Another Apple lawsuit

[Bratstech]

Apple is just neck deep in lawsuits right now

 

Summary

AliveCor, a medical company, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against apple claiming that they copied their ECG ideas and patents.

 

Quotes

Quote

 “According to the full filing, available below, AliveCor claims that Apple initially supported the company's development of an electrocardiogram wristband, the KardiaBand. "Apple not only initially approved AliveCor's apps... but also advertised AliveCor's innovations to sell more Apple Watches," says the suit.” - appleinsider

 

My thoughts

Like I said apple is neck deep in lawsuits right now. I mean of course they can afford it they are apple but if they keep getting bad press then it'll be bad for them

 

Sources

https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/05/26/apple-watch-again-at-core-of-new-patent-infringement-suit-filed-by-alivecor/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

https://www.techspot.com/amp/news/89843-apple-alleged-monopolistic-practices-called-rotten-core-apple.html

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/26/alivecor-apple-watch-antitrust-lawsuit/amp/

[SignatureSigner]

(I know this techincaly related to the lawsuit at hand but.....)

LET TO GARDEN WALLS FALL!

[GorujoCY]

even AliveCor have fired apple way before this but Oh boy Oh boy, this is going to be a 2v1 lawsuit battle for apple, if they clutch I'll not be surprised

edit: if we take macrumour's words: 1v5 for apple for anti trust, oh boy oh boy this is fun

[Guest]

Why are these lawsuits always so late. Apple has hardly not been advertising, they might have noticed a few years ago. 

[wanderingfool2]

*My last post was more thought out, but the submit button ate my post so retyping*

 

3 hours ago, Bratstech said:

AliveCor, a medical company, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against apple claiming that they copied their ECG ideas and patents.

I am not a fan of Apple, but originally when I saw this I thought that AliveCor would be another patent troll (and just just sore that someone else also implemented their design)...then I read the claims being made by AliveCor and if even a portion of what they said is true I think Apple should face a major penalty and they should have to publicly disclose their actions.

 

Here are some of the quotes from the court case (these are the allegations, not proven true, but if they are true it paints Apple in a really bad light):

*This is the quote, where if true, I think there should be an actual criminal investigation as well*

Quote

 In September 2018, Apple released the Series 4 Apple Watch, which included the
ability to record an ECG as a default app with the Watch’s hardware and software. Apple also released
a heartrate analysis app (like SmartRhythm) that came standard on the new Apple Watch, a fact that Apple heavily advertised as a selling poin
t for the new device. Had that been the extent of Apple’s actions, the market would have dictated who won or lost.

-snip-

 

But, unfortunately, Apple did not allow the market to make its decision. Instead, Apple used its control over watchOS to ensure that its new heartrate analysis app had no competition from the likes of AliveCor or any other provider.

 

-snip-

Apple released watchOS5, which, among other things, “updated” the Watch’s heartrate algorithm. That update did not
improve the user experience for Apple Watch purchasers; instead, its purpose and effect was simply to  prevent third parties from identifying irregular heartrate situations and, thus, from offering competing heartrate analysis apps. Even more insidiously, the update was also pushed out to Series 1-3 Watch users (who did not have ECG capabilities built into their Watches like Series 4 users), which rendered their copies of SmartRhythm ineffective and negated the reason they purchased KardiaBands and  AliveCor’s other apps. In short, to gain an unfair competitive edge, Apple put countless AliveCor users’ lives in danger.
 

*In effect, if they are changing an underlying health feature without access to the original and if their purpose was to prevent the other apps from getting the information they needed this is a serious issue*

 

Other quotes that if true shows that Apple needs to be stopped from behaving in this fashion.

Quote

the same day AliveCor told Apple that it planned to announce its FDA clearance, Apple “pre-announced” a heart initiative for the Apple Watch

Quote

Thus, despite  previously accepting SmartRhythm without objection (when Apple did not have designs to own the market), Apple suddenly claimed that the app “violated” various unwritten App Store guidelines.

Quote

 When AliveCor pushed back on these accusations, Apple responded by literally rewriting the rules.  Nevertheless, AliveCor adapted and updated SmartRhythm multiple times over several months so it was in compliance with Apple’s new and ever-changing guidelines

Quote

 Faced with AliveCor’s tenacity, Apple next resorted to behind-the-scenes acts of sabotage, consisting primarily of undocumented updates to the Apple Watch’s operating system, watchOS. Those unannounced updates would suddenly render SmartRhythm inoperable and were out of the norm for devices like the Apple Watch (and particularly out of the norm for Apple, which typically documents every minor change to its operating systems).

 

This does speak to the larger question as well.  If Apple is releasing updates (and making sure their Apps are compatible), then they should allow early access to App developers as well to ensure compatibility (I get it for security patches not doing so, but general updates they should)

[WolframaticAlpha]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

*My last post was more thought out, but the submit button ate my post so retyping*

 

I am not a fan of Apple, but originally when I saw this I thought that AliveCor would be another patent troll (and just just sore that someone else also implemented their design)...then I read the claims being made by AliveCor and if even a portion of what they said is true I think Apple should face a major penalty and they should have to publicly disclose their actions.

