Legal

The $290 million verdict is nearly $100 million less than the $380 million Apple sought in the retrial, but far above the $53 million Samsung said it owed. In a series of seemingly desperate last-minute attempts to delay the verdict, Samsung first moved for a mistrial on racial grounds, and then asked Judge Koh to stay the case pending a possibly years-long reexamination of a key Apple patent.

Judge Koh denied both motions, and the new verdict brings Apple’s total award in the landmark patent dispute is $888 million.

Now just pay up scumbags.

Lex McFarley:

Here is where the Court’s logic is strained and incorrect. The Court concedes that there is nothing wrong with using the agency model, the MFN clause or pricing tier caps. So essentially the Court is finding Apple liable for antitrust violations for knowing that the publishers wanted to raise prices. The Court is essentially holding that faced with that knowledge, Apple supplied those terms (agency, MFN, price tiers) to the publishers so they could then go to Amazon and impose the agency model and raise retail prices.

Adam Engst takes a look at the Apple’s ebook trial and answers some of the questions everyone has asked over the past few months.

A federal court in New York has come down hard on Apple in a closely watched case over ebook pricing. In a ruling issued Tuesday morning, US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that the company “brilliantly” organized a conspiracy to raise prices and thwart competition.

In a 160-page ruling, Cote points to phone calls, emails and the words of Apple founder Steve Jobs to conclude that the company orchestrated an illegal “scheme” in which five major publishers changed their pricing practices. The court said that the prime target of the conspiracy was Amazon, whose Kindle tablet competes with Apple’s iPad, and whose pricing practices infuriated publishers.

“Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.”

That is the line that the DOJ is using in its e-book case against Apple. However, when you look at it in context with the rest of the comments Jobs made, it’s pretty innocuous.

In a court filing on Monday, Apple extended its ongoing litigation struggle with Samsung, adding the company’s recently released Galaxy S4 to the list of devices Apple says infringe on its patented designs.

Goodrich, who worked for Jobs since 1998, was promised by late chairman of the world’s most valuable company in a one-on- one meeting in May 2005 that he would always have a job at Apple, according to the complaint. The conversation took place after Jobs’s return from medical leave to receive treatment for pancreatic cancer, Goodrich said.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but aren’t things like this said all time? “You’re good, you’ll always have a job here.” Things change.

The proposed settlement would require the three settling publishers — HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster — to terminate their existing agency pricing contracts with Apple. Apple says that isn’t fair: “The Government is seeking to impose a remedy on Apple before there has been any finding of an antitrust violation.” This case, the company states, revolves around “an alleged conspiracy to force Amazon to adopt agency.” So a settlement “enjoining collusion or precluding publishers from forcing agency on Amazon would be appropriate,” but Apple is entitled to defend its contracts in court.

It does seem unfair to impose a settlement without giving Apple a chance to defend itself.

In the sworn declaration, Mr. Stretch admits to having “brought five Samsung prospective witnesses, accompanied by two interpreters, and three Samsung in-house attorneys, to see the Ceremonial Courtroom on the afternoon of August 2, 2012”.

Apple’s lawyer William Lee on Samsung releasing evidence to the press:

“Mr. Quinn’s declaration does not adress two of the Court’s questions: who drafted the statement and who released it,” Lee wrote. “Samsung’s multiple references to the jury in its statement make plain its intent that the jurors in our case learn of arguments the Court has excluded through the press.”

Laura Hazard Owen:

In a complaint sent to the Department of Justice this morning, Barnes & Noble says that the DOJ’s proposed settlement with HarperCollins, Hachette and Simon & Schuster for allegedly colluding to fix e-book prices “represents an unprecedented effort” to become “a regulator of a nascent technology that it little understands.”

Nice aggressive stance by Barnes and Noble.

Philip Elmer-Dewitt:

In the space of six paragraphs the document characterizes the Justice Department’s assertions as “absurd” and “fundamentally flawed,” accuses the government of “ignoring inconvenient facts” and of siding with monopoly rather than competition.

Apple seems pretty aggressive and confident in this battle with the government.

Judge Richard A. Posner:

“I deny the second half of Apple’s motion (seeking prohibition of the deposition) as frivolous and the first half (seeking substitution) as untimely. I’ve had my fill of frivolous filings by Apple. The next such motion, and I shall forbid it to file any motions without first moving for leave to file.”