Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple. In April 2011, Apple sued Samsung Electronics, alleging that Samsung’s smartphones infringed on Apple’s trade dress as well as various design patents for the iPhone. A jury awarded Apple nearly $1 billion in damages, and the trial court upheld most of the award against Samsung’s post-trial challenges. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Samsung’s argument that the district court erred by allowing the jury to award damages based on Samsung’s profits off of its phones in their entirety, rather than just the portion of profits attributable to the smartphone components covered under the design patents. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether, where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, an award of infringer’s profits should be limited to those profits attributable to the component. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark D. Janis, the Robert A. Lucas Chair of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University.

On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salman v. United States. Bassam Yacoub Salman was convicted in a jury trial of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, as well as several counts of actual securities fraud. The government’s theory was that Salman, whose brother-in-law Mounir Kara (along with Mounir’s older brother Maher Kara) worked for Citigroup, had coordinated with Mounir in an insider trading scheme that, over the course of just a few years, grew a $396,000 brokerage account controlled by Salman into one worth more than $2 million. -- Salman moved for a new trial, arguing that there was no evidence he knew that the tipper had disclosed confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit. The district court denied the motion. Salman made a similar argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal, urging the Court to adopt the then-recently established standard set out by the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman. Under Newman, the government must present sufficient evidence that the accused knew the “inside” information he received had been disclosed in breach of a fiduciary duty. Invoking its precedent in Dirks v. SEC, the Ninth Circuit rejected Salman’s challenge, holding that the close familial relationship between Salman and the Karas was sufficient to sustain Salman’s convictions. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks requires proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in Newman, or whether it is enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close familial relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held here. -- To discuss the case, we have Thaya Brook Knight, who is associate director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs By listener request, we are bringing you this special “deep dive” episode into the history and jurisprudence underlying the Second Amendment.  This episode was originally broadcast on Atheistically Speaking earlier in 2016. Just in time for the election, we tackle a thorny political issue: … Continue reading OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 →

The post OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this special episode, we look at breaking news:  the jury verdict in United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., a federal case brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon as a result of the armed takeover of the Malheur National … Continue reading OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION →

The post OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder, many states made changes to their voting laws that may disproportionately harm minorities. This week, lawyers in Ohio filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court requesting a suspension of voting restrictions in their state. One of those lawyers, Subodh Chandra, joins us to explain why.

We also speak with Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, about the potential impact of Donald Trump’s recent warnings about vote-rigging. She explains why long-term neglect of our voting infrastructure is a much bigger threat than either vote tampering or self-styled poll watchers.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.

Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.

And by Blue Apron. For less than $10 per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we look at some of the interesting details surrounding the intentional release of classified materials by Edward Snowden.  In particular, we looked at the legacy of Snowden’s leaks,  how they played out in the Second Circuit’s decision in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d … Continue reading OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? →

The post OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s super-sized episode, we conclude our three-part role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court:  Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources’s response brief.  This week, we look at the … Continue reading OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 →

The post OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

After President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March, there was widespread speculation that opposing his confirmation hearings could have political costs for Republican senators. But seven months later, it’s not clear how much the GOP’s continued obstructionism will matter to voters next month. On this episode, we discuss Obama’s handling of the Supreme Court vacancy with White House Counsel Neil Eggleston and Brian Deese, Senior Adviser to the President.

We also take a closer look at Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, an important case about jury bias that was argued at the Supreme Court this week. Jeffrey Fisher, who represented the petitioner, joins us to explain why blatantly racist comments uttered by a juror in a criminal trial should invalidate that trial’s verdict. 

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. 

Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. 

And by Blue Apron. For less than 10 dollars per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals

FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.

Subscribe to our podcast here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us at Facebook here. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

Panoply Survey

We want you to tell us about the podcasts you enjoy, and how often you listen to them. So we created a survey that takes just a couple of minutes to complete. If you fill it out, you'll help Panoply to make great podcasts about the things you love. And things you didn’t even know you loved.  To fill out the survey, just go to www.megaphone.fm/survey.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  In this week’s episode, we return to our little role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court:  Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the Petitioner’s brief seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision to deny Trinity Lutheran Church the … Continue reading OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 →

The post OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s bonus episode, we tackle the breaking legal question of whether the RNC can legally replace Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President, and if so, what the consequences would be.  You don’t want to miss this episode! In our opening segment, we bring back a classic “Breakin’ (Down) the Law” by … Continue reading OA16: Dump Trump? →

The post OA16: Dump Trump? appeared first on Opening Arguments.