If you read e.g. page 36-38 you can see that the court was able to use Apple's prior internal discussions to contradict their subsequent claims, in that case the use of the word "scary".
The only reason they can do that is due to Apple's own internal workflows. If it was another company, or even Apple from the 80s-90s they wouldn't have been able to do that. The document is full of those sorts of examples.
They may be trying to hang you, but you don't have to provide the rope.
assume [...] that the lawyers
involved are not morons. Assume
they are instead, very smart
people.
I'm not assuming that. I assume someone at legal warned them about the dangers, but they were overridden by executives.
The only reason they can do that is due to Apple's own internal workflows. If it was another company, or even Apple from the 80s-90s they wouldn't have been able to do that. The document is full of those sorts of examples.
They may be trying to hang you, but you don't have to provide the rope.
I'm not assuming that. I assume someone at legal warned them about the dangers, but they were overridden by executives.