3 ms·

It sounds like you do not dispute that the investigator is extralegal and inconsistent with the normal mechanisms of justice. You seem to be okay with this beca

• davidgerard 13y ago
  If he was "extralegal", he'd be out of there already. It's not like Apple is short of legal resources. They were found guilty of antitrust offences. This is what happens when that happens. I appreciate you don't like this, but that doesn't change that (a) they did a bad thing (b) they were busted (c) this is the consequences (d) entitled whining in the WSJ doesn't change that.
  • fennecfoxen 13y ago
    Okay. So now it sounds like you believe it's not extralegal because if it was extralegal something would have been done about it already. I find your level of faith in the justice system disturbing. Even the ability of rich corporations to rectify any sort of judicial or systematic abuse is quite limited (and God help you if you're an ordinary human being). This has been especially the case (but not exclusively the case) under our current administration: the Chrysler bankruptcy, for instance, where UAW pensions were granted seniority over bondholders in an inversion of all previous law and precedent. What are you going to do about it? Sue the government? Moreover, there is a price to fighting back. If Apple were to seek the legal action, what's to stop them from being investigated again on trumped-up charges as a pure act of revenge? (Next thing you'll tell me is that NSA wiretapping everyone and their dog is clearly 100% fourth-amendment legal because if it were illegal the courts would have shut it down already.)