STLR Link Roundup – November 23, 2013

Apple Awarded $290 million

A jury awarded Apple $290 milllion in its patent retrial against Samsung today, a figure much less than Apple had wanted. Apple asked Samsung for $380 million in damages during the trial, while Samsung argued it should only be paying $52 million.

Together with the $599 million that Apple was awarded from Samsung for patent infringement last year, and $40 million from another patent case involving one of Samsung’s smartphones, the Galaxy S II, Samsung will have paid Apple a total of $929 million in damages for patent infringement.

Apple said in a statement that the case “has always been about more than patents and money. It has been about innovation and the hard work that goes into inventing products that people love.”

Though Apple may have won this battle, the war with Samsung is not yet over. The two companies are scheduled for yet another trial in March 2014, which will involve a different set of Apple patents and newer Samsung products including its popular Galaxy S III.

Privacy of Dating Site Profiles Implicated in James Holmes Case

James Holmes, the man facing 152 criminal charges following his July 2012 shooting spree in a Colorado movie theatre, has filed a motion to suppress records obtained from his profiles on dating sites match.com and AdultFriendFinder.com. The prosecution had planned to introduce these profiles, on which he supposedly asked prospective dates, “Will you visit me in prison?,” under the theory that they are indicative of Holmes’ mental state prior to the shooting. The defense argued that Holmes “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his profiles and the subscriber information he provided or exposed to the administrators of Match.com and Adultfriendfinder.com. Therefore, asserts the defendant, these records are protected by…the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

However, the Court has found that there is no expectation of privacy in usage of each of these sites, based on the way there were open to other subscribers to view. The Court denied the motion to suppress and stated, “It is significant that his main purpose was not to have a private conversation through a private instrument from the privacy of his home or office…It was to have his identification and very personal information disseminated to other participants in the websites…”

 

About the Author

Caroline Kassie

Caroline Kassie is a Staffer for the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review. She is a 2L at Columbia Law School.
blog comments powered by Disqus