Apple ceasing sales of Apple Watch 9/Ultra 2

[Cmaier]

In an alarming move, Apple will stop selling the Apple Watch this week

As Christmas approaches, Apple is ‘pausing’ sales of the Series 9 and Ultra 2 to comply with a U.S. International Trade Commission order.

www.macworld.com

President Biden can still veto the ITC ruling, but if not, then Apple says it will stop selling its new watches in a few days.

I’ve defended a few ITC patent investigations, and this is why they are so scary for defendants.

 

[somerandomusername]

Utterly disgusting behavior from that Masimo. not sure why more people aren’t commenting here. Cliff, can you elaborate a little more on your last sentence also, I’m just curious? The majority of patents were invalidated. tired of companies like these.

Equally disgusting is the apple sites saying “get the best deals on Apple Watch now before it’s banned.” FFS. I hate the Apple ”fan” community

 

[Cmaier]

Utterly disgusting behavior from that Masimo. not sure why more people aren’t commenting here. Cliff, can you elaborate a little more on your last sentence also, I’m just curious? The majority of patents were invalidated. tired of companies like these.

Equally disgusting is the apple sites saying “get the best deals on Apple Watch now before it’s banned.” FFS. I hate the Apple ”fan” community

I’d be happy to elaborate but not sure what you’d like to know. In general, the issue with ITC 337 investigations is that they go pretty fast, and the end result can be a sales ban. You can get injunctions against sales in district court patent litigation too, but in district courts the court will apply the maxims of equity and would probably not grant such an injunction in this case (because the public would be injured, and any injury to Masimo stemming from continued Apple sales could probably be compensated for by Apple paying Masimo money instead).

 

[somerandomusername]

Well you mentioned that it’s scary for defendants so I suppose I just wanted to know more. also I guess in the context of the court ruling in Apple’s favor given the court and jury invalidated nearly all of their patents and stuff. Sorry, I’m not sure how to translate what’s in my head. it sounds like I’m doubting you but im not , I’m just wanting more info too regarding the whole situation, and does the ITC just not give a shit about that? is the president the only one who can stop it? Can the president be overruled or is it final if he rejects the ITC?
again, screw Masimo.

 

[Cmaier]

Well you mentioned that it’s scary for defendants so I suppose I just wanted to know more. also I guess in the context of the court ruling in Apple’s favor given the court and jury invalidated nearly all of their patents and stuff. Sorry, I’m not sure how to translate what’s in my head. it sounds like I’m doubting you but im not , I’m just wanting more info too regarding the whole situation, and does the ITC just not give a shit about that? is the president the only one who can stop it? Can the president be overruled or is it final if he rejects the ITC?
again, screw Masimo.

For an ITC action, the President is the final authority in terms of instituting an import ban. However, the entire investigation outcome can be appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

I haven’t been following this case closely, but if the ITC is ordering an import ban, that means that the ITC administrative law judge found that there is at least one claim of one patent that is infringed by Apple, and that no court has found the patent claim to be invalid (nor has the USPTO, nor has the ITC administrative law judge). [it’s possible that the relevant patent claims were invalidated late in the ITC investigation or after the decision at the ITC, in which case there would still be the existing ITC order, but I haven’t heard that to be the case].

As for why it’s scary at the ITC, a ban on sales/imports is usually considered the worst possible outcome for a defendant, and it is easier to get that result in the ITC than in district court.

 

[tomO2013]

Patent law in my opinion needs a serious overhaul. What was originally intended to protect innovation and ensure that the little innovative guy could compete with the big non-innovative guy has in my humble opinion since turned into a joke.

This is true for almost all big IT firms that have an army of patents at their disposal - in my experience, everybody is doing it.

I used to work for IBM and it was funny because we used to be asked to go into a room as a team each week for 30 minutes to come up with new patents (I kid you not) on top of the patents that we uncovered through actual real practical work. All of the engineers that I worked with hated this ... we felt it was akin to asking a rock band to go into a room and write a hit song without instruments.

Nevertheless IBM was not alone in my experience and they had a boatload of patents both filed and published (often relating to industries that they don't obviously directly partake in) on a regular basis.
When you actually saw the cost to get a patent published , it suddenly made me aware 'hey this is not very affordable for the little guy that it was originally intended to protect'.

I worked for another company (well known and quite litigious so I won't mention the name in public here) where my boss at the time made mention that we had an army of patents so that we could basically borrow ideas from other companies, preferably smaller. If they sued and said we were using one of their patents, our lawyers would counter sue and trawl through our war chest of patents to see which ones they were innocently and unknowingly infringing. In effect scaring them away.

