423
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
423 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
60047 readers
1487 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like they’d have made more money by licensing their patent to Apple rather than trying to sell a watch for a ridiculous $999 price tag. I’m not saying they were wrong for their patent lawsuit, and it’s nice to see that small companies can still win, but I just don’t see this early product getting enough sales for them to profit.
I might be mistaken, but I think Apple started with a licensing deal and then walked back on it?
Googled and found this
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38774769
Ahh, fair enough. Missed that bit
Nobody is buying this and I don't think they are trying very hard to sell it either. Notice that this pricing is only in the U.S. This seems like a ploy to bolster their case for damages and/or royalties in a settlement. Or maybe just part of their patent defense strategy. This company is primarily in medical tech. Even if they aren't so interested in the consumer market, they have to protect their patent or someone in a market they do care about will get away with it too. I would assume it strengthens their case if they can demonstrate material damages in a market they participate in. So quickly unveil a prototype, price it so there's little to no demand, don't bother manufacturing a product nobody wants, win the case, cancel the product.
Hmm, that’s a new theory I haven’t heard. It sounds pretty plausible so I’ll be interested to see if it plays out like that.
I’m definitely curious about the history here, since it seems like Apple would have easily been able to offer more than they can benefit here. Who did what and when? Who tried to compromise with what and who rejected it?
From the PR side, Apple seems reasonable and has a good explanation, but clearly the court did not find their arguments convincing
I don’t know if there are sources I’m not finding, but a lot of people here are very confidently stating as facts, things I don’t see any source for so may be based on irrational hatred of a consumer products company