4 ms·
The argument that Apple is too-big-to-compel is in the same spirit as arguing that they're too-rich-to-compel. So my closing question stands: if Apple prevails,
by spaceheeder 11y ago
The argument that Apple is too-big-to-compel is in the same spirit as arguing that they're too-rich-to-compel. So my closing question stands: if Apple prevails, how likely are courts to treat this as a precedent if and when the government goes after a small fry again?
- ogsharkman 11y agoI'm not sure if it's a matter of precedent for the small frys. By that I mean, even if there is precedent you still need a tremendous amount of money/legal power to fight.
- oddevan 11y agoI would think so. My understanding of the Lavabit case was that it was upheld on procedural grounds and thus not precedent-setting. Apple has the money and the will to fight this so that it is precedent-setting* and thus usable by the not-as-expensive lawyer protecting the next Lavabit. * By which I mean I could see Apple purposefully fighting this to the Supreme Court, even if it means "appealing" a case they've already won so that it goes to a higher court.