Like I said, I do appreciate the need to protect work and hard-fought R&D effort, but the current status quo in the world is getting a bit ridiculous, it's helping the big patent trolls and larger corporations more than it's protecting legitimate innovative ideas from being plundered.

While I don't have huge sympathy for Apple ... I do nevertheless respect that proportionally to other organizations many of Apples' patents do end up in shipping products rather than being for patent squatting.

It's an interesting area of work. I'd be particularly interested in hearing your views Cliff on what reforms could be made to both protect innovation and having hard work plundered but at the same time protect against large companies with big war chests , patent squatting like SCO etc...

 

[rdrr]

I know that this is more complex, but why do I feel that Apple’s reaction is a way to cause FOMO on Apple Watch and increase sale demand.

 

[Cmaier]

I know that this is more complex, but why do I feel that Apple’s reaction is a way to cause FOMO on Apple Watch and increase sale demand.

Not really “their reaction.” They will legally have to stop sales unless something changes in the next few days.

 

[theorist9]

Apple's online US sales on the Ultra 2 and Watch 9 have stopped, but they can still be sold by 3rd-party retailers, and Amazon and Best Buy have both in-stock at discounted prices. Apple can still ship to AZ & BB through Dec 25 to keep them supplied.

I wonder if Apple has made arrangements with AZ&BB to ship them much more than their usual Christmas orders, so that online sales of these can continue. Something like: "We'll ship you a significant fraction of our US stocks without requiring payment terms, and any not sold can be returned to us once the ban ends."

The White House has until Dec. 25 to veto the ban.

Apple halts online sales of its Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2

Apple has officially pulled its Apple Watch from its online stores.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[theorist9]

Utterly disgusting behavior from that Masimo.

What's your basis for saying this, i.e., that Masimo's suit has no merit? I don't know who's right or wrong here, but there is a history:

Why the Apple Watch is being banned — and how Apple can avoid it

Apple would need a Christmas miracle to get a presidential veto.

www.theverge.com

"This particular story started about 10 years ago when Apple reached out to Masimo about a potential partnership around blood oxygen features on its wearables. Soon after, Apple reportedly poached several Masimo engineers and its chief medical officer. And then in fall 2020, Apple released the Apple Watch Series 6 — its first Apple Watch to feature an SpO2 sensor to measure blood oxygen saturation levels."

 

[jbailey]

What's your basis for saying this, i.e., that Masimo's suit has no merit? I don't know who's right or wrong here, but there is a history:

Why the Apple Watch is being banned — and how Apple can avoid it

Apple would need a Christmas miracle to get a presidential veto.

www.theverge.com

"This particular story started about 10 years ago when Apple reached out to Masimo about a potential partnership around blood oxygen features on its wearables. Soon after, Apple reportedly poached several Masimo engineers and its chief medical officer. And then in fall 2020, Apple released the Apple Watch Series 6 — its first Apple Watch to feature an SpO2 sensor to measure blood oxygen saturation levels."

Whenever I see words like “poached” in relation to a story, I can usually assume it is biased. In this case many of the stories just regurgitate Masimo’s press releases. There is no such thing as “poaching” an employee. Apple simply offered more money and benefits. Those employees didn’t belong to Masimo.

 

[Cmaier]

Whenever I see words like “poached” in relation to a story, I can usually assume it is biased. In this case many of the stories just regurgitate Masimo’s press releases. There is no such thing as “poaching” an employee. Apple simply offered more money and benefits. Those employees didn’t belong to Masimo.

That phrasing also implies something that is irrelevant. This is a patent case. Not a trade secrets case. If Masimo believes these “poached” employees brought secrets along to apple which apple stole, Masimo hasn’t made such claims in court.

 

[Citysnaps]

Apple simply offered more money and benefits.

And possibly much more interesting/challenging work. That's what motivated me the couple times I changed jobs in SV.

 

[theorist9]

.

 

[theorist9]

That phrasing also implies something that is irrelevant. This is a patent case. Not a trade secrets case. If Masimo believes these “poached” employees brought secrets along to apple which apple stole, Masimo hasn’t made such claims in court.

Good point.

Whenever I see words like “poached” in relation to a story, I can usually assume it is biased. In this case many of the stories just regurgitate Masimo’s press releases. There is no such thing as “poaching” an employee. Apple simply offered more money and benefits. Those employees didn’t belong to Masimo.

