injunction

To quote the body: "which could see an injunction placed on iPhones and iPads." I would bet money on the iPhone/iPad not being banned.

One problem is that the DoJ injunction to both shutdown the service and maintain the data is costing Megaupload and/or the ISP $9000/day to keep 25PB of data around [2]. How much of that data was infringing exactly?

Samsung wasn't allowed to see any of this evidence before the court gave the injunction. Is it even possible that this wasn't deliberate, willful deception on the part of Apple lawyers?

Is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.

But this latest injunction made me realize, if I give money to Apple, there will be less competition and not more. They're unfairly anti-competitive and will use any immoral hole in legislation to make sure consumers have no options.

There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe. However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.

There doesn't seem to be any information stating whether or not Apple made any attempt to tell retailers they could sell these products again after the injunction was lifted. This is as anti-competitive behavior at its worse.

The court documents as linked below[1] state that this is an injunction and that the main proceedings will continue which may take up to two years. In other words it's not over yet. This was a preliminary injunction which ZeniMax has failed to secure but that can be appealed and that doesn't prevent the main suit from continuing.

First, Batelle has prevailed in a preliminary injunction ordering Thuen to take down Visdom. It did so by making a showing that convinced the court it was likely to prevail in its suit, and that argument included admissions from Thuen that he had copied at least some of Sophia.

The real test will come if, as I assume, PayPal seeks to get a preliminary injunction blocking Google from using its mobile-payment technology because it allegedly based on a misappropriation of PayPal's trade secrets. This is where the evidence on both sides will come out and it will be much clearer whether Google did in fact commit wrongs as alleged.

This is more along the lines of you inventing and patenting carbon fiber, then winning an injunction against someone who built a frame made of spider silk and titanium on the grounds that you are the sole inventor of "lightweight, rigid bicycle frames". When you go to court with patents like the 4 Apple is leaning on, the perception of playing dirty because you're losing "fairly" is logical, and probably reasonably apt.

>This is a reference to the President's years-long struggle against preventative injunctions put in place by Argentine courts against her efforts to break up the big Argentine media trusts that are her strongest local political enemies. The preventative injunction are in place to put the measures on hold while the court decides if the made-to-order laws she comes up with twice a week are constitutional or not.

The 3Tap business model may or may not have withstood this legal challenge but the salient fact here is that CL faced a lot of uncertainty on the legal issues involved, meaning that it might ultimately have lost on its claims and further meaning that 3Tap's business model would serve as a ready-made way for third parties to gain unfettered access to the CL data, at least until CL were able to obtain a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit or an ultimate victory on its claims. To do that, however, it would have needed to run the risk of potentially losing on its claims and thereby having helped create some pretty bad legal precedents for its business model.