw, a monopoly most often is not the result - there are often many solutions to a similar problem/need.). And consider the side of the creator (which I’ve been finding is surprisingly rare in hn) - creating a company and product is already incredibly hard, how much harder do we want to make that? What and who are we sacrificing?
Maybe we just adjust the patent law some. Decrease the number of years? I’m sure it could be better.
There are many problems with software patents and patents that are "_____ but on a phone/watch" but I'm curious of what your solution is? What is a better system?
BS patents are bad, and patents lasting 20+ years are bad, but if someone's gonna get maimed by them… I can hardly think of a more deserving victim than Apple.
Do you disagree with the idea that patents promote innovation? Or do you think that 20 years specifically is too long, and if so, based on what analysis?
I’m holding judgement until the case is investigated further. It’s my understanding that so far everyone has basically said, “there’s enough evidence to proceed in court.”
Patent reform is something that is sorely needed (and more funding for the USPTO).
When has Apple ever sued over patent infringement? There was the Samsung case [1] but that was a design issue.
Apple, Google, Meta and other big tech companies have used patents defensively not offensively. That is, as mutually-assured destruction.
The real villains in this story are the patent holding companies that sue in East Texas to get in front of one judge that, at a time, heard a quarter of all US patent cases, all brought by NPEs (non-practicing entities aka patent trolls). IIRC there was at a time another judge and I heard a story that a popular law firm employed a relative to conflict out the second judge so they could get the judge they wanted.
I have been doing the thought experiment about fair pricing of patents. My current values are like:
A patent holder declares the value he is willing to license the patent to any entity. Inventor can consider their EXPANSES while declaring the value, but not the approach “my idea cost me 0$ but is worth a billion “. Society should be willing to compensate for monetary investment, not just imagination. You deposit 1% of the declared value annually to maintain the patent. This one to discourage arbitrary value declaration. Any company wishing to license, pays you the declared amount. If 10 companies pay you declared value, I.e You have earned 10x return on your actual expense of innovation, patent becomes public domain. Society doesn’t need per product patent pricing sh*.
The numbers , 1% and 10x can always be debated. Overall seems good enough to encourage innovation and discourage trolling.
Why doesn't Apple enter into a deal with Masimo for a small percentage of the watch? Unless I missed it, the news article didn't go into more detail on why a deal couldn't be made.
> “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.”
It sounds like they didn't just want some money. They wanted them to use their chip or partner with them.
I am no Apple fan, but telling them to politely fuck off seems reasonable to me.
That would be the obvious solution, but it’s not surprising they couldn’t agree on a price when they operate in very different industries. Masimo makes medical devices, ones whose prices are probably both high and skewed by insurance. Apple is a consumer devices company and may not be able to justify a high royalty price and still meet certain consumer price points. Another possibility is that Apple’s watches may be an alternative to Masimo’s expensive, high-margin devices, so a licensing deal could destroy Masimo’s entire business in the long run. So, coming to an agreement on price may have been impossible.
Your best bet would be to follow the court filings and look for the words "unwilling licensor" and "unwilling licensee".
Though I suspect this is more on Apple. Going to be blunt for a bit, but Apple has a habit of assuming only it produces innovation worth paying for. Apple usually doesn't wind up actually taking the import ban in the end, but there's a whole host of patent litigation that has targeted Apple. It's kind of funny, though - I remember the days where Steve Jobs insisted that them owning a swipe-to-unlock patent meant basically any phone with a touchscreen and a not-ass operating system was infringing them. "Zero-length swipe" my ass.
Probably would cost them more than waiting them out in court, or would encourage or make it easier for other patent holders, however legitimate, to go after them.
fragmede|2 years ago
rogerkirkness|2 years ago
ddxv|2 years ago
Moto7451|2 years ago
How is abiding by the decision of a court not following a principled view? Wouldn’t going against the rule of law be non-principles behavior? Apple is not required to license the patent nor is the holder required to ever license their patent. They can tell Apple to go pound sand as this isn’t the seemingly typical cell phone FRAND dispute.
