Daniel Epstein said:
Sounds like Lawyers fishing for an issue but not knowing what they are looking for. Trying to get Schiller to open the door to other investigations without actually asking a specific question from those other investigations seems like a way for the plaintiffs lawyers to tell the court that other people are concerned about Appleâs power without having any particular evidence of why that applies here. Other reviews of Schullerâs testimony were more positive. Again did Epic wound Schiller with cross examination? Apparently not. Did Apple present a strong or weak case for its side of the issue? Unclear.