> After all, the point of there being an appeal is that the case isn't actually settled yet
Appeals aren't retrials, though.
Appeals aren't retrials, though.
Generally an appeal like this is just a short pause while they work out whether there's more that needs to be done in the case, and so it hurts less to stop the ban for a few days while that's happening. Then if it actually goes up to an appeals court for more expensive lawyer-work the issue would indeed still be undecided and the pause should continue. For a company that's not a behemoth like Apple you could certainly imagine a poorly-decided import ban causing them to run out of money to fight it, after all.
Not sure I understand this logic. There are basically two outcomes- either customs decides it is okay to be imported and the ban is lifted or it decides it should be upheld and the ban remains. If it were to be appealed to a higher court and then have the ban reinstated as you say, why would it make sense to pause the ban and then reinstate it when it goes to appeals since it’s already in place? Seems it should be upheld until a higher authority says it no longer needs to be upheld. I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either.
i.e. There's more then 2 possible scenarios.
The idea is that harms that can't be fixed (by e.g. ordering someone to pay money) should be avoided until the system has settled on a definite answer.
> I’m not sure I understand why third parties are still allowed to violate a ruling, either.
The ruling is just blocking imports, not sales. I don't think that Apple is actually required to freeze its own sales, per se, but they're very just-in-time for stock so it was an effective ban for them unless they wanted to stockpile.
Third parties are thus able to sell through whatever stock they have.