<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ballenf</author><text>Disagree -- it&amp;#x27;s not the court&amp;#x27;s job to even categorize a thing as a loophole or not. It simply applies the law. Some actions will fall inside a prohibition and some outside. Divining the intent of the drafters of the law is something fraught with problems considering the process.&lt;p&gt;Just one example -- there may have been a group of supporters of the law in question used against Aereo that &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; supported the law because they realized it had said &amp;#x27;loophole&amp;#x27;. The rule would not have become law without the &amp;#x27;loophole&amp;#x27;. Now, how should a court interpret those circumstances?</text><parent_chain><item><author>stinkytaco</author><text>This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.</text></item><item><author>libertymcateer</author><text>&amp;gt; You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law.&lt;p&gt;Without reading the blog, I just wanted to comment on Aereo: a lot of us think that this was the wrong decision, and not in a facetious or &amp;#x27;cute&amp;#x27; way.&lt;p&gt;To quote Scalia&amp;#x27;s dissent in the case:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; In a dissent that expressed distaste for Aereo’s business model, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the service had nevertheless identified a loophole in the law. “It is not the role of this court to identify and plug loopholes,” he wrote. “It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes.”&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2014&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;supreme-court-rules-against-aereo-in-broadcasters-challenge.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2014&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;supreme-co...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>macspoofing</author><text>Oh man. You were surprised? Really? You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law. Predictably they got killed by lawsuits because judges aren&amp;#x27;t idiots and the law isn&amp;#x27;t inflexible  to the point where the intent and context isn&amp;#x27;t considered. Your case is even worse because you engineered a solution to adhere to the letter of a EULA of a tightly controlled ecosystem run by a very capricious company.&lt;p&gt;I hate the app store review process and a lot of apple policies around the app store and I feel for you and I totally think there should be a less onerous update&amp;#x2F;review process ... but ... you clearly and blatantly circumvented a core policy, and what happened to you was absolutely predictable.&lt;p&gt;Get your money back from the lawyer that told you Apple wouldn&amp;#x27;t shut you down. You got bad advice.</text></item><item><author>adjunct</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m Erez Rusovsky, the CEO of Rollout.io&lt;p&gt;Rollout&amp;#x27;s mission has always been, and will always be about helping developers create and deploy mobile apps quickly and safely.
Our current product has been a life saver for hundreds of apps by allowing them to patch bugs in live apps.&lt;p&gt;We were surprised by Apple&amp;#x27;s actions today.
From what we&amp;#x27;ve been able to gather, they seem to be rejecting any app which utilizes a mechanism of live patching, not just apps using Rollout.&lt;p&gt;Rollout has always been compliant with Apple&amp;#x27;s guidelines as we&amp;#x27;ve detailed in the past here:
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rollout.io&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;updating-apps-without-app-store&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rollout.io&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;updating-apps-without-app-store&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our SDK is installed in hundreds of live apps and our customers have fixed thousands of live bugs in their apps.&lt;p&gt;We are contacting Apple in order to get further clarification on why Rollout doesn&amp;#x27;t fall under the clause that lets developers push JS to live apps as long as it does not modify the original features and functionality of the app.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll post updates as I have them.&lt;p&gt;Erez Rusovsky
CEO Rollout.io</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features</title><url>https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/73640</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mi100hael</author><text>Don&amp;#x27;t you think at a certain point, a loophole in a poorly-written law can be too big for the courts to close?  When does a judge go from upholding the spirit to assigning new meaning?</text><parent_chain><item><author>stinkytaco</author><text>This is obviously getting off topic, but in a common law system that interpretation is just wrong. The law is an evolving thing, it is meant to be interpreted, read, and understood, not to be exploited.</text></item><item><author>libertymcateer</author><text>&amp;gt; You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law.&lt;p&gt;Without reading the blog, I just wanted to comment on Aereo: a lot of us think that this was the wrong decision, and not in a facetious or &amp;#x27;cute&amp;#x27; way.&lt;p&gt;To quote Scalia&amp;#x27;s dissent in the case:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; In a dissent that expressed distaste for Aereo’s business model, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the service had nevertheless identified a loophole in the law. “It is not the role of this court to identify and plug loopholes,” he wrote. “It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes.”&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2014&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;supreme-court-rules-against-aereo-in-broadcasters-challenge.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nytimes.com&amp;#x2F;2014&amp;#x2F;06&amp;#x2F;26&amp;#x2F;business&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;supreme-co...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>macspoofing</author><text>Oh man. You were surprised? Really? You blog sounds like the PR spin that came out of Aereo, a company that spent an inordinate amount of effort to stay within the absolute letter of a law. Predictably they got killed by lawsuits because judges aren&amp;#x27;t idiots and the law isn&amp;#x27;t inflexible  to the point where the intent and context isn&amp;#x27;t considered. Your case is even worse because you engineered a solution to adhere to the letter of a EULA of a tightly controlled ecosystem run by a very capricious company.&lt;p&gt;I hate the app store review process and a lot of apple policies around the app store and I feel for you and I totally think there should be a less onerous update&amp;#x2F;review process ... but ... you clearly and blatantly circumvented a core policy, and what happened to you was absolutely predictable.&lt;p&gt;Get your money back from the lawyer that told you Apple wouldn&amp;#x27;t shut you down. You got bad advice.</text></item><item><author>adjunct</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m Erez Rusovsky, the CEO of Rollout.io&lt;p&gt;Rollout&amp;#x27;s mission has always been, and will always be about helping developers create and deploy mobile apps quickly and safely.
Our current product has been a life saver for hundreds of apps by allowing them to patch bugs in live apps.&lt;p&gt;We were surprised by Apple&amp;#x27;s actions today.
From what we&amp;#x27;ve been able to gather, they seem to be rejecting any app which utilizes a mechanism of live patching, not just apps using Rollout.&lt;p&gt;Rollout has always been compliant with Apple&amp;#x27;s guidelines as we&amp;#x27;ve detailed in the past here:
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rollout.io&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;updating-apps-without-app-store&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;rollout.io&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;updating-apps-without-app-store&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our SDK is installed in hundreds of live apps and our customers have fixed thousands of live bugs in their apps.&lt;p&gt;We are contacting Apple in order to get further clarification on why Rollout doesn&amp;#x27;t fall under the clause that lets developers push JS to live apps as long as it does not modify the original features and functionality of the app.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ll post updates as I have them.&lt;p&gt;Erez Rusovsky
CEO Rollout.io</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Apple starts rejecting apps with “hot code push” features</title><url>https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/73640</url></story>