> Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to r

> Ah, guilty before being charged. Cool! If that's your approach, why even have the investigation? Why not just stick with the accusation if its sufficient to reflect Apple's culpability? There’s no ambiguity over what Apple did. The question is whether it violates the law. Acknowledging that there is legal theory to suggest it’s illegal has nothing to do with “guilty before proven innocent” and it is a complete straw man to suggest that anyone is discussing throwing out the need for trials altogether