3 ms·
But this is a ban due to alleged patent infringement (or alleged abuse of the patent system, depending on one's opinion of Apple) - comparing this to a public h
by DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
But this is a ban due to alleged patent infringement (or alleged abuse of the patent system, depending on one's opinion of Apple) - comparing this to a public harm/public-benefit scenario is a distraction.
- gambiting 3y agoAnd to add to that - there's no harm in allowing the sale of these devices to continue, because if the court upholds the ruling then Apple could always be sued for damages during that time(and there is no risk that Apple would not be able to pay it).
- beeboobaa 3y agoThe risk is that consumers will be shafted by buying a product today that apple refuses to support later because they weren't actually allowed to sell it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> that apple refuses to support later because they weren't actually allowed to sell it This is a separate—and reparable—set of harms.
- TillE 3y agoThat's not a risk, because there's zero chance that Apple just abandons their latest Watches. The worst possible outcome for customers is that Apple pushes a software update to disable the feature, but it's a fairly useless feature for most people.