U.S. Department of Justice Urges Supreme Court to Send Apple vs. Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

[MacRumors]

The United States Department of Justice today urged the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court ruling that was in Apple's favor and send the Apple vs. Samsung case back to trial court, reports Reuters. The DoJ submitted an amicus brief on Samsung's behalf as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the long-running Apple vs. Samsung case.

Apple's dispute with Samsung made its way to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Samsung's final lower court appeal in August of 2015. Samsung's last option was to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case, which it did in December.

Despite Apple's efforts to get the Supreme Court to deny Samsung's request, the court agreed to hear Samsung's appeal. Samsung, which claims it has been hit with "excessive penalties" for allegedly copying the design of the iPhone, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court yesterday.

Samsung claims that the penalties were unfair because Apple was awarded damages from the total profits of the product, while the infringing patent only applied to a component of the smartphone rather than the whole device. This is the issue that the Supreme Court will examine.

In its amicus brief on Wednesday, the Justice Department said it was unclear whether Samsung had produced enough evidence to support its argument that phone components, not the entire phone, should be what matters when calculating damages.

The Supreme Court should send the case back for the trial court to determine whether a new trial is warranted on that issue, the Justice Department said.

Samsung has been fighting a 2012 ruling that determined Samsung willfully infringed on Apple patents.

Apple was initially awarded nearly $1 billion in damages, but a significant part of the decision was reversed in 2015, leaving Samsung owing $548 million. Samsung has already paid the $548 million, but could win its money back if the ruling is overturned.

Article Link: U.S. Department of Justice Urges Supreme Court to Send Apple vs. Samsung Case Back to Lower Court

 

[lewisd25]

The Obama administration once again turning the screws on an American company in favor of a foreign one. Just another day in Washington.

 

[al256]

Obama and the DOJ's payback for Tim's defiance?

 

[Jeremy1026]

Does anyone else just want this case to be done and over with already? It's been dragging for years.

 

[MikhailT]

This is a win-win for Apple. Even if they lose, it will help them in their other lawsuits where companies are asking for total device's cost instead of the component parts that Apple is infringing on.

 

[macduke]

The DoJ submitted an amicus brief on Samsung's behalf as the Supreme Court prepares to hear the long-running Apple vs. Samsung case.

Sounds like someone is a little salty after the whole "we're not going to build a back door into iOS" thing, and the "…and here's amicus briefs from literally every major tech company because we all agree you guys are tyrannical idiots" part too.

 

[Kabeyun]

This article, to be good journalism, should discuss why the Department of Justice has a position on this. Besides the obvious business with Apple defying security demands, as al256 and macduke said, I have no idea.

 

[B4U]

Oh dear...just 7 comments in and it is already involving political figures...
Does this need to move to PRSI again?

 

[ronntaylor]

The never-ending case.

 

[Analog Kid]

When the courts rule in favor of Apple, we have @apolloa making a fuss that they're unfairly protecting an American company, and when the DOJ makes an argument against Apple, it's because Obama hates America of the FBI wants to punish them for their security.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe this is just how the legal system works? Win some, lose some? With this much money getting dumped in from all sides to buy up enormous amounts of legal power and brief writing manpower, these issues are going to get an absurd level of scrutiny.

Oh dear...just 7 comments in and it is already involving political figures...
Does this need to move to PRSI again?

Everything needs to move to PRSI, and PRSI needs to move to Wasteland...

 

[Plutonius]

Does anyone else just want this case to be done and over with already? It's been dragging for years.

That's how Samsung operates.

 

[CalWizrd]

Well, looking back, I guess I should have pursued law instead of software development.

 

[MH01]

Sound like everyone is getting sick and tired of this case. Only people getting money are the lawyers. Shows that when you have the resources right or wrong is how much you willing to spend on a good lawyer.

 

[2457282]

I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enou evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down. After all these years of fighting and all the lawyers that have been involved, if Samsung failed to represent itself well, isn't that their problem? It's not new evidence that just popped up. If I understand the issue, the argument was made so if they failed to provide evidence that's on them. For the DOJ to make this argument seems odd. Anyone have insight on this? The article does not provide any insight other than to state that "Samsung coping the design." And since they were already found guilty why does the article use the work allegedly?

 

[maflynn]

Well, looking back, I guess I should have pursued law instead of software development.

Yes, its a field where you can make more money, just look at patent trolls.

 

[69Mustang]

I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enough evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down. After all these years of fighting and all the lawyers that have been involved, if Samsung failed to represent itself well, isn't that their problem? It's not new evidence that just popped up. If I understand the issue, the argument was made so if they failed to provide evidence that's on them. For the DOJ to make this argument seems odd. Anyone have insight on this? The article does not provide any insight other than to state that "Samsung coping the design." And since they were already found guilty why does the article use the work allegedly?

You did the exact same thing I did initially. At first I read it as, "Samsung did not produce enough evidence..." Both of us missed the most salient point: "... to support its argument that phone components, not the entire phone, should be what matters when calculating damages." This isn't about guilt or innocence, it's entirely about calculating damages. The most interesting thing about Samsung's desire to calculate damages based on component cost is Apple would be the biggest beneficiary if the court rules in Samsung's favor. I sincerely believe Apple hopes Samsung does win, because it sets legal president for damage calculations. It benefits all players in the future if Samsung wins. Even more interesting is Apple used the exact same argument in the Ericsson case. Go figure.

This case puts Apple in an awkward position of arguing that when they sue damages should be calculated on device cost, but when they get sued damages should be calculated on component cost.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Well, looking back, I guess I should have pursued law instead of software development.

Nah, you did the right thing.

