> This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious. Actually it is recognizing the following 2 statements. Statement 1: The judges ruled that Apple br

> This is known as question begging, and it is fallacious. Actually it is recognizing the following 2 statements. Statement 1: The judges ruled that Apple broke the law, because of its behavior. Statement 2: Apple can't keep doing that, if the existing judgement stands. It sounds like you agree that both of these statements are true! > Apple is not required to issue contracts, nor even keep the AppStore running. So then Apple could not keep running an app store, with these provisions. If they run an App store, then they would be prevented, by law, from doing these unfair competition contracts. It sounds you agree completely that yes the judge ruled that they broke the law, and that they can't keep doing that, if the judgement stands!