Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Hardly. You misunderstand what the failure to grant cert actually means. The Supreme Court ruling against Apple might have meant what you say, but the Supreme Court declining to hear the case simply means that the ruling has no legal precedence in any other circuit other than the 2nd.
We are already seeing this court decline to hear a number of high profile cases. I suspect that will continue to be the case until we have an odd number of judges again. We really don't know why the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It could be that it was likely to end up a 4-4 tie, it could be that they felt that they had more pressing cases to hear. I think that it's likely that if a majority of judges wanted to make the statement that you claim, then they would have heard the case and voted that way. Not hearing the case makes no statement at all.
|
I disagree. The Supreme Court denying cert leaves the lower court rulings to stand intact, essentially rubber-stamping them. And while courts in other districts won’t be bound by this case, they are often persuaded to rule similarly in cases that have similar circumstances.
The Supreme Court in essence said the DOJ and Cote were right, Apple is guilty, and Leegin does NOT apply to vertical players who
orchestrate a horizontal conspiracy.
As for a possible 4-4 tie had they decided to hear the case, that doesn’t seem likely. I think it’s much more likely that – at best – 3 justices were sympathetic to Apple’s side, since it only takes 4 justices to grant cert. If more than 3 justices had found there to be significant value to the appeal, there is no reason not to grant cert. There is no law that says the justices have to decide a case in the term in which it was submitted. So if they felt, as constituted, they would have simply ended up 4-4, they could have instead granted cert, then tabled the case until Scalia’s replacement was on board – even if that isn’t until 2017 – since oral arguments had not even been heard yet.
And it’s not like SCOTUS passed on this because they think they’ll be presented with similar cases in the future. It took a company with very deep pockets and an extraordinary amount of arrogance – which Jobs and Cue had in overabundance at the time – to do what Apple did, then appeal it all the way to SCOTUS when they get nailed for it. I’ve heard some say Cook wouldn’t have done what Jobs did, and I agree. So, a case like this may never again get to SCOTUS in the foreseeable future. If SCOTUS wanted to adjust these rulings in relation to Leegin, here was the chance.
The Supremes turn down high profile cases every year and deny cert for most. They only accept something like 10% or less of the cases presented to them annually. What evidence do you have that they are turning down more cases than normal now?
Leegin was not the proper standard to use in the Apple case. That's what the denial of cert
essentially means.