Yes they can, but now you are changing the terms, AGAIN. Are you finally figuring out that words mean things? But Apple was not a participant even in the "agreement." It WAS a participant, but MY point, and the point of the US Supreme Court's ruling was that various participants are NOT to be judged with the same scrutiny, because their circumstances and motive of necessity have to be different.
Let's take an extreme example. A man walks into a bank carrying a gun. He holds the bank up and steals thousands of dollars. He's a bank robber. Right? There are people who are in a conspiracy to rob that bank who are just as guilty. Right?
Now, let's add one more twist. Under his coat is a vest filled with C-4. It's attached to a radio by wires. The guy who drove him to the bank tells him if he doesn't come back with the money, he'll blow him up.
Should the guy be judged with the same absolute standard as the conspirators who forced him into robbing the bank? Or should the system judge his actions with a different approach?
I grant you it's an extreme case.
” But Apple was not a participant even in the “agreement.”
LOL! emails, phone calls, conferences and SIGNED CONTRACTS!
“Should the guy be judged with the same absolute standard as the conspirators who forced him into robbing the bank? “
LOL! Apple was the lead conspirator!