Apple Wins Reversal of $625 Million Patent Judgement Over Cover Flow, Spotlight and T

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,649
10,967
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png




Bloomberg reports that Apple has won a court ruling that throws out a $625.5 million patent-infringement verdict issued in October over Cover Flow, Spotlight, and Time Machine technologies.
A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, today said Apple didn’t infringe a patent owned by Mirror Worlds LLC and closed the case in Apple’s favor. The court also said the damage award was too high. The judge did uphold the validity of the three Mirror Worlds patents.
The jury had originally said that Apple was infringing on three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each patent. Judge Davis agreed with Apple's argument and closed the case in Apple's favor.

Article Link: Apple Wins Reversal of $625 Million Patent Judgement Over Cover Flow, Spotlight and Time Machine
 

iWonderwhy

macrumors 6502
Apr 3, 2010
268
0
Don't know much about the case, but the judge must've recognized that Apple is an innovator and not a copycat.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,365
15,529
Thats a little odd, why the reversal of outcome when they'd apparently made up their minds?
I don't know the details, but this outcome is what can happen from an appeal. It's not exactly odd.
 

dsnort

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2006
1,904
68
In persona non grata
Reading the original article, it seems the Judge decided the plaintiffs case was more emotional than legal. At least that's how it reads to me.
 

jclardy

macrumors 68040
Oct 6, 2008
3,468
2,250
What could they have said to change the judges minds, that they wouldn't have said in their defence?
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.
 

RichardBeer

macrumors regular
Jul 11, 2009
226
0
England
Although within the system of patents Apple was found to be in the right. As a proponent of free competition economics and ideas, the amount of patent warfare that seems to be going on between companies saddens me. Companies should focus on selling better competitive products to the market rather than fighting over method and idea. As long as the knowledge isn't stolen from another company then I don't see why an identical technology can't be used to keep competition tight and combat monopolies.

I really dislike the idea of patents when it applies to technologies and production method. You can't own science; you can only use it.
 

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
18,960
18,059
California
They didn't change the judge's mind. The first trial was by Jury and Apple lost, but they appealed to a higher court. That judge ruled in Apple's favor.
Nope. The jury and judge were the same court - Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This is not an appeal.

The jury rules on findings of fact. The judge heard them, then overturned them as a matter of law.
 
Aug 26, 2008
1,339
1
Nope. The jury and judge were the same court - Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This is not an appeal.

The jury rules on findings of fact. The judge heard them, then overturned them as a matter of law.
I know you are involved in the legal system, so, does that not seem ratty to you? Why even bother with a jury? It's like asking someone what they want for dinner, and then when they tell you, you say, "sorry we are having what I want." What's the point?

I'd be suspicious of something like that, but then again I have zero legal expertise. Not that I think our courts are above corruption. :p
 

TomaxXamot

macrumors regular
Jan 15, 2009
245
207
Seattle, Washington
No they didn't. Cover Flow was a third-party application for iTunes that was purchased by Apple, Spotlight is eerily similar to Quicksilver, and versioning backup is hardly new on the scene. How quickly we forget.
Yup. I bet alot of these guys think Apple created Final Cut and iTunes from the ground up, and that Adobe created Flash!
 

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
18,960
18,059
California
I know you are involved in the legal system, so, does that not seem ratty to you? Why even bother with a jury? It's like asking someone what they want for dinner, and then when they tell you, you say, "sorry we are having what I want." What's the point?

I'd be suspicious of something like that, but then again I have zero legal expertise. Not that I think our courts are above corruption. :p
The judge and jury serve different purposes. The judge decides questions of law. When there is a jury, the jury decides questions of fact.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.