Apple claims reversal of $120M verdict against Samsung violates US Constitution

Posted:
in General Discussion
In reversing a $120 million jury verdict against Samsung for patent infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stepped beyond the bounds of the Constitution, a lawyer for Apple argued this week.




When overturning the verdict, the Court of Appeals used materials it researched itself instead of what was in the trial court record, Apple said in a petition for rehearing en banc seen by Reuters. This supposedly violated Apple's Seventh Amendment right to have a jury decide the facts of the case.

In a May 2014 court verdict, both Apple and Samsung were found to have infringed on each others' patents, the latter receiving a penalty of $120 million. This was overturned just last month, when the Court of Appeals ruled that Samsung hadn't violated a patent involving data detectors, and also invalidated two Apple patents, including the well-known "slide to unlock" concept.

At the beginning of the case, Apple originally demanded $2 billion in damages for five infringed patents, while Samsung fought for a little over $6 million for two patents.

Although Apple and Samsung are largely winding down their legal battles against each other, a separate case that resulted in $548 million in damages against Samsung is scheduled to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
       As he landed his crew with care;
    Supporting each man on the top of the tide
       By a finger entwined in his hair.

    "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
       That alone should encourage the crew...


    .                                       The crew is hereby encouraged.
    edited March 2016 pscooter63ai46
  • Reply 2 of 12
    sog35 said:
    I've been saying this for YEARS:

    Apple needs to make more political contributions. Not to get 'favors' but just to get treated fairly. 

    As an Apple shareholder I see no problem with Apple spending a few hundred million on political contributions.
    This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our government in the first place, taking kick backs from corporations instead of working for the people. Get your crony capitalism BS out of here. 
    nolamacguyfelixercnocbuijkichlinecaliewtheckmanrobertwalterdasanman69
  • Reply 3 of 12
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,048member
    From a legal point of view, Apple's argument is a strong one. I have ongoing research to do about the lower court's ruling on the validity of the patents, but it is true that appeals cases are supposed to be reviewed only on the merits of what was presented in the trial, and not outside research.
    ration alnetmage
  • Reply 4 of 12
    ceek74ceek74 Posts: 323member
    "Hearsay?  Speculation?  Happenstance?  2rd-party "research"?  I'll allow it." - U.S. Court of Appeals
    jony0
  • Reply 5 of 12
    dbeatsdbeats Posts: 26member
    So basically, our government could care less about our rights and knows nothing about due process and law. Looks like Apple should start a country...
  • Reply 6 of 12
    sog35 said:
    This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our government in the first place, taking kick backs from corporations instead of working for the people. Get your crony capitalism BS out of here. 
    Hey its up to you to keep living in a dream world. 
    I live in the REAL WORLD and this is the way politics and business have worked for centuries.

    Just consider the political contributions as marketing expenses.

    Look Apple has tired to limit its political contributions (they still send millions to DC) and what has it got them? 

    Crappy decision on the ebooks.
    Crappy decision on the Samsung case
    Crappy decision on the FBI case

    I mean WTF.  IF you can't see what's going on here you are blind. Apple isn't a charity or non-profit.  If you want to dream of rainbows and unicorns go ahead. But if they keep refusing to pay politicans they will keep getting screwed by the government.
    Ahh, sog35, the dreamer.
    singularityflaneur
  • Reply 7 of 12
    focherfocher Posts: 631member
    sog35 said:
    I've been saying this for YEARS:

    Apple needs to make more political contributions. Not to get 'favors' but just to get treated fairly. 

    As an Apple shareholder I see no problem with Apple spending a few hundred million on political contributions.
    Actually, what you've "been saying" is that you were liquidating your AAPL shares because you feel like Tim Cook and other Apple executives weren't doing enough (or anything) to address the public misinformation about Apple.

    Which is it? Are you a shareholder or not? Enquiring minds want to know. Or just me. Whatever.
    edited March 2016 singularitygatorguy
  • Reply 8 of 12
    jony0jony0 Posts: 268member
    ceek74 said:
    "Hearsay?  Speculation?  Happenstance?  2rd-party "research"?  Apple ? I'll allow it." - U.S. Court of Appeals
    Fixed that for ya !

    I for one am not surprised, business as usual in the US courts for Apple. Jury = Win. Federal judge(s) = Loss.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 9 of 12
    jony0jony0 Posts: 268member
    sog35 said:

    Crappy decision on the ebooks.
    Crappy decision on the Samsung case
    Crappy decision on the FBI case

    Crappy decision on the ebooks by a judge.
    Fair decision on the Samsung case by a jury despite questionable judge decisions, yet reversed by other judges¹ on appeal.
    Crappy decision on the FBI case by a judge.

    I think I see a pattern emerging … just can't quite put my finger on it.

    __________
    ¹ 2 judges toed the DoJ line against one recalcitrant voice of reason, who probably won't be assigned on any other Apple case.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    I've been saying this for YEARS:

    Apple needs to make more political contributions. Not to get 'favors' but just to get treated fairly. 

    As an Apple shareholder I see no problem with Apple spending a few hundred million on political contributions.
    This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our government in the first place, taking kick backs from corporations instead of working for the people. Get your crony capitalism BS out of here. 
    Hey its up to you to keep living in a dream world. 
    I live in the REAL WORLD and this is the way politics and business have worked for centuries.

    Just consider the political contributions as marketing expenses.

    Look Apple has tired to limit its political contributions (they still send millions to DC) and what has it got them? 

    Crappy decision on the ebooks.
    Crappy decision on the Samsung case
    Crappy decision on the FBI case

    I mean WTF.  IF you can't see what's going on here you are blind. Apple isn't a charity or non-profit.  If you want to dream of rainbows and unicorns go ahead. But if they keep refusing to pay politicans they will keep getting screwed by the government.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    Or maybe the correct decision was made.
    singularity
Sign In or Register to comment.