carnegie

I'm headed out the door so I won't get lost in the details of this decision or too far into the procedural stance of the case as it reached the Supreme Court. But I did want to point out that Section 230 had nothing to do with this decision. The Court found that the plaintiffs hadn't sufficiently made out a claim under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which was the basis for what remained of the suit.

Had the Court ruled the other way, the case would likely have went back to the district court where Section 230 might have become an issue. As it was, the district court didn't reach the Section 230 issue because it didn't need to. And when the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, it didn't address the Section 230 issue because the district court hadn't done so. Without the petition to the Supreme Court (and cert grant), the district court - after being reversed on the JASTA claim - would likely have addressed the Section 230 issue. Then its decision on that might have been appealed to the Ninth Circuit before possibly being appealed to the Supreme Court.

At any rate, this Supreme Court decision tells us nothing about how Section 230 might protect Twitter and others in similar situations.

I was glad to see some substantive discussion in the opinion relating to single brand antitrust markets. The Supreme Court has said very little on this issue beyond opening up the possibility that a single brand can represent a relevant market for antitrust law purposes. The Ninth Circuit had probably said more than other circuits, but it still hadn't provided much clarity on the issue. This Ninth Circuit decision provides some clarity:

davidw said:

AppleZulu said:

The spin on this report is making me dizzy. 

The actual facts of the case appear to be this:

AliveCor held patents in the area of ECG reader tech. Apple built ECG tech into the Apple Watch. AliveCor claims Apple has violated its patents, and took two parallel actions. They 1) filed a patent infringement suit against Apple, and 2) asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. 

Three things have resulted so far. 1) The courts invalidated AliveCor’s patents. 2) The ITC approved the import ban that would go into effect if AliveCor wins its infringement cases. 3) The President did not exercise his option to overrule the FTC. 

This is not the same thing as suggested by this headline and article, that Joe Biden somehow sided with AliveCor to “uphold” a ban. 

This whole thing is moot unless AliveCor turns everything around and wins the infringement case on appeal, which is unlikely. So why, other than cynical click bait, run a headline that makes it sound like Joe Biden is personally going to take your Apple Watch away?

Not quite. Not that it matters, except for getting the detail of the facts right.

AliveCor did not .... "asked the International Trade Commission to ban US imports of Apple Watch if  AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases." It was the ITC that decided not to enforce any ban on the US imports of Apple Watch unless AliveCor wins the trial against Apple in the infringement cases. The ITC has the power to ban Apple Watch imports before the outcome of the trial but AliveCor would have to post a bond to cover Apple losses during the ban, in case AliveCor don't win their infringement case against Apple. AliveCor would never be able to afford to post such a bond. But you never know if some scumbag like Sweeney (CEO of Epic Games) might post the bond for AliveCor.

And it was not the courts that invalidated AliveCor patents, it was the US Patent Office own patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found the patents invalid. This makes it a lot harder, if not near impossible, for Alivecor to have their patents made valid again, on appeal. They are arguing their appeal case to the PTAB patent judges, not to a judge in a court of law. The courts must abide by the PTAB rulings and have no power to overturn any PTAB rulings on patents.

But you're right about the headline. It makes it seem as though there's a "potential" that the ITC will ban Apple Watch imports, when in reality at this point, there's almost no chances at all.

It's a win-win for POTUS Biden to say that he would not veto the ITC "potential" ban on Apple Watch as this shows his progressive supporters that he is not on the side of big tech but he also knows that the outcome of the ITC case is almost certain to be in Apple's favor anyway. Thus no harm done. If there was a real "potential" that the ITC could ban Apple Watches, he would surely had waited until the ITC made such a ban, to decide on any veto. He still have the power to veto a ban, even after the ITC makes the decision to ban Apple Watches.

 

The USITC suspended enforcement of the exclusion order (as well as the cease and desist order and the $2 per unit bond against Apple) pending the ultimate resolution of the PTAB's invalidation. It did not suspend that order pending the outcome of the infringement trial. Indeed, if the PTAB's invalidation is ultimately upheld the infringement case likely won't go to trial.

Also, the courts - namely the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court - do have the authority to overturn the PTAB's invalidation determination in this case. The Federal Circuit is where AliveCor is appealing that determination. I'd say it's an uphill battle for AliveCor, but I wouldn't say that it's nearly impossible to get a PTAB invalidation reversed (and a patent's validity re-established). The Federal Circuit does sometimes do just that. It could reverse the invalidation determination outright or it could overturn the PTAB's decision and send the matter back to the PTAB to be reconsidered based on certain guidance it provides.

That said, I'd agree - for a number of reasons - that there's very little chance that an import ban on Apple Watches will ever go into effect based on these AliveCor patents.

But I'd also note that, if the President was going to disapprove of this import ban, he'd likely have done it during the 60-day window following notice of the exclusion order. The provision of the law which grants him the power to effectively veto such exclusion orders doesn't seem to give him that authority once that window has closed. He and/or his advisors probably don't think the import ban will go into effect anyway. But I'm not sure that he'd be able to stop it at this point if, e.g., AliveCor ultimately wins on appeal.

AppleInsider said:

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway continues to increase its stake in Apple stock, adding 333,856 shares in Q4 2022.

Warren Buffett. Image credit: Berkshire Hathaway

A 13-F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday reveals Buffett's holding company purchased even more Appel stock. Apple is among its largest holdings alongside Bank of America, Coca-Cola, and American Express.

The filing was shared by StreetInsider, which stated that Berkshire Hathaway added 333,856 shares of Apple in Q4 of 2022, bringing its total stake to 895,136,175 shares. That is worth $137 billion.

Buffet's relationship with Apple has been strong since he made his first major stake in the company in 2016. He made an initial investment of about $1.07 billion, or about 9.81 million shares at the time.

Though the holding company has sold some shares from time to time, Apple slowly grew to be among its biggest investments. Its stake had earned over $100 billion by August 2020.

Warren Buffet famously didn't own any major tech stocks until Apple, and since, he's been publicly complimenting CEO Tim Cook's leadership. Apple even debuted a whimsical paper delivery game called "Warren Buffett's Paper Wizard."

The investments in Apple have paid off for Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway. It was reported in March 2022 that Buffet had earned more than $100B from holding Apple shares since 2016.

Read on AppleInsider

Berkshire's Apple share total should be 915,560,382 rather than 895,136,175.

Most of the Apple shares held by Berkshire and its subsidiaries get reported on the 13-F for the institutional manager Berkshire Hathaway Inc - i.e., the one referred to in the OP. But around 20 million shares, those held by the Berkshire subsidiary Gen Re Corporation, get reported on a different 13-F for the institutional manager New England Asset Management Inc.

Mr. Cook did the same thing, with regard to share sales, in 2022 as he did in 2021... he sold all of his vesting shares (net of tax withholding, of course). In 2021 he had a large block vest, they were the last shares from the RSU grant he received when he became CEO. He didn't have any vest in 2022 because there was a gap between that last block vesting in 2021 and the first shares vesting from the newer RSU grants he's received.

Mr. Maestri and Ms. O'Brien, likewise, did the same thing with regard to share sales in 2022 as they did in 2021... they sold all of their vesting shares. The value of their vesting shares was greater in 2022 than in 2021, hence the different values for their share sales between those years.

Ms. Adams had been doing sales a little differently. She had been selling them in smaller blocks of a set number of shares, with total sales not necessarily corresponding to how many shares she received. With the vesting of her latest block in late 2022, she sold all of the newly vested shares.

Mr. Williams did do something different in 2022. He didn't sell his newly vesting shares in late 2022 whereas previously he had been selling them as they vested.