Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Samsung Galaxy Tab: Australian court lifts Apple injunction 
Author Message
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... injunction

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:11 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:25 pm
Posts: 10691
Location: Bramsche
Reply with quote
Some actual sanity in a patent case? :shock:

_________________
"Do you know what this is? Hmm? No, I can see you do not. You have that vacant look in your eyes, which says hold my head to your ear, you will hear the sea!" - Londo Molari

Executive Producer No Agenda Show 246


Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:49 pm
Profile ICQ
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
Quote:
a full bench of the federal court ruled that Bennett did not include in her written decision any assessment of the strengths of Apple's case, as she was required to do before granting the injunction. "In our view her decision was clearly wrong and should be set aside," the panel wrote.

Presumably she can now be sued for "criminal incompetence" or something? Anyone who's judgement is "clearly wrong" clearly should not be judging, and her malicious decision has caused very real damages.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:59 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
big_D wrote:
Some actual sanity in a patent case? :shock:

Well there's a first time for everything :lol: And to be fair they are Australians rather than Americans. Our antipodean cousins always seemed much more sensible sorts...

JJW009 wrote:
Quote:
a full bench of the federal court ruled that Bennett did not include in her written decision any assessment of the strengths of Apple's case, as she was required to do before granting the injunction. "In our view her decision was clearly wrong and should be set aside," the panel wrote.

Presumably she can now be sued for "criminal incompetence" or something? Anyone who's judgement is "clearly wrong" clearly should not be judging, and her malicious decision has caused very real damages.

You can't sue a judge for their judgements. Jesus, that really would be the legal system eating itself.

Jon


Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:04 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
You can't sue a judge for their judgements. Jesus, that really would be the legal system eating itself.

So the law is above the law, and there is no redress?

At the very least, if it's simple incompetence then she should be removed. You obviously can't have judges passing judgements that are "clearly wrong" - that is obviously perverse.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:21 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
You can't sue a judge for their judgements. Jesus, that really would be the legal system eating itself.

So the law is above the law, and there is no redress?

You can appeal the verdict - which is what has happened. You and the other side can keep on doing it at higher court levels until you get to the top level in whatever system you're operating under, then you stop. The law is not above the law, the law is the law. I'm not sure how something can be above itself.

JJW009 wrote:
At the very least, if it's simple incompetence then she should be removed. You obviously can't have judges passing judgements that are "clearly wrong" - that is obviously perverse.

Err.. they do it all the time. Judges aren't concerned with 'right' and 'wrong' as much as they are what is 'legally correct'. In any case, there may be a system for removing a judge from office in Australia, I don't know how that part of their legal system works.

Jon


Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:34 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
I would say there's also a huge difference between an individual being able to sue a judge for their judgement (clearly going to create massive issues) and the judicial system having its own internal system for dealing with judges that pass down judgements of poor quality (much like a corporate disciplinary process).

It does however create some interesting questions about resitution if a judge has been genuinely shoddy in the way they have reached / justified their decision when people lose out massively one way or the other.

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:37 pm
Profile WWW
Has a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:40 am
Posts: 71
Location: New Delhi
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
Presumably she can now be sued for "criminal incompetence" or something? Anyone who's judgement is "clearly wrong" clearly should not be judging, and her malicious decision has caused very real damages.


In a word, no. She's a federal judge so can only be removed by the governor-general (effectively Her Maj) - and even then for proved misbehaviour. As jonbwfc says, the whole reason we have an appeals system is to deal with bad judgements. Can you imagine the chaos if people were allowed to sue judges for their decisions? There'd be legal gridlock as every person who lost their case sued the judge in question. And what about criminal trials where the jury finds an innocent person guilty? Do we sue the jury as well?

Bennett's judgement was "clearly wrong" in the view of the appeal court. It may well be that the High Court, which is the next stop in this merry-go-round of legal loopiness, finds that her judgement was quite sound. That's assuming, of course, that the High Court even agrees to hear the case at all (it probably won't).

As for your contention that her judgement was "malicious" - it would be interesting to see you prove that in a case of libel or contempt. :)

_________________
"I was lying drunk in a field in Innsbruck."


Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:48 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
jasonline wrote:
And what about criminal trials where the jury finds an innocent person guilty? Do we sue the jury as well?

If there was a real and serious penalty for coming to the wrong decision, then perhaps people would have more faith in the legal system. You can't have judges and juries passing sentence with impunity.

If a decision is later overturned, there is something wrong and someone must be to blame. If someone is to blame then they must be punished.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:26 am
Profile WWW
Has a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:40 am
Posts: 71
Location: New Delhi
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
You can't have judges and juries passing sentence with impunity.


Well, judges pass sentences, not juries, but that aside ... it is kind of the whole point having of a legal system; the court is the final arbiter of what happened. But they don't always get it right, so there's a system of appeals that tries to ensure that a bad (or "unsound") decision gets overturned. And if someone is wrongly convicted of a crime they can seek damages (unless they live in a state with capital punishment, in which case they're kind of screwed).

I feel, however, that this has wandered way off the original topic.

_________________
"I was lying drunk in a field in Innsbruck."


Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:40 am
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Posts: 7262
Location: Here, but not all there.
Reply with quote
jasonline wrote:
I feel, however, that this has wandered way off the original topic.


This is true, but it's way more interesting than another round of Samsung vs Apple. :lol:

_________________
My Flickr | Snaptophobic Bloggage
Heather Kay: modelling details that matter.
"Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.


Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:42 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
Reply with quote
jasonline wrote:
As for your contention that her judgement was "malicious" - it would be interesting to see you prove that in a case of libel or contempt. :)

Addressing that point, I thought I should check to see if there was a special legal meaning.

"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party." (from Wiki)

Preventing sales is an obvious injury which was clearly her intention - unless she lives in cloud cuckoo land and doesn't think her judgements have any effect on real people.

_________________
jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly."

When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net


Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:58 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
jasonline wrote:
As for your contention that her judgement was "malicious" - it would be interesting to see you prove that in a case of libel or contempt. :)

Addressing that point, I thought I should check to see if there was a special legal meaning.

"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party." (from Wiki)

Preventing sales is an obvious injury which was clearly her intention - unless she lives in cloud cuckoo land and doesn't think her judgements have any effect on real people.


The challenge would be proving that was her motive; rather than the upholding of any IP laws. I think. I should stress I'm not trying to exhonerate the judge in any of this!

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:24 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Apart from anything else, good luck getting one judge to throw another judge in jail :?


Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:29 pm
Profile
Has a life
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:40 am
Posts: 71
Location: New Delhi
Reply with quote
JJW009 wrote:
Preventing sales is an obvious injury which was clearly her intention - unless she lives in cloud cuckoo land and doesn't think her judgements have any effect on real people.


Of course judgements have an effect on real people - that's their whole point.

As for the case in question - of course it was her intention to prevent sales, since she felt Apple had a case that it had been wronged. Whether she did it to "injure" Samsung (as you contest) or to uphold the law as she interpreted it (as she would probably contest) is what you'd be arguing over in your libel and/or contempt trial. Good luck with that one. :)

_________________
"I was lying drunk in a field in Innsbruck."


Last edited by jasonline on Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:53 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.