Supreme Court Rejects Apple's Bid To Continue Fighting Over Two Qualcomm Patents (theverge.com) 16
The Supreme Court declined Apple's bid for a hearing over two Qualcomm patents (US Patent No. 7,844,037 and US Patent No. 8,683,362) that were part of lawsuits filed in 2017, claiming infringement by Apple's iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches. The Verge reports: Reuters points out that Apple and Qualcomm's 2019 settlement of a worldwide legal battle over patents largely ended the squabbling in favor of a six-year licensing agreement but allowed a case in front of the Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board to continue. There, Apple argued the two patents should be invalid, but the board ruled in Qualcomm's favor. Last April, the Federal Circuit court rejected Apple's request for an appeal based on the 2019 settlement covering thousands of patents, including those two. At the time, Apple argued that its royalty payments and risk of being sued again were reasons for a hearing.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court (pdf), Apple argued that Qualcomm might use the patents in a lawsuit again once the license expires in 2025 or in 2027 if it's extended. The Department of Justice under the Biden administration submitted an amicus brief rejecting those arguments in May and asked the Supreme Court to deny Apple's request. Now that it has, we'll probably have to wait until that license agreement eventually expires to know what will happen next.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court (pdf), Apple argued that Qualcomm might use the patents in a lawsuit again once the license expires in 2025 or in 2027 if it's extended. The Department of Justice under the Biden administration submitted an amicus brief rejecting those arguments in May and asked the Supreme Court to deny Apple's request. Now that it has, we'll probably have to wait until that license agreement eventually expires to know what will happen next.
Should have made a religious claim (Score:3)
If Apple declared it a religious issue and involved it's fanbase (to bolster it's a religion) then the court would have sided with them.
Perhaps they could have cited midevil court cases (common law) and won over Alito.
Or they could have made a vague appeal to American Tradition?
Re: (Score:1)
There are "real" religions (a phrase with very little meaning, but anyway) which aren't recognized as such by the federal government, because they're not sufficiently acceptable to christian fundamentalists. Apple would normally be acceptable to them because they worship money, but they hate competition.
Religious snowflakes (Score:2)
Mostly white, very fragile.
Religious people can't tolerate dissent because they know their religions are based on people believing stupid shit, and facts interfere with that.
Religions are businesses which sell nothing to suckers. They are fraudulent right on their faces. Yet somehow they get tax-exempt status... if they get enough support from congresscreeps.
It's ok (Score:3)
The supreme court will probably revert their decision in 49 years or so. All they have to do is wait.
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court will probably revert their decision in 49 years or so. All they have to do is wait.
Well, patents expire after twenty years
Free Cultureâz Apple? (Score:2)
Maybe Apple will put some of their trillions towards dismantling the absurd patent system. ...
Nah.
Re: (Score:2)
But they love the patent system. Remember their "rounded corners" and "slide to unlock" patents? They only dislike patents on real technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
But they love the patent system. Remember their "rounded corners" and "slide to unlock" patents? They only dislike patents on real technologies.
These are design patents, not patents for inventions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is arguably a more problematic part of the patent system than invention patents which themselves are fraught with issues. Also, why is your /. UID so close to mine?
Read: come back later (Score:2)
The court has better things to do than deal with Apple’s hypothetical harm. This may be worth their time if it actually becomes a problem again, but until then, Apple can wait.
The supreme court has too much on its plate (Score:1)
Of course, they are way to busy to deal with matters of law. There are female bodies to regulate. It's far more important we revert the USA to 1940s as quickly as possible. Now that we have removed women's bodily autonomy we need to work on the next item on the list. I for one won't be satisfied until I can beat my wife again and she's unable to vote, the way Jesus intended in the good book *thumps fist on bible I've never read*.
Can't distract from our goals with matters of law between companies.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Jesus, how overtly evil can a company be?
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus, how overtly evil can a company be?
That's nothing, the Catholic Church sells comforting lies, and all you have to give up is free thought, plus a weekly donation. And now they hold 2/3 of the seats on the Supreme Court despite being only 22% of the population, and less than 5% serious about Jesus. Religions are just businesses that sell nothing in exchange for something, and tell you how to live in the bargain. Every corporation would love to do the same, but so far outright fraud is only legal if you dress it up with some holy symbols.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I reading this wrong, or is Apple basically asking the court to declare a bunch of other companies' and people's patents invalid... so it doesn't have to pay more licensing once the current agreements expire?
Jesus, how overtly evil can a company be?
I don't know the details of this case in particular, but that's potentially pretty legit and non-evil.
There's a lot of BS patents floating around that companies use to extort money from other non-customer companies.
What Qualcomm seems to have been doing is forcing chip customers (Apple) to also license all of its patents, it's the same revenue but it grants legitimacy to their patents because big companies are now licensing them.
Apple is claiming at least some of those patents are invalid and should be reje
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)