5 ms·
There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is
by chillage 5y ago
There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is allowed to keep its practices outside of that state? Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? And why do none of the articles on this topic address this point?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> This is an order by a California district judge. No, its an order by a federal district judge in California; specifically, a judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California. (Media reports often use sloppy language which confuses federal courts located in a state with courts of a state.) > So that means it must only be valid in California? No. > Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? It's a federal decision. In any case, even if that wasn’t the case, much Apple conduct occurs in California even if it impacts users outside of California.
- chillage 5y agoOh ok thank you for the explanation, that does clear it up. So this decision applies to the US (though maybe not outside the US)
- dragonwriter 5y agoThe permanent injunction applies to the conduct it specifically mandates and/or prohibits and the named parties it says it applies to (so long as those parties are subject to US law, but that seems likely to be th case for Apple for the foreseeable future.)