 

Here are some of the quotes from the court case (these are the allegations, not proven true, but if they are true it paints Apple in a really bad light):

*This is the quote, where if true, I think there should be an actual criminal investigation as well*

*In effect, if they are changing an underlying health feature without access to the original and if their purpose was to prevent the other apps from getting the information they needed this is a serious issue*

 

Other quotes that if true shows that Apple needs to be stopped from behaving in this fashion.

 

This does speak to the larger question as well.  If Apple is releasing updates (and making sure their Apps are compatible), then they should allow early access to App developers as well to ensure compatibility (I get it for security patches not doing so, but general updates they should)

Wow. Microsoft would be proud of Apple's anticompetitive behaviour.

[wanderingfool2]

Okay, read through the document submitted to the court...one of the Apple's excuses for not allowing the app (once they started competing was as follows)

Quote

For example, Apple complained that SmartRhythm utilized the Watch’s “workout mode,” which was supposedly
problematic because SmartRhythm was not a workout app. (SmartRhythm operated in
“workout mode” to access the Watch’s heartrate algorithm, which was a critical input for monitoring a user’s
heartrate, in an uninterrupted manner.)

So they needed to use the "workout mode" to access the data they needed, but Apple didn't want that since they weren't a workout app...but here is the kicker (the next quote)

Quote

When AliveCor pointed out there was no rule against doing so, Apple just rewrote the App Store guidelines to include a rule against using workout mode

So when Apple realized they couldn't have it their way, they allegedly changed the policy to allow them to block it.  This is an abuse of power really, and clearly shows (if true) that Apple should be either forced to conform to their own rules (i.e. if they develop an App, it should only have the same access and rules applied to it as other developers) or there should be a way for third parties to publish Apps. 

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

In short, to gain an unfair competitive edge, Apple put countless AliveCor users’ lives in danger.

 

I've no idea if it was actually being used to monitor genuine potential issues with serious health consequences. But if it was. Forget anti-competitive. That is, or should be an absolutely massive health and safety violation with very serious consequences far beyond the typical anti-competitive stuff.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Okay, read through the document submitted to the court...one of the Apple's excuses for not allowing the app (once they started competing was as follows)

So they needed to use the "workout mode" to access the data they needed, but Apple didn't want that since they weren't a workout app...but here is the kicker (the next quote)

So when Apple realized they couldn't have it their way, they allegedly changed the policy to allow them to block it.  This is an abuse of power really, and clearly shows (if true) that Apple should be either forced to conform to their own rules (i.e. if they develop an App, it should only have the same access and rules applied to it as other developers) or there should be a way for third parties to publish Apps. 

To be fair changing agreement to stop things from happening that they don't want is actually pretty common in the business world. Granted in this case its clearly the intent of the changes that is the issue not changing an agreement to stop abuse. For example changing privacy policies to force apps to ask for permission to track users is a change to agreements to disallow a practice that Apple doesn't like or more so what consumers want. The difference for this agreement change is that its clearly to prevent health apps from functioning properly and I don't see much of a justification for what they are doing. 

[Kisai]

8 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

So when Apple realized they couldn't have it their way, they allegedly changed the policy to allow them to block it.  This is an abuse of power really, and clearly shows (if true) that Apple should be either forced to conform to their own rules (i.e. if they develop an App, it should only have the same access and rules applied to it as other developers) or there should be a way for third parties to publish Apps. 

This is typically standard behavior by corporations. Don't like what the user is doing, explicitly make it a violation to do so, even if there is no logical/legal reason for it.

 

Like to give an example from when I worked at the auction site, often the public-facing policy was different from the private one. The public facing policy regarding keyword spam also works against the user in infringement reports. So if you know something is bad, and need to take it down, but you're short a few pieces of evidence, you take it down for the lesser (keyword spam) which then counts as evidence for the infringement takedown, which has harsher penalties.

 

I can imagine the thought process here probably started with overreach and then then someone realized that it duplicates functionality with an upcoming Apple product and needed a better excuse to block it.

 

That said, it's kinda ridiculous when it comes to health and safety apps. Unless there was a risk of the watch malfunctioning from being used this way, it doesn't make any sense.

[wanderingfool2]

44 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I can imagine the thought process here probably started with overreach and then then someone realized that it duplicates functionality with an upcoming Apple product and needed a better excuse to block it.

 

That said, it's kinda ridiculous when it comes to health and safety apps. Unless there was a risk of the watch malfunctioning from being used this way, it doesn't make any sense.

I think the thought processes could very well be Apple wanting to edge out a competitor and instructions were given to make their life difficult (if the timeline in the docket is to be believed).

 

This was an app that had apparently been already approved, and then miraculously when Apple starts competing they start finding issues (it took them apparently months to "resolve" all of Apples issues)....then again, it could just be like Floatplane on IOS, where there isn't a reason for the denial except maybe the person assigned to it is grumpy.

