Apple has more money, power and influence than Coinbase by orders of magnitude. If Coinbase doesn't have a really strong case (like it would be in this case) going to court would be a disaster.

Lawsuits of this sort don't really hinge on "power" or "influence", they hinge on legal arguments and precedent.

As far as money goes, both companies have enough to be able to see a lawsuit through to completion.

So it doesn't matter much that Apple has "more money, power and influence". Coinbase would either have a case or have no case, irrespective of those factors.

Epic vs. Apple showed that money is a factor because after the decision come the appeals.

Same happened during the SCO–Linux disputes.

I'm sorry but I don't trust the legal system to be so ideal as you do. From my point of view money first, and power and influence second, can bend anything to the favor of those who have them in our current society.

I believe that US state and federal judges generally use sound legal reasoning when deciding civil suits, and I'm pretty sure that they don't take bribes, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't profess to be close to that whole process.

Sure it's true that if one party can't afford legal representation, the other party will have a better outcome. But that's not the case here.

Try and get an abortion in Texas for yourself or someone you care about and let me know how those precedents and legal arguments work out for you kiddo.

> let me know how those precedents and legal arguments work out

They would work out in such a way as to respect the law as written. The law as written in Texas is to outlaw abortion.

A Coinbase vs Apple lawsuit would likewise work out in such a way as to respect the law as written.

That's the point I've been arguing. What's yours?

You edited the comment I responded to and removed the "precedent" related part, which is supposed to be an important part of US jurisprudence; discussing edited comments without comments is pointless.

I believe I edited it before we went off on this tangent, but to be honest I can't be sure. Your comment was posted 40 minutes after mine, and I don't usually go back that late to edit my comments. If I did, I didn't do it intentionally.

Precedent is itself no more than an interpretation of law, in other words a line of legal reasoning that's already been ossified. I probably edited out the part about precedent because I felt it was redundant to "legal reasoning".

In any case, I don't see how "precedent" makes or breaks anyone's argument here.