3 ms·

> 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 s

by 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 ago
The 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.
kemayo 3y ago
Apple's saying that the import ban will hurt them in ways that can't be fixed, and so it makes sense to stay it until their appeal decides what's going to happen. It's why this stay is only for ~2 weeks, because that's all they think is needed to get to a more-permanent decision from the appeals court. The idea is that harms that can't be fixed (by e.g. ordering someone to pay money) should be avoided until the system has settled on a definite answer. > I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either. The ruling is just blocking imports, not sales. I don't think that Apple is actually required to freeze its own sales, per se, but they're very just-in-time for stock so it was an effective ban for them unless they wanted to stockpile. Third parties are thus able to sell through whatever stock they have.

by dkrich 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

MichaelZuo 3y ago

The 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.

kemayo 3y ago

Apple's saying that the import ban will hurt them in ways that can't be fixed, and so it makes sense to stay it until their appeal decides what's going to happen. It's why this stay is only for ~2 weeks, because that's all they think is needed to get to a more-permanent decision from the appeals court. The idea is that harms that can't be fixed (by e.g. ordering someone to pay money) should be avoided until the system has settled on a definite answer. > I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either. The ruling is just blocking imports, not sales. I don't think that Apple is actually required to freeze its own sales, per se, but they're very just-in-time for stock so it was an effective ban for them unless they wanted to stockpile. Third parties are thus able to sell through whatever stock they have.