Apple's "bounced check" may lead to dismissal of German lawsuit against Samsung
There appear to be two problems with Apple’s bond. First, the signatures on the check, which was underwritten by Deutsche Bank, appear to have been signed by two individuals who don’t actually have the authority to sign it. Banks have a list of employees that are granted legal signatory powers – they can sign things that Deutsche Bank is legally obligated to. Obviously having signatures from other employees could invalidate the bond.
Second, and more seriously, Apple appears to have created wording authorizing the bond’s release that provides them with legal loopholes to avoid releasing the bond in certain cases where the court decisions was something of a tie, but where German law would still require Apple to cover Samsung’s court costs. Presiding Judge Andreas Voss expressed that the court was "unhappy" with Apple’s word-games, since German law is the sole arbiter of whether or not the bond is paid.
We should note that there’s no question that Apple could (and almost certainly would) pay the bond if the court requires them to. But the laws are in place for a reason, and Apple being the biggest company in the world doesn’t entitle them to special treatment. Having the wrong employees sign the bond is probably a mistake of Deutsche Bank, and Apple should rightly be upset if their case is thrown out due to that.
But given the comments by Judge Voss, Apple’s lawyers may have created a larger problem by trying to introduce wording that would “protect” Apple’s interests; after all, it isn’t up to Apple whether or not they pay out the bond, it’s up to the court. Adding weasel words that appear to modify the conditions under which the bond can be released seems to be nothing but an act of hubris on the part of Apple’s lawyers, and moreover one that could be quite costly – the case now stands a good chance at being dismissed without prejudice over the bad bond.
If that happens Apple will be free to sue Samsung again using the same patents, but they will be starting over from scratch, and any near-term leverage Apple hoped to gain over Samsung would be gone. We’ll be watching to see how this turns out, but either way it demonstrates that in the high-stakes mobile patent wars, anything can happen.
source: FOSS Patents
1. itiswhatitis (Posts: 423; Member since: 23 Jan 2012)
I won't be surprised if Apple sues Deutsche Bank if the case get dismissed
2. bvalde09 (Posts: 173; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
And they will loss. I mean isnt the bank fault. LOL but your are right apple most likely will sue :D
4. groupsacc (Posts: 232; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
This probably is the worst English paragraph that has ever been constructed in the history of mankind. Your ESL teacher would be ashamed of you.
11. crysiswarmonger (Posts: 78; Member since: 06 Feb 2012)
Shhhh... He is the one who signed the check.
17. ivanko34 (Posts: 617; Member since: 04 Sep 2011)
its not english its deutch-american
for me i understand and i like the way its wrritttten
18. jmoita2 (Posts: 930; Member since: 23 Dec 2011)
Aber wunderbar!!! Sind Sie aus Deutschland? Und dein English ist gut genug.
23. bvalde09 (Posts: 173; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
No Im not from German but I live there like 2 Years. But thanks for the comment Thumbs up for you
6. remixfa (Posts: 14226; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
thats IF its DB's fault. There isnt any proof either way really. Only Apple and DB know what happened there.
20. ZEUS.the.thunder.god (unregistered)
wow... now thats magical..!!!
3. PackMan (Posts: 277; Member since: 09 Mar 2012)
Ha ha, serves you right icRaapple , hope you have to start again and then lose. It would make my day.
5. REYNER (Posts: 187; Member since: 10 Feb 2012)
im pretty sure apple would sue the bank for the bouncing check, sue themselves for getting a bouncing check, and sue the judge if she/he dismiss the case... troll!! hahahaha! LOL!! xD
7. darth8ball (Posts: 519; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)
But the laws are in place for a reason, and Apple being the biggest company in the world doesn’t entitle them to special treatment
First off Apple isn't the biggest company in the world,
secondly, Apple lawyers must be huge narsissistic meglomaniacs like the late Steve Jobs to try to get away with that crap.
Sorry Apple try try again. HaHa
13. Scott_H (Posts: 167; Member since: 28 Oct 2011)
There are a lot of ways to measure the "size" of a company, but market cap is one common measure and Apple is currently ahead of Exxon there.
8. remixfa (Posts: 14226; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
regardless of whos right or wrong, if the court case gets thrown out for a bounced check by the company with the worlds deepest pockets, i will laugh from the irony.
9. darth8ball (Posts: 519; Member since: 02 Aug 2011)
I think 'bounced check' is a pretty poor choice of words by the author in this story.
improperly written check, or 'bad' check, invalid check all of these would decribe the situation better then 'bounced check'
16. Scott_H (Posts: 167; Member since: 28 Oct 2011)
Bounced check is only used in the title, and it's in quotes - it's described as an improperly executed bond everywhere else.
10. mas11 (Posts: 1033; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
Haha only Apple could mange to bounce a check even thought they make insane amounts of money each year.
14. rnk.khch (Posts: 86; Member since: 30 Jan 2012)
One again apple liers are at work here to continue their long history of deceitfulness. They think they can trick everybody forever, sell garbage, and fill their pockets with cash.
21. darktranquillity (Posts: 284; Member since: 28 Feb 2012)
Ha ha, the moron's at apple trying to fool the judicial system with words!!:-D.
24. DrewVL (Posts: 15; Member since: 13 Jan 2010)
I almost fall off my desk after reading this LOL