Doctor is suing Apple!

[edswife1970]

https://9to5mac.com/2019/12/28/apple-watch-afib-lawsuit/

 

[Just_Me_D]

On the surface, the doctor appears to have a legitimate case, in my opinion.

 

[Spencerdl]

Very interesting. I wonder if all the different "Blood Pressure taking machines" pay the original inventor? Does the inventor of shoes receive royalties from MANY companies?

 

[Lee_Bo]

And all those blood glucose testing devices.

 

[Al Paca]

First, it’s the most popular watch in the world. The doctor likely upgrades each year, but I digress.

Next, to the point: there isn’t enough information here. That said, IMHO Apple owes this doctor nothing and the answer will be due to law versus ethics. If I read correctly there were discussions between Apple and the complainant and Apple decided they’d work alone. They only would have chose to do so if they were certain they were not infringing on a previous patent.

Based on the the article info the doctor claimed his patent was for when a device detects afib on its own without intervention of the individual. Thus, his can determine the existence of possible afib simply by wearing the monitor.

The Apple Watch has two different features and neither do what the doctor describes. The Watch:

1. Allows you to set your own low and high beats per minute that will tell you when you spend “x” amount of time below or above a certain heart rate. This feature has ZERO to do with afib whatsoever.

2. The Watch if “triggered by the user” will use your index finger and the crown as single lead ECG which illustrates directional confidence that predicts an irregular heart rhythm which maybe attributed to afib but should be used as a signal to see a physician.

Patent law is exceptionally specific. Nope, I’m not an attorney, but I simply do not see the original patent being vague enough to cover what Apple does. Moreover, in the years that have followed there have been leaps and bounds with respect to heart monitors from the ones you wear while in the ER, to hospital admittance, to ones you can where home for 72 hours and return back and have the data read...and there’s the Watch.

 

[Spencerdl]

First, it’s the most popular watch in the world. The doctor likely upgrades each year, but I digress.

Next, to the point: there isn’t enough information here. That said, IMHO Apple owes this doctor nothing and the answer will be due to law versus ethics. If I read correctly there were discussions between Apple and the complainant and Apple decided they’d work alone. They only would have chose to do so if they were certain they were not infringing on a previous patent.

Based on the the article info the doctor claimed his patent was for when a device detects afib on its own without intervention of the individual. Thus, his can determine the existence of possible afib simply by wearing the monitor.

The Apple Watch has two different features and neither do what the doctor describes. The Watch:

1. Allows you to set your own low and high beats per minute that will tell you when you spend “x” amount of time below or above a certain heart rate. This feature has ZERO to do with afib whatsoever.

2. The Watch if “triggered by the user” will use your index finger and the crown as single lead ECG which illustrates directional confidence that predicts an irregular heart rhythm which maybe attributed to afib but should be used as a signal to see a physician.

Patent law is exceptionally specific. Nope, I’m not an attorney, but I simply do not see the original patent being vague enough to cover what Apple does. Moreover, in the years that have followed there have been leaps and bounds with respect to heart monitors from the ones you wear while in the ER, to hospital admittance, to ones you can where home for 72 hours and return back and have the data read...and there’s the Watch.

AGREED

 

[doogald]

I also read the patent and I have no idea how it was ever issued. It is mostly talking about an algorithm to determine if somebody is having a-fib from heart reading data, and my understanding is that algorithms cannot be patented - they are considered ideas. And there is nothing specific enough about devices in the patent besides describing using light passed through flesh or a pressure cuff to determine heart rate readings, and I believe that both of these were well-established technologies at the time of the patent. I would be very surprised if the patent isn't invalidated if he does brings this case to trial (unless Apple decides to pay a small licensing fee instead.)

 

[Quis89]

On the surface, the doctor appears to have a legitimate case, in my opinion.

I agree. If the tech utilized is intellectual property patented and owned by the doctor....It would seem his case is sound. I'm no lawyer though. But I personally don't think his position is without merit. If it's his, pay the man. Lol.

 

[Quis89]

On the surface, the doctor appears to have a legitimate case, in my opinion.

I agree. If the tech utilized is intellectual property patented and owned by the doctor....It would seem his case is sound. I'm no lawyer though. But I personally don't think his position is without merit. If it's his, pay the man. Lol.