11 ms·
Pausing the ban during appeals seems generally reasonable. After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet, so leaving
by kemayo 3y ago
Pausing the ban during appeals seems generally reasonable. After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet, so leaving the status quo in place until it is seems less-harmful overall. Possibly with some kind of clawback requirement for if the appeal fails.
Apple's argument was that it was being irreparably harmed by having to take the Watch off the market. Not for lost sales, which are reparable by handing money to Apple, but for the reputation / goodwill cost of consumers being exposed to the turmoil. (There's established case law that this does count as irreparable, so the main question would be whether they're really being harmed in that way.)
- mratsim 3y agoIf there is a ban for consumer safety reasons, say in food, health, agriculture, transport, is it reasonable to pause a ban?
- DaiPlusPlus 3y agoBut this is a ban due to alleged patent infringement (or alleged abuse of the patent system, depending on one's opinion of Apple) - comparing this to a public harm/public-benefit scenario is a distraction.
- gambiting 3y agoAnd to add to that - there's no harm in allowing the sale of these devices to continue, because if the court upholds the ruling then Apple could always be sued for damages during that time(and there is no risk that Apple would not be able to pay it).
- beeboobaa 3y agoThe risk is that consumers will be shafted by buying a product today that apple refuses to support later because they weren't actually allowed to sell it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that apple refuses to support later because they weren't actually allowed to sell it This is a separate—and reparable—set of harms.
- TillE 3y agoThat's not a risk, because there's zero chance that Apple just abandons their latest Watches. The worst possible outcome for customers is that Apple pushes a software update to disable the feature, but it's a fairly useless feature for most people.
- kemayo 3y agoWe're not talking about consumer safety reasons here, and I was talking about a default posture not an absolute rule. The reason a judge has to approve pausing the ban is to work out whether it should happen in that particular case.
- asylteltine 3y agoThis isn’t that
- DaiPlusPlus 3y ago> After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet Appeals aren't retrials, though.
- kemayo 3y agoTo get to a retrial you'd need the case (or a part of it) thrown out, in which case the ban should definitely be invalidated until the new trial happens. Generally an appeal like this is just a short pause while they work out whether there's more that needs to be done in the case, and so it hurts less to stop the ban for a few days while that's happening. Then if it actually goes up to an appeals court for more expensive lawyer-work the issue would indeed still be undecided and the pause should continue. For a company that's not a behemoth like Apple you could certainly imagine a poorly-decided import ban causing them to run out of money to fight it, after all.
- dkrich 3y ago> Then if it actually goes up to an appeals court for more expensive lawyer-work the issue would indeed still be undecided and the pause should continue. Not sure I understand this logic. There are basically two outcomes- either customs decides it is okay to be imported and the ban is lifted or it decides it should be upheld and the ban remains. If it were to be appealed to a higher court and then have the ban reinstated as you say, why would it make sense to pause the ban and then reinstate it when it goes to appeals since it’s already in place? Seems it should be upheld until a higher authority says it no longer needs to be upheld. I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThe court can decide it should be upheld but also simultaneously decide the ban was an overreach and order some different type of remediation. i.e. There's more then 2 possible scenarios.
- gnicholas 3y ago> Pausing the ban during appeals seems generally reasonable. After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet, so leaving the status quo in place until it is seems less-harmful overall. Possibly with some kind of clawback requirement for if the appeal fails. How many levels of appeal should this apply to?
- ethanbond 3y agoAs many as you are entitled to (which is not infinite)
- abduhl 3y agoRecall that Apple is appealing the decision of an agency, not a court. Staying an agency's decision until an actual court can review the agency's decision makes sense. An analogy: migrants seeking asylum in the USA should be permitted to remain in the USA until their appeals process is completed even after an immigration judge decides not to grant the asylum-seeker asylum.
- gnicholas 3y agoInteresting example. There are plenty of other examples that go the other way, for example if someone is found guilty of a crime but is appealing it. The default rule is that you are imprisoned during appeal. This is of concern to Trump supporters right now, since the precedent is so strong that it's not clear that being a top candidate for POTUS may not be enough to warrant an exception.
- abduhl 3y agoGuilty of a crime implies an actual judicial proceeding, not an administrative proceeding. Administrative proceedings occur under the powers of the executive branch alone.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DannyBee 3y agoIt's not paused during appeal, it's only paused until motions close on Jan 16th (or around then) This was an ex parte stay, so is only in place until everyone finished briefing. The bond requirement is still in place but the ITC set the bond at $0 so the appeal bond is also $0 anyway ;)
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoWhy can't they simply pay to license the patent to put their product back on shelves while litigation continues?
- gnicholas 3y agoThey absolutely could, but they don't want to.