No Second Bite at the Apple
Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple. It Is So Ordered.⁷⁷ Dated: April 30, 2025 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A cropped U.S. district court order states that Apple deliberately violated an injunction to preserve an anticompetitive revenue stream. The punchline is the legal phrase “no second bite at the apple,” which turns Apple’s company name into a courtroom pun and is used to mock Apple after a decisive legal defeat.
court document / судебный документprinted legal text / напечатанный юридический текстjudge’s signature / подпись судьиcourt seal area / область печати судаpage numbers / номера страницblack serif type / чёрный шрифт с засечкамиwhite paper / белая бумагаunderlined heading / подчёркнутый заголовокdate line / строка с датойlegal injunction / судебный запретApple reference / упоминание Apple
- @gentoomemes / 17105 2025-05-01
- Type
- image
- Size
- 710×390 · 32.9 KiB
- Mood
- саркастичный
- Language
- en
- Added
