4 ms·
Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They
by rococode 5y ago
Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. It seemed to me like Tim Cook and Apple were not as prepared as they should've been. They didn't have any particularly unexpected/novel arguments, it was basically just constantly repeating the same bland things they've been saying all along about IP and fraud and convenience.
- nradov 5y agoNovel arguments aren't needed. If the precedents are on your side then it makes sense to repeat bland arguments instead of confusing the issue. I don't necessarily support Apple's business policy here, but strictly from a legal standpoint Fortnite's case has always been a long shot.
- mbg721 5y ago"A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." It sounds like this was a rare blindsiding.
- teruakohatu 5y agoThe article made it sound like Cook (and Apple legal) were not expecting a grilling from the judge. She asked him questions for longer than any other witness.
- ksec 5y ago>Sounds like the judge had some very sharp questions, big props to her. In following some court cases in Tech ( mostly Apple ) this is the first time I have seen a US judge actually doing their job properly. May be this is also because it is the first case Apple is a defendant. All the other case Apple brought forward, the judge was unapologetically Pro Apple. It was uncanny.