The causal nexus requirement is not satisfied simply because removing an allegedly infringing component would leave a particular feature, application, or device less valued or inoperable. A laptop computer, for example, will not work (or work long enough) without a battery, cooling fan, or even the screws that may hold its frame together, and its value would be accordingly depreciated should those components be removed. That does not mean, however, that every such component is “core” to the operation of the machine, let alone that each component is the driver of consumer demand.

I like this particular bit, where the Appeals Court makes clear the distinction between "the device won't work without this" vs. "this is the reason consumers buy the device". The two aren't identical, and just because something is the first doesn't mean it's automatically the second. I believe the way the law's written only the second would qualify for an injunction.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]