Yep they are free to leave, but its still apples software.
Only their original copy of the software. But this is about their AppStore policy so it’s up for scrutiny as any store.
Which is why the method of delivery is going to be the subject of a court challenge.
Method of delivery? How is it upp for challenge when the courts already ruled against Apple’s complaints and ruled the ACMs requirement as legitimate.
US judges and lawyers have vastly different roles and procedures. Compared to USA.
- Pre-trial pleadings
- Pleadings
- Production of Evidence (Discovery)
- Trial
- Appeal
Pre-trial Pleadings
In the pre-trial pleadings phase the parties, without the involvement of the court, try to resolve the disputes between them. The parties make various requests, with letters or notices sent between them, where the parties attempt to substantiate their positions on the merits of the case. If the parties fail to reach a resolution the civil lawsuit process continues.
This is what EU tried and no agreement solution was found.
Pleadings
The aggrieved party submits the complaint, with documentary evidence
In E.U. countries the burden of production of evidence (
discovery) rests on the claimant/plaintiff, the party seeking the remedy
Trial/discovery
The
plaintiff has the burden of proof., however the plaintiff does not have the discovery rights.
There are
no requests for production of documents, interrogatories or depositions. Documentary evidence is produced by the parties during the course of the litigation
To further substantiate then any evidence required has to be requested to the court.
The court further assesses the necessity for it and if deemed necessary then requests the opposing party to provide it in accordance with the law.
the judge will have looked over all evidence and paperwork submitted to the court and will guide the parties through the trial. The parties call witnesses and produce more evidence, which is relevant or important to the case . The judge generally acts in an investigatory role, seeking out the truth of the situation then applies the law.
As you can see EU judges are truth seekers, not neutral.
Appeal - the Fifth Step
The appeal is a second stage litigation process
In the civil systems, an appellate court has plenary authority to review an inferior court's judgment, not only as to issues of law but also as to issues of fact.
The underlying civil-law theory regarding issues of fact traditionally has been that evidence is a legal science and that the strength of an item of evidence is governed by a set of rules.
In most civil case appeals in the U.S. the evidence on record is accepted as the fact finder (judge or jury) accepted them. That deference doesn’t happen in the E.U.
This is a very big importance that evidence provided is not assumed as factual.
An ordinary appeal, when a case is appealed every aspect of it is reconsidered and a new examination of the facts may take place if necessary. However, a court of cassation has limited freedom, especially where the facts are concerned. In cassation it is required by law to base its deliberations on the facts as established by the lower court and cassation would mean quashing a judicial decision on a point of law, including procedural law.
Now some highlights for you
In the E.U. it’s rare for a civil case to include use of expert witnesses. If there is such a witness he or she will be named by the judge to help determine the facts, not by a party to help put its case in a favorable light
Imagine not being allowed to use partisan witnesses. But impartial ones.
In the E.U. litigation system a judge is more a referee and the trial is a more investigative process. E.U. judges are also not strictly bound by case precedent and educated in their fields.
Compared to neutral US judges acting passively.
E.U. lawyers need to demonstrate that statutory law applies in the case for a particular fact so their role is more to advise, inform and point the judge in the right direction, and the procedure largely is in writing.
Compared to US lawyers trying to convince a jury/judge with debate and appeal to emotions.
