Private parties cannot request the moon. The test for interlocutory orders is HARD to satisfy, and involves substantial expense for litigants to raise. In Canada, if you lose this motion, you're paying half your opponent's legal bills most of the time, too.
You need three things to satisfy the test:
1) a serious issue to be tried
2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted
3) that the relief is just on the balance of considerations
Note that irreparable harm and balance of considerations are terms of art, both of which heavily restrict the ambit of what is admissible under those sections of the test, a process which is continually monitored by the development of subsequent jurisprudence.
But even if the injunction test is satisfied,
The physical products hypothetical you're advancing is incomplete and leaves out a number of facts which are instrumental in the court's ruling. Assuming the ruling is applicable outside of those parameters requires that clear arguments be made regarding why changing those parameters isn't a big deal.
As an exercise, try to go through the ruling and pull out each of the factual elements which the court seems to rely upon in coming to their decision. You'll note they rely on a lot of determinations to get to the decision they ultimately arrive at.
Other replies have gracefully dealt with the physical goods analogy more directly: things get ripped off shelves all the time. That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.
It is not the previous, original decision that affects Canada only that I am concerned about. It's the global reach here. Some of their wording about Google inadvertently assisting the non-Canadian company outside Canada strike me as not understanding how the web works. I concur with the dissenters that mentioned the issue should be taken up with the other company's government (France?). It just reeks of protectionism, applied outside the country's jurisdiction because they have the leverage to do so.
> That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.
It would be like the US court told Samsung they couldn't violate Apple's US patents on phones sold in Mexico.
You need three things to satisfy the test:
1) a serious issue to be tried 2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted 3) that the relief is just on the balance of considerations
Note that irreparable harm and balance of considerations are terms of art, both of which heavily restrict the ambit of what is admissible under those sections of the test, a process which is continually monitored by the development of subsequent jurisprudence.
But even if the injunction test is satisfied,
The physical products hypothetical you're advancing is incomplete and leaves out a number of facts which are instrumental in the court's ruling. Assuming the ruling is applicable outside of those parameters requires that clear arguments be made regarding why changing those parameters isn't a big deal.
As an exercise, try to go through the ruling and pull out each of the factual elements which the court seems to rely upon in coming to their decision. You'll note they rely on a lot of determinations to get to the decision they ultimately arrive at.
Other replies have gracefully dealt with the physical goods analogy more directly: things get ripped off shelves all the time. That's why the Apple v. Samsung cases are so high-stakes.