The judge seems irrational. Both arguments mentioned here are flatly wrong. It is demonstrably false that Apple not including the adapter ”obliged the consumer

The judge seems irrational. Both arguments mentioned here are flatly wrong. It is demonstrably false that Apple not including the adapter ”obliged the consumer to purchase a second product of its exclusive manufacture”. The number of people using the product without an Apple manufactured power adapter could populate entire cities. Alternatives are easily accessible and come in many forms you might have preferences about. Furthermore many have existing power adapters from Apple and others so buying a duplicate contributes next to nothing for many despite having an environmental and financial cost. The argument that Apple also manufactures adapters so this is not environmentally beneficial to exclude is staggering in how little sense it makes. Decoupling the two allows you to purchase only what you need when you need it avoiding duplicates and waste. Can people possibly be so dense as to seriously argue otherwise? If the packaging is not clear about what is and isn’t included and suggests something needed to use the device is included when it isn’t, that’s a different story and something I can understand taking issue with (from a false marketing standpoint), but the arguments as stated here are pure garbage. I don’t need a new power adapter with every device any more than I need to also have to buy a screw driver as a part of the package every time I buy screws. Forcing the coupling of purchases effectively increases the minimal cost for consumers, decreases consumer choice, and produces waste. I suspect this has nothing to do with the arguments and everything to do with ”sticking it” to a big corporation that is disliked for entirely unrelated reasons.