“On Friday (September 30, 2011), Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order ruling on multiple motions of a procedural nature,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents.
“Verizon’s and T-Mobile’s amicus curiae briefs have been accepted and are now deemed submitted,” Mueller reports. “Apple asked for permission to reply to those amicus briefs (if they were going to be admitted, which is what has just happened) by October 6, but the judge ‘considers any rebuttal argument on these issues to be duplicative and unnecessary at this time.'”
Mueller writes, “I don’t think this is a major problem for Apple. While its lawyers would have liked to respond, the public interest argument in connection with a possible injunction had to be addressed all along, irrespectively of those amicus briefs.”
Much more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Like Verizon, T-Mobile files brief with court in support of Samsung against Apple – September 28, 2011
Apple questions timing of Verizon’s proposed amicus brief in Samsung case – September 27, 2011
Verizon sides with Samsung against Apple, asks court to deny preliminary injunction – September 24, 2011
This type of action can’t help make Apple feel more warm ‘n fuzzy about Verizon and T-Mobile.
Sure doesn’t make me feel warm ‘n fuzzy about them either… between this and Verizon’s lawsuit to block Net Neutrality, there’s no way I’ll be considering Verizon when I get my new iPhone later this year.
I’d feel better about ‘net neutrality’ if it wasn’t a cute sounding name designed to cover pure evil.
It’s kinda retarded how sissies and dumb people fall for absolute crap when it’s branded to sooth their pathetic meek little emotions. Net Neutrality is a piece of shit, maybe it’s time you put on your big boy pants and read beyond the flowery marketing?
Do you brain and collective discourse a favor and please refer to this policy with it’s accurate description – ‘net nanny’.
A person with big boy pants would have disclosed the details and facts on why you seem to bash net-neutrality.
Net-neutrality is good for consumers. Verizon of course, would rather have it good for them instead of us.
Wait, you criticized them for not backing up his conclusions and they you just baldly assert that net neutrality is good for consumers, without backing it up?
Frankly, I haven’t looked into it in much detail, but having observed the actions of the federal government, I’ve yet to see them pass any regulations that were actually good for consumers… all of them are, so far, for the benefit of politicians or, in some cases, businesses.
Its kinda hard to argue that the net is not working so far, without any regulation… yet we have the white house claiming they need the power to shut it down any time the president wants…. good reason to be damn suspicious of any regulations they want to pass!
I have a grandfathered T-Mobile plan… it may be time to leave… It would have been easier to try and get iPhone on their network rather than peddle Samsung… Dont they prefer selling their own phones (MyTouch) rather than Samsung?
Sprint seems to be the underdog that is just trying to get on the iPhone train… i just cant stand the fact they run SIM-less cards.
Warm n Fuzzy has never been something Apple feels in general. They are always looking to keep ahead… even if it means their current partnerships suffer a bit.
“It would have been easier to try and get iPhone on their network rather than peddle Samsung”
Clearly NOT. Samsung is their premier smartphone offering.
I would like to see iPhone on EVERY US carrier, that would be good for consumers, everyone gets great phones, and the carriers are forced to compete on price and service.
Sadly, that is not how Apple is managing the rollout, so T-Mobile has little choice but to support their current partner. Pretty simple really, if Apple would stop with the stupid exclusivity and get it everywhere, I doubt you would see this from T-Mobile.
Carriers seem to ditch their “unlimited” plans when the iPhone comes along. Sprint is getting all of the mileage it can out of its unlimited ads while failing to inform prospective customers that the policy will change on Oct 4 because of the iPhone – the phone that people actually use to access the internet on a regular basis. So don’t worry about your grandfathered T-Mobile plan, it is unlikely to apply to the iPhone, if that ever arrives on T-Mobile.
T-Mobile has little choice, they have NO iPhone to sell. Clearly the Samsung phone is important to their business. It IS their premier smartphone.
