> A court spokesman confirmed the existence of the case to block publication, but could not say when a decision is expected. The proceedings are not open to the press or public.
Then the courts have created a PR and possible big financial hit on a company improperly. Could apple then sue for damages?
Similarly: if the ruling is upheld Apple does not get to pay more because they - apparently improperly - asked for the previous ruling to be kept secret.
Courts should operate in a transparent manner whenever possible otherwise the trust in the legal system will erode and that trumps the commercial interests of any single company, even one as large as Apple.
If an appeal is being made, and current decision being temporary suspended, then there's no reason for the original decision to be public. The courts decide on matters of law, so the publics view on the original decision is irrelevant, and up to the parties involved to convince the appeal judge their interpretation of the law is correct.
Once the matters been settled by the courts, it make sense to make everything public. But a no point during the process should or can public opinion influence the outcome.
Can anyone explain the policy reason behind the secrecy?
Unlike the US where court cases are publicized and disseminated widely with the charges, but never with the outcome of the court case.