|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
If we are using football analogies, the injunction is not a penalty; it is more
akin to play stoppage to prevent further damage. For an offsides infraction, it
may be necessary to stop the play to prevent players from being injured
("unabated to the quarterback"). The actual offsides penalty is
assessed afterward; the play stoppage is not the penalty but a means of
preventing irreparable harm from taking place.
Contrast this with a holding penalty, which never results in the play be
stopped, action continues until a player is downed or a score is made. That
doesn't mean that the punishment for holding has been removed, it merely means
that the nature of the infraction is not likely to cause harm that can not be
rectified after the play is over.
Judge Posner has not decided that there should be no penalty for Apple's
infraction, merely that there is no requirement to stop them from selling their
product in order to fairly assess the penalty.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|