Technology

59427 readers

2839 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

Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Series 9 (www.theverge.com)

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apple appeals US ban on Apple Watch Ultra 2 and Series 9::The company also filed a petition for a stay on the International Trade Commission’s order to get Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 models temporarily back on shelves.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Apple has filed an appeal to the International Trade Commission’s decision to ban U.S. sales of Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 models, court records show.

Apple did not immediately respond to The Verge’s request for comment.

The models, which Apple says are their most popular, were banned after the ITC found that Apple infringed on blood oxygen saturation technology patented by health tech firm Masimo.

In today’s filing, Apple’s attorneys claimed the $3 trillion company “will suffer irreparable harm” if the models remain off the shelves during legal proceedings.

According to the filing, the Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is scheduled to make a decision on redesigned versions of the Watch models on January 13, 2023.

“At a minimum, the Court should grant a stay long enough for Customs to make this decision,” the company said.

The original article contains 214 words, the summary contains 141 words. Saved 34%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

Interesting how the company can say what the courts should be doing. I’m going to try it the next time I’m in court for driving with no pants on

[–] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Interesting how the company can say what the courts should be doing.

I mean, that is how court works. Then the court decides if it agrees.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago

You should point out the judge is wearing a big dress, thereby establishing precedent that pants are optional.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is that illegal to drive with no pants on? Asking for a friend.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

I’ll let you know what the verdict is

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Why would driving with no pants on be illegal lol