 

Personally, I believe the most damaging part (if true), is that Apple denies access to the sensor data (only accessible through their API) and they chance the algorithm which prevents accuracy, while at the same time releasing their own built in app (that undoubtedly uses the raw sensor data)

[justpoet]

I want to point out a couple of things here.

1) Apple is ALWAYS in lots of lawsuits.  Always has been, probably always will be.  So are the other large tech players.

2) The app in question was not medically approved (they even state they were only about to be, not that they were), so breaking functionality didn't put those users' lives at risk.  The Apple Watch and its functionality paved the way for a lot of regulatory approval for several monitoring things, but it had none of that early on when this happened.  In fact, the early Apple Watch tried to go there more quickly, and regulators didn't want to allow consumer products into the medical field, so it took a while.

3) Using workout mode basically enabled a bunch of sensors, drained the battery much more rapidly, took the majority of the processing power (early Apple Watch units were single core), and gave up a lot more sensitive user data too.  That's why it wasn't allowed once it was discovered that early apps intended for background use (rather than actual workout apps) were doing that, and the majority of the functionality was returned in other ways/api's that used less resources, along with better SOCs in newer watch versions that can do more of the sensing with less overhead at reduced granularity.

4) The WatchOS updates at the time, while enabling a lot of the health items (such as GymKit for connecting with other health hardware), were also known for...removing lag in the device and improving battery life.  So we're talking major architecture shifts for better user experience and more app/hardware availability here, not a random "we just added a block" behavior.

 

[Video Beagle]

2 hours ago, justpoet said:

I want to point out a couple of things here.

you and your facts getting in the way of good anti-apple rants.

[Spindel]

2 hours ago, justpoet said:

I want to point out a couple of things here.

1) Apple is ALWAYS in lots of lawsuits.  Always has been, probably always will be.  So are the other large tech players.

2) The app in question was not medically approved (they even state they were only about to be, not that they were), so breaking functionality didn't put those users' lives at risk.  The Apple Watch and its functionality paved the way for a lot of regulatory approval for several monitoring things, but it had none of that early on when this happened.  In fact, the early Apple Watch tried to go there more quickly, and regulators didn't want to allow consumer products into the medical field, so it took a while.

3) Using workout mode basically enabled a bunch of sensors, drained the battery much more rapidly, took the majority of the processing power (early Apple Watch units were single core), and gave up a lot more sensitive user data too.  That's why it wasn't allowed once it was discovered that early apps intended for background use (rather than actual workout apps) were doing that, and the majority of the functionality was returned in other ways/api's that used less resources, along with better SOCs in newer watch versions that can do more of the sensing with less overhead at reduced granularity.

4) The WatchOS updates at the time, while enabling a lot of the health items (such as GymKit for connecting with other health hardware), were also known for...removing lag in the device and improving battery life.  So we're talking major architecture shifts for better user experience and more app/hardware availability here, not a random "we just added a block" behavior.

 

I refute your facts and substitute them with my own reality!

[wanderingfool2]

17 hours ago, justpoet said:

The app in question was not medically approved (they even state they were only about to be, not that they were), so breaking functionality didn't put those users' lives at risk

Uhm, according to them prior to the changes they could detect AFib with 95% accuracy and after the changes 50% accuracy.  As someone with a heart condition, yeah that can put peoples lives at risk (if they are using an app that is to alert you of an episode).  It doesn't matter if it was medically approved, if the intent was to mess with the algorithm so others can't compete.  (Because this change happened when Apple was introducing their own App which could do the same thing)

 

17 hours ago, justpoet said:

Using workout mode basically enabled a bunch of sensors, drained the battery much more rapidly, took the majority of the processing power (early Apple Watch units were single core), and gave up a lot more sensitive user data too.  That's why it wasn't allowed once it was discovered that early apps intended for background use (rather than actual workout apps) were doing that, and the majority of the functionality was returned in other ways/api's that used less resources, along with better SOCs in newer watch versions that can do more of the sensing with less overhead at reduced granularity.

Think what you want, but there are ample amounts of cases where Apple has shown to use their "policies" to try killing off competitors.  Yes, there might have been some purposes behind some of the things, but the timing (if true) seems to sketchy; and if they were releasing undocumented updates that was breaking Apps then that just adds more to it...remember this is a device and app that Apple was shown demos of and had employees using them.  [That was just one example of the rejection of an App]

 

17 hours ago, justpoet said:

he majority of the functionality was returned in other ways/api's that used less resources, along with better SOCs in newer watch versions that can do more of the sensing with less overhead at reduced granularity.

Except that the most important feature was left out.  As a note as well, a heartbeat sensor cannot just stop working for a bit to sample...it would keep needing to be sampled, so the change in the algorithm would likely have less to do with saving on overhead.

 

17 hours ago, justpoet said:

The WatchOS updates at the time, while enabling a lot of the health items (such as GymKit for connecting with other health hardware), were also known for...removing lag in the device and improving battery life.  So we're talking major architecture shifts for better user experience and more app/hardware availability here, not a random "we just added a block" behavior.

Just because it removes lag and improves battery life doesn't give them a pass for leaving the update undocumented.  If underlying systems are being changed that affect Apps, it should be documented.