This lists 10,912,502 and 10,945,648 as the patents, but if you get into the details the original complaint lists several more:

https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_no...

If only there was a patent that explained specifically what Masimo invented, otherwise no one would ever know!

Given there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.

My snark is mostly directed at people who lament the patent system as precluding innovation wherein it actually does the opposite by forcing public disclosure and precluding the use of trade secrets to protect such information indefinitely.

Is it useful to challenge you to look at one of these patents and actually try to build the thing? They don't even specify the wavelength of LEDs you should use, instead preferring to claim all imaginable wavelengths. They describe (and claim) what are very complicated digital signal processing algorithms in a few highly opaque paragraphs.

Sorry, nothing was forcibly publicly disclosed here. These guys got patent protection, the public got nothing.

>Is it useful to challenge you to look at one of these patents and actually try to build the thing?

I don't particularly think so. Patents are meant for a person of "ordinary skill" in the art. I don't make these devices. I'm not a person equipped to offer an opinion on whether the patent discloses sufficient information.

>Sorry, nothing was forcibly publicly disclosed here. These guys got patent protection, the public got nothing.

The way the invention works is what is disclosed. Patents aren't blueprints. It's even more ridiculous that you are making this comment when Apple seems to have infringed.