03-02-2016, 09:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2016, 09:34 PM by SteelCrysis.)
Upon further analysis, Orenstein's ruling idiotically dismisses United States v. New York Telephone Co. by saying that the iPhone hardware isn't Apple's property, ignoring the fact that the phone cannot function without Apple's software, which is Apple's property.
He also takes this ruling out of context by saying that “And unlike the telephone company… Apple is a private entity with no greater duty to serve the public than any other business,” when United States v. New York Telephone Co. ruled that there is a duty of private citizens to assist with the enforcement of the laws, backed up by Supreme Court precedent.
How's corporate personhood working out for corporations now?
He also takes this ruling out of context by saying that “And unlike the telephone company… Apple is a private entity with no greater duty to serve the public than any other business,” when United States v. New York Telephone Co. ruled that there is a duty of private citizens to assist with the enforcement of the laws, backed up by Supreme Court precedent.
How's corporate personhood working out for corporations now?