If you went into law, your belly would be full, but your spirit would be empty.

 

[tooltalk]

Obama and the DOJ's payback for Tim's defiance?

You gotta pay to play.
[doublepost=1465483079][/doublepost]

Does anyone else just want this case to be done and over with already? It's been dragging for years.

This is one of the most notable cases Apple has been fighting. There are something like 80+ on-going lawsuits against Apple.

 

[B4U]

When the courts rule in favor of Apple, we have @apolloa making a fuss that they're unfairly protecting an American company, and when the DOJ makes an argument against Apple, it's because Obama hates America of the FBI wants to punish them for their security.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe this is just how the legal system works? Win some, lose some? With this much money getting dumped in from all sides to buy up enormous amounts of legal power and brief writing manpower, these issues are going to get an absurd level of scrutiny.


Everything needs to move to PRSI, and PRSI needs to move to Wasteland...

And I thought the government is made up of 3 main branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. And there are checks and balances.
There is only 1 justice in the Supreme Court nominated and appointed by Obama.
I simply cannot connect the dots in this case......

 

[tooltalk]

I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enou evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down. After all these years of fighting and all the lawyers that have been involved, if Samsung failed to represent itself well, isn't that their problem? It's not new evidence that just popped up. If I understand the issue, the argument was made so if they failed to provide evidence that's on them. For the DOJ to make this argument seems odd. Anyone have insight on this? The article does not provide any insight other than to state that "Samsung coping the design." And since they were already found guilty why does the article use the work allegedly?

It's not that Samsung didn't present enough evidence -- Judge Koh/Paul Grewal prevented Samsung from presenting their evidence and witnesses. Samsung's law firm QE in fact went batsh*t crazy over he procedural rulings and almost got sanctioned for going to the media about this. For instance, when Apple filed a motion for adverse instruction because of Samsung's failure to retain emails (ie, evidence spoliation) just a day before the tentative deadline, it was ok. But when Samsung filed theirs against Apple a few days later -- Apple also failed to retain/destroyed emails -- it was denied, reasoning that it was a day after the "tentative" deadline. The ruling was later reversed, but only after a brief public uproar. This went on pretty much throughout the whole trial which crippled Samsung's defense.

 

[kdarling]

The Obama administration once again turning the screws on an American company in favor of a foreign one. Just another day in Washington.

On the contrary, it was the Obama administration that overturned an import ban on iPhones, while allowing a ban on Samsung phones.

We also need to read the actual brief in question here. From article descriptions, it almost sounds like it sides with Apple's request to keep the case out of the Supreme Court, and to send it back to the Apple friendly California district.

 

[nt5672]

I am not a lawyer, so this is confusing to me. Why would the DOJ say that they think Samsung did not produce enou evidence and therefore the case should be sent back down. After all these years of fighting and all the lawyers that have been involved, if Samsung failed to represent itself well, isn't that their problem? It's not new evidence that just popped up. If I understand the issue, the argument was made so if they failed to provide evidence that's on them. For the DOJ to make this argument seems odd. Anyone have insight on this? The article does not provide any insight other than to state that "Samsung coping the design." And since they were already found guilty why does the article use the work allegedly?

Yep, it has nothing to do with the case. Most people that understand how corrupt governments work know exactly why this was done. Others just close their eyes and chant, "Government is good, more government is better."

 

[iOSFangirl6001]

Does anyone else just want this case to be done and over with already? It's been dragging for years.

Yes.

Dear Samesung/Samsung
Just throw in the dang towel already.
How have they not hurt their brand rep already over this endless ridiculousness

 

[apolloa]

When the courts rule in favor of Apple, we have @apolloa making a fuss that they're unfairly protecting an American company, and when the DOJ makes an argument against Apple, it's because Obama hates America of the FBI wants to punish them for their security.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe this is just how the legal system works? Win some, lose some? With this much money getting dumped in from all sides to buy up enormous amounts of legal power and brief writing manpower, these issues are going to get an absurd level of scrutiny.


Everything needs to move to PRSI, and PRSI needs to move to Wasteland...

Hmmm.... I haven't even posted on this one yet, are you bullying me? That's against site rules you know?

I also do not seem to remember ever claiming it's 'unfairly protected' as an 'American Company'. Because that is almost claiming I am racist.

Perhaps I would advise you to wait for my response on topics before talking about me behind my back, I'm hardly unique on this forum...

I have half a mind to report your post to the Mods actually, you have singled me out from every other member on this site without me commenting on the story, and unless you are blind I am hardly the only one outspoken against courts and Apple cases.

 

[tooltalk]

This article, to be good journalism, should discuss why the Department of Justice has a position on this. Besides the obvious business with Apple defying security demands, as al256 and macduke said, I have no idea.

That's because Apple's absurd win would bring on a patent-troll amageddon. Suppose Apple was found to have infringed on a small design element, say, an arrow mouse cursor found in Mac OS X. Now, if Apple's lower court damage is upheld by the SCOTUS, Apple now has to give up ALL of its profit derived from its Mac/MacBook or any product directly or indirectly implements that design element. Or think BMW having to give up ALL their profit off their products because of a small infringement in the design of the needle in odometer.

This is an open-invitation for patent-trolls with far more devastating implication than anything we've seen before. No sane US company wants this -- DOJ certainly doesn't want this either. It defies common sense and it's extremely selfish, self-destructive, and arrogant of Apple to bring up this esoteric law just to scare off their competitors (and the spineless lower court judges to go along with this?). Not even patent trolls in the Eastern District Texas would stoop this low in their pursuit of profit, but once the gate is open, everything is fair game.