Hello I'm a Law student, one of my classes this year is Compared legal systems, and I am French and very conscious of the "spirit" of the 1804 Code civil and its influence on European societies as well as on former colonies.
The way you depict Civil Law systems is not how the judiciary works in either mixed systems like continental law (European Union Law) OR Civil law at national level. Judicial discretion, interpretation, and equity don't supersede the letter of the law like you've implied, but there is also no reliance on precedent for issuing rulings, even though precedent will be cited : it is always done implicitly by the judges in their rulings, but it cannot be invoked by the parties during the procedure.
When positive law is broken, there is no question that the specific wording of said legislation is the basis on which a suit is formed, and the basis for the judges' ruling.
I will refrain from further comment because it's a politically charged topic, but I can guarantee you Apple has no beef with EU Law and EU justice, au contraire.
There is merit to a system that doesn't require its legislation to be amended every time a new case presents itself, and can prove flexible when customs and societies evolves. That's why we still have the same civil Law since 1804 in France, and that's why judges don't just do whatever they want, like you've implied.
Common Law courts may also judge in equity, mind you.
Don't call people clowns while wearing that much make up.
