There are a huge number of side effects that would have to be dealt with, but this case has made me think that Apple should have the option to say, "changed your mind? Nooo, that ship (which you, the FBI, built and christened) has sailed, buddy, and you're on board. This is going before a judge, like it or not, and we're doing it now."
Except that's not how courts work. Apple is the defendant, the government is the plaintiff. The plaintiff should always have the right to end a case/action. Allowing defendant's to continue cases allows for highly malicious actions to occur.
More malicious than being forced to defend yourself, at significant cost, only to say "Nah, changed our mind"? So, plaintiffs can force issues, defendants cannot. And to let them would be malicious?
Give a specific example of something the defense could do that is malicious to the plaintiff?
Did I not say that there were side effects? :-) I realize this has problems, and I'm not the one to be providing solutions. However, "nuisance lawsuits" are a thing, and this case is probably the poster child. Only instead of "pay me and I'll go away", it's "we'll keep trying until we feel the tide of public opinion turns against us, then we'll pull out and try again...repeatedly." I don't know, just doesn't seem like the way things should work. You either have a case or not, public opinion be damned.
So fine, defendant doesn't get to push continuing the case. Then how about FBI doesn't get to try again? Of course, problem there is that the next will be ensured to be just different enough to not fall under whatever regulation or law is set up to deal with such a thing.
