A US federal judge invalidated a key patent held by Omni MedSci related to non-invasive blood glucose monitoring. This ruling potentially clears a significant obstacle for companies like Apple, who are reportedly developing similar technology for devices like the Apple Watch. The invalidated patent covered a method of using light to measure glucose levels, a technique believed to be central to Apple's rumored efforts. This decision could accelerate the development and release of non-invasive blood glucose monitoring technology for consumer wearables.
Motivated by the lack of a suitable smartwatch solution for managing his son's Type 1 diabetes, a father embarked on building a custom smartwatch from scratch. Using off-the-shelf hardware components like a PineTime smartwatch and a Nightscout-compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM), he developed software to display real-time blood glucose data directly on the watch face. This DIY project aimed to provide a discreet and readily accessible way for his son to monitor his blood sugar levels, addressing concerns like bulky existing solutions and social stigma associated with medical devices. The resulting smartwatch displays glucose levels, trend arrows, and alerts for high or low readings, offering a more user-friendly and age-appropriate interface than traditional diabetes management tools.
Hacker News commenters largely praised the author's dedication and ingenuity in creating a smartwatch for his son with Type 1 diabetes. Several expressed admiration for his willingness to dive into hardware and software development to address a specific need. Some discussed the challenges of closed-loop systems and the potential benefits and risks of DIY medical devices. A few commenters with diabetes shared their personal experiences and offered suggestions for improvement, such as incorporating existing open-source projects or considering different hardware platforms. Others raised concerns about the regulatory hurdles and safety implications of using a homemade device for managing a serious medical condition. There was also some discussion about the potential for commercializing the project.
Karl Guttag analyzes the newly announced "Halliday" AR glasses, skeptical of their claimed capabilities. He argues that the demonstrated "AI features" like real-time language translation and object recognition are likely pre-programmed demos, not actual artificial intelligence. Guttag points to the lack of specific technical details, reliance on pre-recorded videos, and improbable battery life as evidence. He concludes that the Halliday glasses, while potentially impressive AR technology, are almost certainly overselling their AI integration and are more likely sophisticated augmented reality, not AI-powered, glasses.
HN commenters discuss the practicality and potential invasiveness of the Halliday glasses. Several express skepticism about the claimed battery life, especially given the purported onboard processing power. Others question the usefulness of constant AR overlays and raise privacy concerns related to facial recognition and data collection. Some suggest alternative approaches, like bone conduction audio and smaller, simpler displays for notifications. The closed-source nature of the project also draws criticism, with some arguing it limits community development and fosters distrust. Finally, the high price point is mentioned as a significant barrier to entry.
Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43124436
Hacker News commenters discuss the implications of the patent invalidation, with some skeptical about Apple's ability to deliver a reliable non-invasive blood glucose monitor soon. Several point out that regulatory hurdles remain a significant challenge, regardless of patent issues. Others note that the invalidation doesn't automatically clear the way for Apple, as other patents and technical challenges still exist. Some express hope for the technology's potential to improve diabetes management, while others highlight the difficulties of accurate non-invasive glucose monitoring. A few commenters also discuss the specifics of the patent and the legal reasoning behind its invalidation.
The Hacker News post discussing the invalidation of an Omni MedSci patent related to blood glucose monitoring for potential use in Apple Watch has generated a moderate number of comments, exploring various aspects of the situation.
Several commenters express skepticism about the actual impact of this patent invalidation on Apple's progress. They highlight the significant technical challenges inherent in non-invasive blood glucose monitoring and suggest that this specific patent likely wasn't a major roadblock for Apple. The consensus seems to be that Apple's hurdles are more related to the scientific and engineering difficulties of accurate and reliable measurement rather than legal issues.
Some users discuss the complexities of patent litigation in general and how companies often build "patent thickets" – a large portfolio of patents, some stronger than others – to protect their innovations. They suggest that this particular patent may have been relatively weak and that Omni MedSci likely has other patents related to this technology. Therefore, while this invalidation might be a small win for Apple, it's not necessarily a game-changer.
Another thread of discussion centers around the existing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) on the market, such as Dexcom and Freestyle Libre. Commenters compare the invasiveness and accuracy of these existing solutions and speculate on how a non-invasive Apple Watch solution might compare. Some users express concerns about the accuracy and reliability required for medical devices like glucose monitors, and how regulatory approval for a non-invasive solution might be difficult to obtain.
Finally, some comments touch upon the potential benefits of such a feature in the Apple Watch, particularly for people with diabetes. They acknowledge the transformative potential of readily available, continuous glucose monitoring for managing the condition. However, they also caution against over-hyping the news and emphasize the need for rigorous testing and validation before such a technology becomes widely available.
In summary, the comments generally express cautious optimism about the potential for non-invasive blood glucose monitoring in the Apple Watch, tempered by an understanding of the technical and regulatory challenges involved. While the patent invalidation is viewed as a positive step, it is not seen as a decisive breakthrough, and the prevailing sentiment is that significant work remains before such a technology becomes a reality.