Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by henryfjordan 2476 days ago
The injunction was to stop LinkedIn from blocking access while the case is ongoing, not to stop them from arguing that hiQ violated the CFAA. The trial court could hear the arguments and say "hiQ is wrong, they did violate the CFAA". Maybe that's not likely, but it also is not yet decided.

So what exactly did I misunderstand and why do you think this is final?
1 comments
stefan_ 2476 days ago
I think you missed that this injunction is the case?

You are saying "the injunction was to stop LinkedIn from blocking access while [the injunction request] is ongoing".

If the court didn't think hiq had a strong case they would not have granted the initial injunction, then reaffirmed it on this appeal.

link
henryfjordan 2476 days ago
The 9th circuit uses a sliding-scale version of the preliminary injunction test. Because hiQ has more at stake, all hiQ needs is a serious question in this case, not a likelyhood of success on the merits.

It still might be case that hiQ has less than a 50% chance of winning in the eyes of the appeals court.

link