> 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.

I don't think the existence of rare costly outcomes is very good evidence that anything is wrong with the system.

Among high-level players, the vast majority of poker hands ends with an "agreement" about who probably has the strongest hand (i.e, all but one player folds and there's a modest transfer of funds to that player). But in order for that system to work, there has to be a credible threat of a showdown which, from an economic perspective considering just that single hand, is inefficient.

Likewise, the patent system might be good or bad overall, but occasional occurance of costly outcomes doesn't tell us much.

> seems like Apple and Masimo could have worked together

That’s literally what Massimo wanted, before Apple bailed on the partnership and poached their employees instead…

That's the narrative I am gathering from the comments here. Is it possible to realign incentives to promote cooperation instead? I understand this kind of restructuring would generate huge turbulence and resistance from entrenched players - but if it's possible to use the patent system for collaboration instead of market exclusion, the resulting net benefit to inventors/researchers, manufacturing and the general public might be worth it.

The banning of these Apple products _does_ promote cooperation. After all, it is actively punishing Apple's lack of cooperation.

Paying arbitrary fees to someone who filed paperwork first does not promote any sort of "cooperation", unless your idea of cooperation is one person paying money and one collecting it and giving nothing in return.

> ...giving nothing in return

Patent law is there, because creating original work is costly and can take years in engineering and scientific fields. The patents are there to give a time-window for the people who made the investments to make their money back and get some return on their investment.

Where are you getting this information? The consumer business is ultimately a threat to Masimo. Did they have any intention of commercializing these patents? Why did so many employees leave?

Yes. By partnering with Apple. The employees left to go work at Apple. Which is fine, you can work wherever you want and companies are free to hire/poach whoever they want.

The issue here is not that Apple hired them or that Apple didn’t go through with the deal. The issue is that Apple didn’t innovate but instead infringed on someone else’s IP. If you want to see an example of what Apple should have done, go check out the Garmin patents around pulseox.

Edit: People like to dunk on Garmin for being slow to market, while ignoring the degree to which Garmin doesn’t just rip off patented ideas and instead actually innovates.

Their existing product line is marketed on their patent background [^1]. The questions you're asking seem to resonate with a certain skepticism I have observed repeatedly in related situations. This is why I am wondering if anyone is seriously considering alternative models. It seems someone in this audience is likely to know of such a proposal if any exists.

[^1] https://www.masimopersonalhealth.com/products/masimo-w1

> if anyone is seriously considering alternative models

That’s for Apple to ponder and decide how to proceed. They seem to believe there’s no alternative yet.