7 ms·

> The people said Apple has asked the Rotterdam District Court for an injunction to block publication of the ruling during its appeal. > A court spokesman conf

> The people said Apple has asked the Rotterdam District Court for an injunction to block publication of the ruling during its appeal. > A court spokesman confirmed the existence of the case to block publication, but could not say when a decision is expected. The proceedings are not open to the press or public.

elliekelly 5y ago
> The proceedings are not open to the press or public. Can anyone explain the policy reason behind the secrecy?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I suspect that Apple is afraid that if the reasoning behind this became public that Apple's stock price would be strongly influenced and so they are trying to hide the information from the market. It will be interesting to see if there will be a net negative from the effect of the hiding by itself, after all now people are free to speculate and they might go further in their speculation than the actual ruling.
- solidangle 5y ago
  Apple has filed a court case to block the publication of a report. Obviously the contents of the report will be discussed as part of the hearings. So if the hearings were public then the contents would become public as well, which would make the court case pointless. Hence the private hearings.
- burpee 5y ago
  Not entirely illogical, if something is expected to generate a lot of media attention, the case may be kept private to prevent the 'court of public opinion' to influence the outcome. Everything is still documented and shared afterwards regardless of the outcome.
- ArchOversight 5y ago
  Most court proceedings in The Netherlands are not open to the public or press, mostly for the privacy and protection of those involved with the case. Unlike the US where court cases are publicized and disseminated widely with the charges, but never with the outcome of the court case.
jacquesm 5y ago
I find this absolutely incredible, that the workings of the court in a commercial case like this can be hidden from the press and the public. Disgusting that they would ask for this, and I sincerely hope that the court will reject that.
- bogwog 5y ago
  The Streisand effect never fails
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The flip side is that suppose the ruling is overturned and is based on faulty law. Then the courts have created a PR and possible big financial hit on a company improperly. Could apple then sue for damages?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    A company that gets bad PR as the result of a court case might be able to get the ruling overturned but that does not trump the right of the public to know what transpires in the courts. And no, then Apple could not - and should not be able to - sue for damages because they are themselves recognizing the power of the courts as arbiters in these matters. Similarly: if the ruling is upheld Apple does not get to pay more because they - apparently improperly - asked for the previous ruling to be kept secret. Courts should operate in a transparent manner whenever possible otherwise the trust in the legal system will erode and that trumps the commercial interests of any single company, even one as large as Apple.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      I'm somewhat neutral on the issue. I agree, I also think that if a judge keeps it sealed for a short while, it's probably a reasonable thing to do.
      - emn13 5y ago
        More likely, it's merely evidence it's a legally sound thing to do. That doesn't mean it's particularly reasonable, simply that it's not technically trivial to reject out of hand. It could equally be a symptom of regulatory capture; it's not like the judge gets to just do whatever they feel is fair (at least not without professional consequences).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

elliekelly 5y ago

> The proceedings are not open to the press or public. Can anyone explain the policy reason behind the secrecy?

jacquesm 5y ago
I suspect that Apple is afraid that if the reasoning behind this became public that Apple's stock price would be strongly influenced and so they are trying to hide the information from the market. It will be interesting to see if there will be a net negative from the effect of the hiding by itself, after all now people are free to speculate and they might go further in their speculation than the actual ruling.
solidangle 5y ago
Apple has filed a court case to block the publication of a report. Obviously the contents of the report will be discussed as part of the hearings. So if the hearings were public then the contents would become public as well, which would make the court case pointless. Hence the private hearings.
burpee 5y ago
Not entirely illogical, if something is expected to generate a lot of media attention, the case may be kept private to prevent the 'court of public opinion' to influence the outcome. Everything is still documented and shared afterwards regardless of the outcome.
ArchOversight 5y ago
Most court proceedings in The Netherlands are not open to the public or press, mostly for the privacy and protection of those involved with the case. Unlike the US where court cases are publicized and disseminated widely with the charges, but never with the outcome of the court case.

jacquesm 5y ago

I find this absolutely incredible, that the workings of the court in a commercial case like this can be hidden from the press and the public. Disgusting that they would ask for this, and I sincerely hope that the court will reject that.

bogwog 5y ago
The Streisand effect never fails
mjburgess 5y ago
The flip side is that suppose the ruling is overturned and is based on faulty law. Then the courts have created a PR and possible big financial hit on a company improperly. Could apple then sue for damages?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  A company that gets bad PR as the result of a court case might be able to get the ruling overturned but that does not trump the right of the public to know what transpires in the courts. And no, then Apple could not - and should not be able to - sue for damages because they are themselves recognizing the power of the courts as arbiters in these matters. Similarly: if the ruling is upheld Apple does not get to pay more because they - apparently improperly - asked for the previous ruling to be kept secret. Courts should operate in a transparent manner whenever possible otherwise the trust in the legal system will erode and that trumps the commercial interests of any single company, even one as large as Apple.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    I'm somewhat neutral on the issue. I agree, I also think that if a judge keeps it sealed for a short while, it's probably a reasonable thing to do.
    - emn13 5y ago
      More likely, it's merely evidence it's a legally sound thing to do. That doesn't mean it's particularly reasonable, simply that it's not technically trivial to reject out of hand. It could equally be a symptom of regulatory capture; it's not like the judge gets to just do whatever they feel is fair (at least not without professional consequences).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]