Well, here's the account that the Verge article linked (from the WSJ), and that Verge described as "poaching". That doesn't appear to be a Masimo press release. Further, what they are describing does seem to conform to the term poaching, as it is normally used:

When Apple Comes Calling, ‘It’s the Kiss of Death’

Aspiring partners are accusing the tech giant of copying their ideas. Apple says it plays by the rules.

www.wsj.com

I also did a site search within WSJ.com, and found that they sometimes use the term themselves, indicating it is an accepted term of art—or at least an accepted colloquialism.You can also see the term used in these two articles from Harvard Business Review:

What to Do If Your Employees Keep Getting Poached ^ H06XBS

Buy books, tools, case studies, and articles on leadership, strategy, innovation, and other business and management topics

store.hbr.org

When the Competition Is Trying to Poach Your Top Employee

Don’t overreact, and don’t rush to make a counteroffer.

hbr.org

I'm not arguing for or against the practice here. I'm simply saying it exists, and that the term "poaching" seems to be an accepted way to describe it. I thus disagree with your absolutist claim that:

There is no such thing as “poaching”

If you had instead said "I don't like the term because.....", then I might have been more sympathetic to, and possibly agreed with, your argument.

 

[JRLMustang]

I'm not arguing for or against the practice here. I'm simply saying it exists, and that the term "poaching" seems to be an accepted way to describe it.

I don’t buy it. That may apply to those particular circles, but it doesn’t apply “in general”; which is the point.

That’s the problem we’ve been having lately when terms and definitions are changed. The term or definition should apply everywhere and in the majority of cases. That’s a whole other debate. Taken literally, the term “poaching” in Masimo’s narrative would mean that Apple went onto Masimo property and grounds, possibly entering buildings all without authorization and kidnapping Masimo employees or stealing their property, and making them their own. Either that or they’re cooking Masimo associates like eggs. Making someone a better employment offer and allowing them to freely decide is not poaching. It’s a term that’s being leveraged by Masimo because it sounds scary and “charged” in this particular context.

 

[theorist9]

I don’t buy it. That may apply to those particular circles, but it doesn’t apply “in general”; which is the point.

That’s the problem we’ve been having lately when terms and definitions are changed. The term or definition should apply everywhere and in the majority of cases. That’s a whole other debate. Taken literally, the term “poaching” in Masimo’s narrative would mean that Apple went onto Masimo property and grounds, possibly entering buildings all without authorization and kidnapping Masimo employees or stealing their property, and making them their own. Either that or they’re cooking Masimo associates like eggs. Making someone a better employment offer and allowing them to freely decide is not poaching. It’s a term that’s being leveraged by Masimo because it sounds scary and “charged” in this particular context.

First, I wasn't quoting Masimo, I was quoting The Verge. I don't know if Masimo used that term or not (it's certainly possible they did, but that's not relevant here).

Second, come on.... you're making up your own ridiculous definition of employment poaching that no one but you uses...

kidnapping Masimo employees or stealing their property, and making them their own

....and then saying anyone who uses that term is misusing it unless the practice conforms to your personal defintion. Surely you can see this isn't a legitimate argument.

Everyone knows that words can have completely different meanings in different contexts! Employment poaching has a well-established meaning (as evidenced by the two HBS articles I linked) that is entirely different from, for instance, big game poaching. The fact that you're deliberately conflating very different uses of "poaching"—and doing so to an absurd degree—in order to argue with me is very frustrating.

 

[JRLMustang]

Double post

 

[JRLMustang]

Poaching is scary and charged term. That’s why it’s being used. Nothing more. You can’t poach an employee. Period. Full stop.

As far as absurdities, what’s truly absurd is how you embrace sensational terms used by media outlets to drive a narrative. Employees go where they get a better employment offer. It’s called competition. Companies don’t own their employees. They’re employees, not property

 

[theorist9]

As far as absurdities, what’s truly absurd is how you embrace sensational terms used by media outlets to drive a narrative. Employees go where they get a better employment offer. It’s called competition. Companies don’t own their employees. They’re employees, not property

Yet another dishonest argument. First you deliberately redefine employment poaching in a way that no one but you uses. Then, just because I happend to quote a post from The Verge in which they used the term "poaching", you ridiculously say I "embrace sensational terms used media outlet to drive a narrative". Take a look at most post history and ask if that's my MO.

The only one engaging in the practice of using sensationalism to drive a narrative (like equating the term "poaching" to human trafficking: "kidnapping Masimo employees or stealing their property, and making them their own")—is you. From everything thing I've seen, you're more interested in game-playing and trolling than engaging in honest discourse.