eightzero

carnegie said:

eightzero said:

SpamSandwich said:

rob53 said:

Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.

I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.

It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion. 

An appeal would be heard by the Federal Circuit, not the Ninth Circuit, because of the subject matter involved - i.e., it's a patent case.

Don't think so. It doesn't involve the validity of the patent - just the damages.

Edit: looks to be 28USCs1295: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1295

SpamSandwich said:

rob53 said:

Can Samsung appeal this decision or is it final? It’s about time Apple got a jury that understood things.

I suppose they could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it would never get a hearing.

It is my understanding this case was remanded on appeal to the federal district court for Northern California for determination of damages. An appeal from this would go to the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. No one has a right to appeal to the SCOTUS. A petition can be submitted (for a writ), but the Supremes take 60-70 cases a year at their discretion. 

radarthekat said:

anantksundaram said:

This is quite disappointing. Yes, there are alternatives, and yes, we knew this was coming, but I always thought that the Airport was an important part of the Apple ecosystem. 

A logic similar to the one with this decision could easily be applied to headphones, AirPods, HomePod, AppleTV, and pretty much every Apple-made accessory for the Mac, iPad, iPhone, iPod, and Watch.

Maybe not.  A WiFi router doesn’t yield the same sort of personalized UX as those other products you mentioned.  Thats the Apple magic and I think Apple doesn’t desire to spend its energies on too many things that don’t deliver it. 

A fair point. But for a nearly trillion dollar company, just how much "energies" is this? It seems like a trivial amount of "energy." OTOH, it does seem that this technology is ripe for some innovation. But no one makes a lot of money selling a product that works for decades, never needs replacement, and requires periodic software updates. As others point out, they are install and forget. No money in that. Apple clearly wants to grow its services. This offers nothing to do that.

I smell a decision based on profit margin. But like others commenting here, it makes me sad.

ravnorodom said:

doggone said:

iBooks is better in appearance over Kindle and it has an advantage that you can buy books directly in the app.  With Kindle you have to buy via the browser or kindle store.

When Kindle app first came out, you can buy books directly from within the app until Apple killed it and prohibit the app from doing so since then. 

Apple didn't kill it. You are wrong. Apple required Amazon to pay the 30% fee on purchases like it does for any in-app purchase. Amazon refused, and changed their app.

78Bandit said:

Kuyangkoh said:

Chicago? 

They want to show how bulletproof the new iPads and Macs are.

Not funny.