ZippyPeanutArs Praefectusreply2 days agoignore user
If you disallow sideloading, your wrong. If you tell me I MUST get a third-party product from you and you only -- that I do not have the liberty to get it elsewhere -- then you're up to something that's no good; I don't trust you.

(Also, if you inject code into my processor's firmware that slows my processor and you don't tell me, I don't trust you.)

(Also, if you do everything in your power to prevent me from repairing my own product or prevent me from using a third-party repair shop to to fix my paid-for product -- including using your wealth and power to disrupt supply chains to those third-party shops, I don't trust you.)

(Also, if you tell me that my data is irretrievably lost and that it would be foolish to try, and a third-party tells me that it is retrievable, and it turns out to be retrievable, I don't trust you.)

(If you remove an app from your store because a repressive government pressures you to do so -- and I can't get that app from another source other than you -- I don't trust you.)

(Also, if you solder in RAM and intentionally make it impossible for me to upgrade a product I bought from you, I don't trust you.)

So, Epic might not have legal standing here, but I'd trust Roger Stone before I trusted Apple. //

bushrat011899Ars Centurionet Subscriptorreply2 days agoignore user
I think consumer devices designed to run software a user buys should allow them to load software from an arbitrary source. Consoles included. Consider 20 years from now, what if a developer wants to release a new PS4 game, but Sony has shut down digital distribution services and has stopped signing the game discs. I would argue that the ability to get software for that device is integral to its operation.

Allowing users to sideload software ensures that critical functionality is preserved for all time.

I don't care for Epic in the slightest, but one outcome of this court case improves software freedom, and the other entrenches walled gardens in legal precedent. I know which outcome I want. //

LrdDimwitArs Scholae Palatinaereply2 days agoignore user
quamquam quid loquor wrote:
How far can this case go up for appeal? My understanding is the higher it goes, the more political and broad it becomes.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily true that the higher it goes, the 'more political' it becomes. That can often happen, but isn't guaranteed.

This is a federal case. There are three levels: the district court (where the trial just ended), the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. Appealing to the appellate level is automatic; any party has the right to appeal any judgment, and the appeals court must consider the appeal (if filed properly). The appeals court is usually a panel of 3 judges from the whole court; you can petition for an 'en banc rehearing' where the whole appeals court revisits the case, but that's not automatic (and is rarely granted). After that, a party that still doesn't like the decision can ask the Supreme Court to intervene. This, too, is not automatic; the Supreme Court has the discretion to decide which cases it wants to hear, and declines most petitions.

As for 'how broad' a ruling is, rulings set precedents; the key holdings of a case are binding on future decisions involving the same issue. District court rulings basically aren't precedent at all, but can still sometimes be used for reference when there is nothing better . Appeals court rulings are binding precedent on subsequent cases in the same district (for district courts and future appellate rulings; only an en banc appeals court can overrule its own precedent). District courts are supposed to rigidly follow binding precedent. Different appeals courts can issue conflicting rulings, and thus a given situation might be handled differently depending what part of the country you're in. (This is called a circuit split, and reliably gets the Supreme Court involved to sort it out nationwide). Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent on everyone but themselves, and they make a point not to reverse course often because of the chaos that ensues.