Actually proving irreparable damage should be the status quo before any such injunctions happen. I feel that these injunctions are granted far too easily. Isn't the injunction supposed to happen only if they cause "irreparable" damage to the other party if they keep being sold?
Plus, there needs to be made a clear distinction between that flavor of "irreparable damage" and "competition". Say that one company does indeed infringe on another's patent, but it's a pretty non-important patent (like that bounce-effect one). And say that the device is very popular because it's a great overall device for many other reasons other than that small piece of technology. And say that this device is so popular that it does indeed create lower sales for the other device.
Could the other company prove "irreparable damage" and ban the product from the market, when 99.99% of the reason it lost sales was because of competition, and that it was a better device (or had better marketing) ? Such a device should never be banned from the market based on a trivial patent, even if the patent is "valid".
That is precisely what is the case. Proving irreparable damage is one of the necessary preconditions to obtaining a preliminary injunction. And irreparable damage is distinguished from competition. You cannot prove irreparable damage from lost sales with an unimportant patent--it has to be so central that people buy the product because of the infringed patent.
That's basically exactly what this decision says. The judge shouldn't have granted the preliminary injunction because Apple didn't prove irreparable damage, and Apple didn't prove irreparable damage because they didn't show that the infringed patent is what caused people to buy the Galaxy Nexus.
Plus, there needs to be made a clear distinction between that flavor of "irreparable damage" and "competition". Say that one company does indeed infringe on another's patent, but it's a pretty non-important patent (like that bounce-effect one). And say that the device is very popular because it's a great overall device for many other reasons other than that small piece of technology. And say that this device is so popular that it does indeed create lower sales for the other device.
Could the other company prove "irreparable damage" and ban the product from the market, when 99.99% of the reason it lost sales was because of competition, and that it was a better device (or had better marketing) ? Such a device should never be banned from the market based on a trivial patent, even if the patent is "valid".