Quote from: rb on December 29, 2019, 16:04:05
Search google for Dr. Wiesel's US patent

patents.google.com/patent/US7020514B1/en

Very interesting, the patent seems to encompass a broad range of applications, likely any of the wearables worn on the wrist that detect a-fib falls into its description. I don't know if all or most patents are like this but if this patent is valid then he definitely has a case.

Search google for Dr. Wiesel's US patent

patents.google.com/patent/US7020514B1/en

His patent pre-dates the launch of the watch and the article mentions he contacted Apple as soon as they announced the feature, (and before the launch date).

From the link on Scribd, he's cardiologist who worked in the field for over 30 years and has been working on this technology for 20 years, with the first patent filed in 1999. So hardly a patent troll.

I'd be willing to bet the mechanism of the Apple watch is different than this patent troll's. I don't normally defend Apple, they suck, but there's no way this lawsuit will have traction.

That'd be akin to saying no two people can devise different ways to do the same thing. Hello?!? This Dr is a patent troll. And look at his last name - I think that says it all.

Hmmm, the link is blocked by the Great Firewall of China. This site, scribd,  didn't really catch my attention until I noticed that, but I was more interested in the patent itself than the court papers.