Spare me all the feigned indignation, OMG they dare defy Apple, give me a friggin break, maybe if Apple would just get the phone on their network they wouldn’t be so dependent on Samsung.
They are the only major carrier in the US I haven’t used, but I know people who use them and speak very favorably of them. They are the little guy behind ATT, VZ, and Sprint, so I don’t blame them a bit for trying to stay alive and showing loyalty to their business partner.
VZ, on the other hand, showing their true colors. Anything for a buck, even if it means cutting one partners troat for another.
Good thing is that, I don’t have to feel bad for T-Mobile that I was feeling earlier (their stocks have taken a major hit recently).
As for business as usual, from what I understand this ruling was unprecedented. I view this more as strike one against Judge Lucy Koh than against Apple, so far. And that’s not good.
Do I feel bad for T-mobile, no. Am I annoyed as an AT&T customer who wants more competition in order to keep my bill down that T-mobile apparently isn’t getting the iPhone, absolutely.
I was a T-Mobile customer for almost a decade. I think I understand a bit where you are coming from on this. However, I don’t think pitting the carriers against each other will a genuine disruption make; and it’s the disruption of the genuine kind that may serve many of us better.
All these content deliverers (cable, satellite, and phone carriers etc.) ought to be dumb pipes, but something tells me they’re too ambitious and greedy (not that there’s anything wrong with it) to be contended in that limited role.
So, how do you “genuinely” disrupt them? By making their models obsolete. Instead of pitting carrier against carrier, maybe in isolated ground battles strategy, we ought to pit carriers against cables against satellites.
Apple (and others, like Android etc.) can help marginalise carriers by way of iPod touches, iPads, Apple TVs even iPhones with FaceTime, Skype etc. cutting deals with CLECs too.
Next obstacle is cables that are threatening to hold progress hostage. Cable caps are artificial barriers like SMS was to the carriers. If Apple wants to shake that, maybe they ought to invest in a network of satellites (disclaimer: my field’s in Aerospace engineering and I suspect my limited knowledge is biased).
What’s to shake the Satellites? Well, owning a few of them would be a good start, and then upgrade their technology to better suit you and your loyal customers’ needs.
Why do you say unprecedented? There have been a large number of AC briefs filed in tech cases like the SCO, Microsoft, Autodesk, etc., over the past decade. It used to be mostly in appeals, but seems to be becoming routine now.
Judge Koh has experience on both sides as a tech lawyer and a DOJ lawyer before being appointed to the bench by the Gubernator, then to the US District later. So I don’t see any problems here.
I had used the word unprecedented because of this particular take by Mr. Mueller earlier:
“Apple notes that ‘[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a non-party’s submission of amicus briefs in district courts.’ In all of the many lawsuits concerning wireless devices that I monitor, this is indeed the first attempt by someone to file such a brief. In U.S. Supreme Court cases there are usually many amicus briefs — for example, companies like IBM and Google filed amicus briefs in the Bilski case concerning the patent-eligibility of business models. But appellate court decisions on fundamental legal issues are quite a different thing from the public interest issues Verizon is trying to raise in Apple v. Samsung.”
[Source: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/apple-complains-about-timing-of.html%5D
I don’t think it’s that big a deal. The Judge probably felt that the should consider any additional arguments that the briefs raised.
Certainly if the ruling is in Apple’s favor it limits any argumrnt that she failed to consider the points raised in the brief.
Her ruling suggests that those briefs were duplicative so there may be nothing new in them. It’s not a strike against Apple or the judge.
You’re wrong, there’s nothing “unprecedented” about an AC brief, especially in a tech/telecommunications case like this. It does not harm, and actually helps to ensure that all the issues and potential parties are heard in one case rather than having several subsequent cases because some detail was not raised.
Just because the judge allowed the AC briefs to be filed doesn’t mean she’s going to give any weight to them.
I might be wrong, but here is the basis for my using the word ‘unprecedented’.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/apple-complains-about-timing-of.html
Hmmm… “briefs”, eh? Did they have skid marks in them?