this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
192 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
59374 readers
3794 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Still at the maybe maybe maybe stage.
Based on the article and other comments about the dispute, it seems like a justified legal move, but I hope they come around to an agreement regarding existing devices, rather than something insane, such as disabling the functionality on existing consumer devices.
I was given an Apple Watch in 2017. I replaced that (functioning just fine) watch about a year ago with a model with a pulse oximeter, specifically because I wanted the feature.
“What should we do? Just PAY the developer for the feature? Nah, we’ll just continue to file lawsuits and eventually settle in the inevitable class action from buyers which will certainly not be more than what we would have spent just licensing it in the first place”
Look, I’m not one for patent trolling, but this is pretty blatant on Apple’s end and as a Series 9 owner it’s annoying because it’s a feature I upgraded for that I’ll lose access to just because they don’t want to be told they’re wrong. Such corporate bullshit.