decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sorry PJ, the truth is slightly different | 224 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sorry PJ, the truth is slightly different
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:11 PM EST
Sorry, PJ, I don't think you're following the thread.

You said the English courts would never enjoin Apple's UK sales.

Most of us English people here expect a court, if sufficiently p'd off, to do
EXACTLY that sort of thing. Okay, it's not likely, but we don't believe your
"never". And we're more likely to be right than you.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry PJ, the truth is slightly different
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 06:36 PM EST
For clarity I'm a different anon that has not posted in this thread before now.

I think I understand why PJ may not be able to connect the dots in the anon post
that she replied to in the post to which I am now replying: that post was made
by a different anon than the one who posted the original "Sorry PJ, the
truth is slightly different" post.

I think I can also suggest a resolution to the back-and-forth of (as I see it
from where I sit):

UKish poster: I hope the court finds Apple in contempt and slaps them with a
really harsh contempt order enjoining it from selling products in the UK (or
Europe, if that's possible) or at least fines it an amount equal to its daily
gross UK or European revenues for so long as it remains in contempt.

Americanish poster: that can't happen because the law doesn't work that way and
it's not on the table because Samsung has not brought a motion to put it on the
table, nor will they.

UKish poster: you don't understand and you're not following, we expect our
courts to do such things.

Americanish poster: it still can't happen because the law doesn't work that
way.

Now I am not an expert in either American or UK law, but from what I understand
the UK court does not need to wait for anyone to put anything on the table. The
court may take judicial notice of anything that is contemptuous of its orders,
and it has broad discretion to craft any appropriate remedy sua sponte. Thus it
appears to me that both the UKish and Americanish posters are correct to some
degree, but also incorrect to some degree. I certainly believe it is not out of
the realm of possibility or legality for the UK court to impose such an order,
but the odds of the court actually doing so are vanishingly small. Such an
order would also be appealable, of course, but I can't begin to speculate on the
likelihood of it being overturned. I think that one of the reasons that the UK
courts retain such broad powers is because they tend to exercise them
proportionally and with all due discretion.

The moral of the story: woe be unto you who would be in contempt of a court of
inherent jurisdiction, for the powers and discretion of such a court are so
great as to appear magical to one of an American constitutionalist bent.

Hopefully this thread hasn't gotten significantly more complicated in the time
it's taken me to write this post.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )