Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[tomsem]

So Apple has filed yet another brief with the Supreme Court in response to DoJ's a few weeks ago. I wish them luck (the bad kind).

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by tomsem

So Apple has filed yet another brief with the Supreme Court in response to DoJ's a few weeks ago. I wish them luck (the bad kind).

That's kind of the way things go with appeals. It tends to drag out forever. For the most part, the briefs are what decides the case, so both sides and various interested parties spend a lot of time making sure that the briefs make the case they want to make.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by Phogg

That's pretty silly.

To come up with a claim that someone else damaged competition in the marketplace, the five Menendez Publishing Orphans had to simplify their appeal and evade the damage they did to Amazon's previously much less less anemic competitors.

Oh Wait, you were perhaps criticizing the zany appeal?

[tomsem]

Meanwhile, a separate appeal (' by e-books purchaser John Bradley') was rejected by 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, upholding the Apple e-book settlement:

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-app...-idINKCN0VQ1RC

The 2nd Circuit also cited Cote's observation that Bradley's arguments were made by a "professional objector," meaning a lawyer who hopes to win a fee for resolving "stock objections" to class-action settlements.

I believe the Supreme Court was supposed to decide whether to take up Apple's appeal there this week, but I don't know if Justice Scalia's recent death will cause further delays.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tomsem

Meanwhile, a separate appeal (' by e-books purchaser John Bradley') was rejected by 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, upholding the Apple e-book settlement:

http://in.reuters.com/article/us-app...-idINKCN0VQ1RC



I believe the Supreme Court was supposed to decide whether to take up Apple's appeal there this week, but I don't know if Justice Scalia's recent death will cause further delays.

[kennyc]

And in a separate case (one in which I'm backin' Tim):

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...217-story.html

[tomsem]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in a separate case (one in which I'm backin' Tim):

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...217-story.html

Absolutely!

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in a separate case (one in which I'm backin' Tim):

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...217-story.html

If Apple has to provide some sort of bypass for the FBI, how long before they have to provide it to the Chinese, Russians, and any other country that bans Apple imports until they get the bypass too? And then, a month later, every criminal will have it, but it will be illegal for Americans to have it to unlock their own phone because it will be a DMCA violation.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

If Apple has to provide some sort of bypass for the FBI, how long before they have to provide it to the Chinese, Russians, and any other country

They won't have to provide it to those countries, they'll just hack and acquire it from the US government - as they already seem to do everything else.

[crane3]

I think that the FBI just want access from apple; apple can just unlock the phone; no need for the fbi to get the decryptor.

Wonder if some of the ransomware is using the apple method of encryption to extort moneys from hospitals.

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by crane3

I think that the FBI just want access from apple; apple can just unlock the phone; no need for the fbi to get the decryptor.

Wonder if some of the ransomware is using the apple method of encryption to extort moneys from hospitals.

From what I read the FBI don't want apple to unlock the phone, they want apple to modify the software so they can try a brute force password attempt without
The phone wiping itself, having to manually enter the password attempts or wait between password attempts.

My understanding is that this type of attack could take just minutes to unlock the phone.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by alanHd

From what I read the FBI don't want apple to unlock the phone, they want apple to modify the software so they can try a brute force password attempt without
The phone wiping itself, having to manually enter the password attempts or wait between password attempts.

My understanding is that this type of attack could take just minutes to unlock the phone.

Assuming, of course, that there wasn't another user-installed limit-wipe inside Apple's security...

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in a separate case (one in which I'm backin' Tim):

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...217-story.html

Me too !

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And in a separate case (one in which I'm backin' Tim):

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...217-story.html

Originally Posted by Wearever

Me too !

So is Google...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san...ardino-n520421

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

So is Google...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san...ardino-n520421

So have 87% of people agreed on cnet.

http://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-ap...an-bernardino/