Apple Pleads for Price-Fixing Reversal

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by TimW

No. Not in the slightest. The appeals court wants Apple to focus on the case decided last summer by Judge Cote, specifically concerning any errors made by her in the conduct of the case. Amazon/Hachette is absolutely irrelevant to this case.

Jon? I agree with you. Hyperbole.

I disagree, it's quite germane to the case. Certainly, Apple is using it to show that Judge Cote had/has a very faulty understanding of the ramifications of various actions with regards to competition.

Many times, judges will decide on a desired outcome and then look for rationals for that decision, rather than decided a case purely on the legal merits. In other words, they will decide what they think is a fair outcome, and then rationalize that outcome. I suspect this tendency is what Apple is playing on. It will be interesting to see if it works.

[tubemonkey]

Apple agrees to conditional $450 million e-books antitrust accord

Apple Inc has agreed to pay $450 million to resolve U.S. state and consumer claims the iPad manufacturer conspired with five major publishers to fix e-book prices, according to court records filed Wednesday.

The settlement, which would provide $400 million for consumers, is conditioned on the outcome of a pending appeal of a New York federal judge's ruling last year that Apple was liable for violating antitrust laws.

A ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversing the judge could, under the settlement, either reduce the amount Apple pays to $70 million, with $50 million for consumers, or eliminate payments altogether.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

for you Apple

I like it.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I disagree, it's quite germane to the case. Certainly, Apple is using it to show that Judge Cote had/has a very faulty understanding of the ramifications of various actions with regards to competition.

Many times, judges will decide on a desired outcome and then look for rationals for that decision, rather than decided a case purely on the legal merits. In other words, they will decide what they think is a fair outcome, and then rationalize that outcome. I suspect this tendency is what Apple is playing on. It will be interesting to see if it works.

Appellate judges carefully review the proceedings of the lower court to see if errors were committed that could have led to an incorrect verdict. Nothing else. They will not consider "blogging" by the Apple lawyers as evidence. If the appellate judges look at it, it will probably serve to P them off more than they already are. Judge Lynch is the appellate judge who said last February (he certainly seemed a bit miffed) that Apple's valuable time should be spent avoiding antitrust violations. He doesn't need any more convincing.

When the court rejected Apple's request to delay the damages trial, they cited a case (can't remember, but I'll find it if you like) and I got the distinct impression that the reason they wouldn't delay the damages trial is because the appeal is as good as lost anyway. The only smart move Apple has made during this whole mess is settle the damages portion before it went to trial. They saved themselves about $400K with that move.

Will they take this to the SCOTUS? If they actually agree to hear it, I wouldn't even begin to guess at the outcome. I'm not sure if I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS overturned the Sherman Antitrust Act.

[pwalker8]

I think you read too much into that. The bar for granting stays is 1) will there be irrevocable damage and 2) are they likely to win. I believe that Apple never got past the irrevocable damages part. No comments where made on the validity of the case.

Once again, there is no guarantee that the three judge panel that heard Apple's appeal for a stay is hearing the appeal. According to what I read, basically the apples panel denied the appeal because the DOJ granted that Apple was correct in the limits that were placed on the monitor. The appeals panel confirmed the limits on the monitor, which was really what Apple was looking for.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

for you Apple

I think I'll have some cheese and whine.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Because way back in the 8th grade, people thought they were clever when they mocked rather than engaged in rational debate and they haven't learned better?

Is there ANYTHING Apple could do that you wouldn't defend?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Shane R

People want to hear bad news about this company and revel in it. I say let them, and let them alone, too.

They earned it when they sued Samsung for "rectangles with rounded corners."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Is there ANYTHING Apple could do that you wouldn't defend?

It's hardly defending Apple to point out that mockery is an intellectually lazy substitute for debate. Believe it or not, I make the same point in forums where Apple is not even mentioned. While you might view everything through the lens of my team verses their team, I don't.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's hardly defending Apple to point out that mockery...

Everytime I see that word, a song pops into my mind:

"Listen to the Mockery Bird"

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by rcentros

They earned it when they sued Samsung for "rectangles with rounded corners."

Lets be fair and honest in our argumentation.

That was a Samsung talking point, and it wasn't true. Apple has the same kind of protection for it's 'i' lines that Coca-cola had one on it's curvy glass bottles (a design patent for its ornamental exterior design). Samsung, Microsoft and Sony all have them on their device families too!

It means that you can't make an exact copy of their total design. Individual elements, like rounded corners, are fair game. Apple didn't sue because of one element like rounded corners -- they sued because of several elements being lifted all together.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Lets be fair and honest in our argumentation.

That was a Samsung talking point, and it wasn't true. Apple has the same kind of protection for it's 'i' lines that Coca-cola had one on it's curvy glass bottles (a design patent for its ornamental exterior design). Samsung, Microsoft and Sony all have them on their device families too!

It means that you can't make an exact copy of their total design. Individual elements, like rounded corners, are fair game. Apple didn't sue because of one element like rounded corners -- they sued because of several elements being lifted all together.

During the legal fights with Samsung Apple got a patent that covered rectangle with rounded corners, and nothing else: http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/36...ounded-corners.

Previous design patents on the iPad and iPhone have included at least one additional feature in solid lines — like the home button, the back surface contour, the bezel shape, the side profile, or the edge-to-edge screen. This one ignores all of that and simply focuses on the shape of that peripheral edge. It's a broad patent. Really broad.

[Shane R]

Interesting, but following it back to the source article at Wired (via Ars Technica) reveals this headline: "Apple Granted Patent for Original iPad Design".

Much more accurate. The Verge and Ars Technica were not. The article says:

Design patents cover only external appearance. The design must be “ornamental” (purely aesthetic) and not serve a practical function.

Apple originally filed the patent, U.S. Patent no. D670,286, in December of 2010. The first iPad was unveiled several months earlier, in January of 2010.

“This design patent gives Apple no new advantage, because no one is out there trying to market an iPad lookalike,” said Lea Shaver, Associate Professor with Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law.

“Most importantly, the Galaxy tablet is very differently proportioned from an iPad in its height and width.”

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Lets be fair and honest in our argumentation.

That was a Samsung talking point, and it wasn't true. Apple has the same kind of protection for it's 'i' lines that Coca-cola had one on it's curvy glass bottles (a design patent for its ornamental exterior design). Samsung, Microsoft and Sony all have them on their device families too!

It means that you can't make an exact copy of their total design. Individual elements, like rounded corners, are fair game. Apple didn't sue because of one element like rounded corners -- they sued because of several elements being lifted all together.

A design trademark, most likely. And design patent would have expired decades ago. (Patents have an extremely limited life. The most in US patent history was 34 years. The bottle shape has been around for at least 80 years that I know of...)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Interesting, but following it back to the source article at Wired (via Ars Technica) reveals this headline: "Apple Granted Patent for Original iPad Design".

Much more accurate. The Verge and Ars Technica were not. The article says:

We all know that the Galaxy tablet was very differently proportioned from an iPad in its height and width, but Apple still sued and won the lawsuit. Which is precisely why people are saying that Apple patented "rectangle with rounded corners", because it didn't matter that the other device had different proportions, Apple still won the lawsuit.