Apple has provided with the New York court with a second copy of the formal objection they had placed against the court order placed by the FBI. The initial objection filed showed that Apple had mainly objected in complying with the court order as a cautionary measure against the atrocious order put forward by the FBI. The second filing which now consists of two pages is much more substantial than the last formal objection. The second filing was submitted just last week, duly signed by Ted Boutrous, a lead attorney.
This new objection order contains a new ruling which has come into light in recent times. A top magistrate Judge of New York, by the name of James Orenstein, had ruled against the All Writs Act in a similar case a few weeks back. According to that particular case, a ruling was taking in the favor of Apple and against the Act. In the case at hand, the San Bernardino case, the FBI has been pressurizing Apple keeping the All Writs Act in the forefront.
In the previous case in New York, Apple was similarly asked to unlock the iPhone which had a much older operating system. The government had used the All Writs Act to compel Apple to unlock the iPhone by providing a backdoor to the government. The Judge had overruled the government petition, which according to Apple was much less atrocious than the court order they had placed now.
The previous filing done by Apple did not include the details of this particular case. Since this is a similar type of case and Apple had actually won the case in a New York court, they and their attorneys feel that the facts of the case will play an important role in the decision taken for the San Bernardino case Apple is currently fighting.
