Super-Sized Sodas

New Yorkers suffering preemptive sugar withdrawal can take some comfort in a legal challenge filed this month against the Big Apple's impending city-wide ban on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.

The ban has generated controversy since Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed it in May, arguing that it will help improve public health in a city in which more than half the population is overweight or obese. But opponents say that it will infringe on personal liberties and harm small businesses. They also note that exceptions to the ban include diet sodas, coffee drinks and any products sold in convenience stores or supermarkets.

On Oct. 12, a group of those opponents—including some heavyweights in the beverage and restaurant industries—took their objections to court, arguing that only the city council, not the mayor-appointed Board of Health, has the power to pass the law.

Marriage Melee

In May, a three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit ruled unanimously that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages, violates the constitutional right to equal protection. Although many gay marriage proponents welcomed the decision, the court kept its opinion very narrow, ruling neither on whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, nor on whether states that outlaw gay marriage can be forced to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

But a recent ruling by the 2nd Circuit, which also found DOMA to be unconstitutional, may prompt the Supreme Court to take a stance on the issue. The high court could also choose to examine the issue through the lens of Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative that overturned the state's Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage. In August 2010, a federal district judge struck down the measure, a decision that the 9th Circuit upheld in a 2-1 vote earlier this year.

Continuing Conflict

Apple Inc. won a huge battle in its patent war with Samsung Electronics Co., but the global war rages on. On Aug. 24, a U.S. jury ordered Samsung to pay $1.05 billion in damages for infringing Apple's iPhone and iPad.

Things are going better for Samsung in Europe, however. On Oct. 18 a three-judge panel in London's High Court upheld an earlier judge's ruling that the Korean company's tablet computers do not infringe the design of Apple's iPad. The reasoning wasn't overly complimentary—the original judge found that Samsung's Galaxy tablets aren't “cool” enough to be confused with the iPad, a fact that Apple exploited in its court-mandated “apology ads.” But Samsung can take comfort in the fact that the ruling will apply throughout Europe, unless Apple mounts a successful appeal.

Samsung won another, smaller victory earlier this month when Judge Lucy Koh lifted an injunction that banned sales of the company's Galaxy Tab 10.1.