Originally Posted by jragosta
Not correct. You're confusing wishful thinking with legal reality..
It is not enough to show that Samsung's product looks like Apple's.
Whoa, doggies! You seem to be confusing what little knowledge of the case and the law you have with being an expert, or a quick little note of mine with being a treatise.
(Appearance is enough for design patents, btw).
In a patent case, you must show that they violate the specific, written claims in the patent. It is perfectly legal to have a similar (or even identical) appearance if you can do so without violating the patent.
And if it's a copyright case, then you need to show that the copyright is valid and that the copyist duplicates relevant specifics of the copyright and that the copy creates risk of confusion for the customers.
That's irrelevant and immaterial.
Sorry, but you're the one that's incompetent. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. As I explained above, in order get an injunction, you must show that the plaintiff has a likelihood of winning AND that a cash award would not be sufficient recompense.
You call me incompetent, then dump me with all that responsibility?
Let's leave it to Apple's legal team, shall we?
To use your example, if Toyota sued Tesla Motors for copying a design element, they would have a much better chance of getting an injunction than if Tesla sued Toyota. If the plaintiff wins and is awarded damages, it is far more likely that Toyota could pay the damages than Tesla.
In this case, Samsung can clearly afford to pay any likely fine and Apple failed to show that there would be damages that money wouldn't make up for, so they rightfully lost the injunction request.
It isn't over. And it isn't right(ful) that an entity (person or corporation) can do whatever
they please merely because they have deep pockets. An injunction is very important to reverse the tide.
IMHO Apple's main problem is that Samsung isn't alone in ripping off Apple's IP via Android, so it looks like blocking Samsung wouldn't change the overall appearance of the marketplace. That doesn't make Samsung any more justified or less important to stop, just as stopping one criminal is as important as stopping others.