Trying to find a way to build an Apple Watch 9 that doesn’t infringe on a patent is a valid and principled way of behaving, even if it’s perhaps a bad business choice. If it takes them a week or two and stands in court it’ll be seen as a good decision. If they can’t and pony up anyway it’ll be seen as a poor choice of action. We’ll certainly know soon enough.
eganist|2 years ago
Selfishly* principled. There's no exclusively abstract benefit here the way there is with e.g privacy rights; there's both the benefit of not having to pay royalties if they prevail as well as the second order benefit of deterring others from submitting patent litigation because other plaintiffs will know that Apple would rather burn cash reserves on litigation than on paying.
It's precisely for that reason that Apple should lose.
jmyeet|2 years ago
As for privacy, as an aside, Apple's track record is substantially better than Google's.
riley_dog|2 years ago
Simulacra|2 years ago
jimbobthrowawy|2 years ago
nickpp|2 years ago
eganist|2 years ago
Apple of all companies certainly could've afforded to pay.
aik|2 years ago
Most initiatives are not purely good without any downsides. A principle to consider is: Just because there are some negative aspects sometimes, do those outweigh the good? In this case, how many negatives actually come from patent law? (Btw, a monopoly most often is not the result - there are often many solutions to a similar problem/need.). And consider the side of the creator (which I’ve been finding is surprisingly rare in hn) - creating a company and product is already incredibly hard, how much harder do we want to make that? What and who are we sacrificing?
Maybe we just adjust the patent law some. Decrease the number of years? I’m sure it could be better.
snarf21|2 years ago
dlenski|2 years ago
JulianWasTaken|2 years ago
(This isn't a leading question, I have no informed opinion about Apple specifically.)
khuey|2 years ago
edanm|2 years ago
Why do you say that?
Do you disagree with the idea that patents promote innovation? Or do you think that 20 years specifically is too long, and if so, based on what analysis?
sandworm101|2 years ago
borgunit2|2 years ago
Patent reform is something that is sorely needed (and more funding for the USPTO).
Take for example this patent on an anti gravity device: https://www.nature.com/articles/438139a#:~:text=The%20US%20p....
And then there’s the patent troll problem. As a small shop, I am particularly afraid of trolls shutting us down overnight with basically no recourse.
thebruce87m|2 years ago
jmyeet|2 years ago
Apple, Google, Meta and other big tech companies have used patents defensively not offensively. That is, as mutually-assured destruction.
The real villains in this story are the patent holding companies that sue in East Texas to get in front of one judge that, at a time, heard a quarter of all US patent cases, all brought by NPEs (non-practicing entities aka patent trolls). IIRC there was at a time another judge and I heard a story that a popular law firm employed a relative to conflict out the second judge so they could get the judge they wanted.
Apple aren't the bad guys in the patent mess.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electron....
ramshanker|2 years ago
A patent holder declares the value he is willing to license the patent to any entity. Inventor can consider their EXPANSES while declaring the value, but not the approach “my idea cost me 0$ but is worth a billion “. Society should be willing to compensate for monetary investment, not just imagination. You deposit 1% of the declared value annually to maintain the patent. This one to discourage arbitrary value declaration. Any company wishing to license, pays you the declared amount. If 10 companies pay you declared value, I.e You have earned 10x return on your actual expense of innovation, patent becomes public domain. Society doesn’t need per product patent pricing sh*.
The numbers , 1% and 10x can always be debated. Overall seems good enough to encourage innovation and discourage trolling.
hasty_pudding|2 years ago
doix|2 years ago
> “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.”
It sounds like they didn't just want some money. They wanted them to use their chip or partner with them.
I am no Apple fan, but telling them to politely fuck off seems reasonable to me.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/18/technology/apple-ban-watc...
bdowling|2 years ago
mulmen|2 years ago
Uehreka|2 years ago
kmeisthax|2 years ago
Though I suspect this is more on Apple. Going to be blunt for a bit, but Apple has a habit of assuming only it produces innovation worth paying for. Apple usually doesn't wind up actually taking the import ban in the end, but there's a whole host of patent litigation that has targeted Apple. It's kind of funny, though - I remember the days where Steve Jobs insisted that them owning a swipe-to-unlock patent meant basically any phone with a touchscreen and a not-ass operating system was infringing them. "Zero-length swipe" my ass.
jimbobthrowawy|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]