US appeals court: Yes, Samsung ... sigh … you still have to pay Apple

Not even going to hear it this time, just pay them the $550m already


Samsung's attempt to wriggle out of paying $548m to Apple has been shot down by the federal circuit court in Washington DC.

Back in 2012, the South Korean giant was ordered by a district court in California to pay Apple just over half a billion dollars for shipping Android smartphones that infringing the iPhone maker's patents. Samsung was, at one point, on the hook for $1bn.

In July this year, Samsung went to the appeals court in Washington DC to overturn the ruling that it ripped off Apple's designs, or at least slash the amount of money it had to cough up.

That appeals court upheld the decision against Samsung, although booted the South Koreans back to the district court to adjust the payout amount after spotting a few technicalities in the numbers. Samsung didn't want to go back to California, and asked the Washington DC court to form a 12-judge panel and reconsider. Ultimately, Sammy wanted the whole thing to be thrown out.

On Thursday this week, that appeals court said it would not hear Samsung's pleas, and backed the lower court's earlier ruling.

This refusal marks the second time the Washington DC court has come down against Samsung in the case.

Last month, a list of Silicon Valley giants – including Facebook, Google, and eBay – all lobbied the court (unsuccessfully, it turns out) on Samsung's behalf.

The refusal now means Samsung's only remaining hope in beating Apple lies in a Supreme Court appeal, something that would be highly unlikely as it would require America's top court to first agree to hear a case the federal court of appeals denied – and then side with the South Koreans to overturn it all.

Samsung told The Register it was "disappointed" by this week's news, and would give no word on whether or not it will file an appeal.

The case is one of several Samsung and Apple have dragged in their ongoing spat over the technology used in competing mobile gadgets.

This years-long legal squabbling over a few hundred million dollars is taking place between two companies that together raked in $16.7bn in revenues in the last quarter alone. ®


Other stories you might like

  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading
  • Infusion of $3.5bn not enough to revive Terra's 'stablecoin'
    Estimated $42bn vanished with collapse of UST, Luna – we explain what all this means

    TerraUSD, a so-called "stablecoin," has seen its value drop from $1 apiece a week ago to about $0.09 on Monday, demonstrating not all that much stability.

    The cryptocurrency token, abbreviated UST, is supposed to be pegged to the price of the US dollar. Hence the "stable" terminology.

    But UST is not a "centralized stablecoin" that's exchangeable for a fiat currency; UST for USD (US dollars). Rather, it's a "decentralized stablecoin," meaning it can be exchanged for Luna (LUNA) tokens, another cryptocurrency tied to the Terra blockchain.

    Continue reading
  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMBs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022