No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way.

Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal.

And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts.

> Right now, what Apple is doing is legal.

Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we?

> become illegal in future.

No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal.

But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong.

Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong.

> it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way

Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it.

Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.