News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not giving them a 30% c... by everfree on Thursday December 01, 2022 @10:15PM (#33826308)
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.

Re:Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not giving them a 30% c... by jbigelow76 on Thursday December 01, 2022 @10:58PM (#33826591)
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.
Re:Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not giving them a 30% c... by everfree on Thursday December 01, 2022 @11:11PM (#33826684)
> 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?

Re:Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not giving them a 30% c... by jbigelow76 on Friday December 02, 2022 @12:41AM (#33827242)
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.
Re:Apple Blocks Coinbase wallet, for not giving them a 30% c... by everfree on Friday December 02, 2022 @01:27AM (#33827499)
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.