Apple and dozens of other top tech companies filed a Supreme Court brief today in support of a transgender boy’s fight for equality.
In the case, Gavin Grimm, a transgender student from Virginia, is suing the Gloucester County School Board for creating a bathroom policy he says discriminates against transgender students by separating them from their peers.
2016 sent Apple for a wild ride full of fantastic new products, crazy controversies and tons of extra drama with its rivals.
Tim Cook and his colleagues probably can’t wait to jump into 2017. But before we start looking toward Apple’s future, let’s take a quick look back at all the stories that made 2016 a year Apple fans will never forget.
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to Apple Tuesday when it sided with Samsung in a smartphone patent battle that had the South Korean company staring at hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties.
In a unanimous ruling, the Court ruled a patent violator does not have to turn over all its profits from sales if the stolen design involved certain components and the not the entire device.
U.S. Supreme Court justices appear to be confused over how much Apple’s patented iPhone design should worth.
Lawyers for Apple and Samsung faced off this morning at the nation’s highest court. The two sides argued whether breaking a design patent should be worth most of a product’s profits, or if the thousands of other patents that go into a smartphone should be viewed as equally valuable to the contribution of profits.
Billions of dollars and the future of patent law is at stake in the case that hinges on a law written in 1887. But the justices didn’t give much indication which side they’ll take.
[contextly_auto_sidebar]
Samsung and Apple will go back to the Supreme Court this week as part of their never-ending legal battle over patents.
The Tuesday hearing will concern how much of the $399 million patent-infringement damages awarded against Samsung the South Korean tech giant should actually pay.
The U.S. Court of Appeals gave Apple another victory today in its five-year-long legal battle with Samsung.
Apple won its appeal in an 8-3 ruling that reinstated a previous patent-infringement verdict that awarded the company $119.6 million. The judges in the case said it was wrong for the three-judge panel to throw out the verdict in February and suggested Apple could be owed even more money.
In a petition to the Supreme Court, Apple says the high court shouldn’t waste its time with Samsung’s high-profile appeal in the two companies’ long legal battle over patents.
Samsung filed an appeal in December asking for the Supreme Court to take a look at how the damages were calculated, but Apple argues that even though it was awarded $548 million, the case is “legally unexceptional.”
Samsung agreed to finally pay Apple $548 million for the patent infringement case the iPhone-maker won way back in 2012, but it appears Samsung has had a change of heart and is now taking the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The company filed a 219-page appeal to the Supreme Court today, claiming that the way U.S. courts handle patent lawsuits isn’t fair because juries aren’t given enough information on how to understand the patents. Samsung is also disputing the way patent damages are calculated, noting that if multiple firms sue a company for design patent issues, the company could have to pay multiple times the profit they actually made.
The highest court in the land has spoken. Gay marriage is now legal and much of Facebook is celebrating Friday’s historic day with messages, memes and pictures.
Facebook will help you celebrate pride by letting you add a rainbow filter to your profile picture.
The steps are simple. I volunteered my profile picture above to demonstrate how easy it is to show your colors.
Apple was among a group of almost 400 companies which yesterday filed a so-called “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that same-sex couples should have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else.
Interestingly, the brief doesn’t just focus on moral or ethical reasons that the Supreme Court should be on the right side of history, but actually makes a business case for the legalization of gay marriage; arguing that the confusing legality around the issue “places significant burdens on employers and their employees — making it increasingly hard to conduct business.”
