undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJohnny55510y ago0 comments

And the DoJ stopped fighting.

If the DoJ ultimately won the case, then it's fair that Apple should have to pay their legal costs.

But since using a 200 year old law to force Apple to do work they don't want to do was a legal stretch, if the DoJ lost the case then again I'd say the DoJ should pay Apple's legal costs.

0 comments

teacup5010y ago

The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment.

Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

Johnny555OP10y ago

Oh, you mean in 1789, 227 years ago?

teacup5010y ago

Yes. The same week that the fourth amendment -- which is what provides us with strong protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- was approved by Congress.

Or do you refer to that as a stale 200 year old law, too?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsJohnny55510y ago0 comments

And the DoJ stopped fighting.

If the DoJ ultimately won the case, then it's fair that Apple should have to pay their legal costs.

But since using a 200 year old law to force Apple to do work they don't want to do was a legal stretch, if the DoJ lost the case then again I'd say the DoJ should pay Apple's legal costs.

0 comments

teacup5010y ago

The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment.

Please stop parroting "200 year old law".

Johnny555OP10y ago

Oh, you mean in 1789, 227 years ago?

teacup5010y ago

Yes. The same week that the fourth amendment -- which is what provides us with strong protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- was approved by Congress.

Or do you refer to that as a stale 200 year old law, too?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse