4 ms·
Firstly, the (at this stage surely still alleged) infringement on another's intellectual property is not equivalent to the theft of a car, or the selling of a b
by jclulow 14y ago
Firstly, the (at this stage surely still alleged) infringement on another's intellectual property is not equivalent to the theft of a car, or the selling of a bridge that you don't own, or whatever.
Secondly, I was simply saying that injunctions can disadvantage some people or organisations, and that they don't even have to be people directly involved in the injunction.
- flyinRyan 14y agoI was using a more extreme example to make it more obvious how ridiculous what you were saying was. Let's try again: imagine there were a truck load of Android pads going somewhere but the truck got stolen. The thief quickly gets the pads to his story and sends out advertisement everywhere that he has the new Android pad for $1! People are lined up outside the store ready to buy but before he can open the police show up, shut the store down and recover the pads. The people only lost out on a sale that never should have existed. It's not the fault of the police for stopping the sale, nor the person who reported the crime. It's the fault of the thief. Likewise, if this product infringes patent(s) then it should not exist. Any disappointment to the customers if the fault of the company that made the illegal product, not the ones who stop sale (the judge) nor the people who reported the infringement (Apple).