I wonder if it is time to re-think the way patents work in an age of highly integrated devices. In this case, it seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together to deliver a stellar product that promoted both inventor rights and benefited the public. Instead, both companies are suffering, and the public loses access to a technology.
Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific advantages of the specific pulse oximetry technology at question here. While that may satisfy a small percentage of customers whose primary motive is that specific feature, the majority of people I know wouldn't consider that a valid option, since they like the integration with the "apple ecosystem", or similar reasons.
Would it be possible to separate end products from component technology in a way that prevents this? Perhaps by tracking an accounting line for patents internally, then pushing for legislation which requires patent-cost -> end product cost transparency?
Perhaps the public should buy the Masimo watch if they appreciate the specific advantages of the specific pulse oximetry technology at question here. While that may satisfy a small percentage of customers whose primary motive is that specific feature, the majority of people I know wouldn't consider that a valid option, since they like the integration with the "apple ecosystem", or similar reasons.
Would it be possible to separate end products from component technology in a way that prevents this? Perhaps by tracking an accounting line for patents internally, then pushing for legislation which requires patent-cost -> end product cost transparency?