states – BIG

No less than 29 people died during the capture of El Chapo ‘s son in Mexico, which is a huge number. It should also be noted that extradition to the United States is by no means guaranteed.

The people killed in the violent circus during the arrest were suspected gang members (19) and military personnel (10), while Mexican cartel leader Ovidio Guzman found his hands tied.

The capture was made in the northern state of Sinaloa, said Defense Minister Luis Cresencio Sandoval.

At least 29 killed in Mexico capture of Chapo's son; U.S. extradition not guaranteed https://t.co/T3bq9TCi2X pic.twitter.com/aVtJb6KUxt

— Reuters (@Reuters) January 6, 2023

Guzman, 32 years old, is the son of drug lord El Chapo Guzman, who has been behind bars for several years.

The young Guzman was transported by helicopter to the plane that took him to Mexico City, and then entered a maximum security federal prison.

Such an arrest creates a shock wave, since the Sinaloa cartel went on a rampage setting fire to cars, or blocking roads…

Nevertheless, no less than 21 arrests were made in total, which is huge.

Note that no civilians were killed during this capture worthy of a Hollywood movie.

At the time of composing these few lines, it is not expected that Guzman will be extradited to the United States, either to New York, where his father has been since 2017.

“The elements (of the case) must be presented and the judges in Mexico decide. It’s a process … It’s not just the request. No U.S. forces were involved in the capture of Ovidio!” said Lopez Obrador.

It is important to note that an increased security presence will remain in Sinaloa for a few more days to protect the public.

The White House, 35 U.S. states and Microsoft have filed ‘amicus curiae’ briefs supporting Epic Games in its appeal in the antitrust case against Apple.

9to5Mac explains that third parties not directly involved in cases may want a say, particularly when the case has significant public interest. Third parties can file amicus curiae — literally “friend of the court” — briefs with advice for the judge. These briefs all essentially argue the original judge made a legal error in deciding how a key antitrust law applies to Apple.

To refresh your memory, the original ruling concluded that Apple didn’t meet the legal tests to be considered a monopoly but did rule that Apple had to allow developers to use third-party payment platforms if they want. Apple and Epic have both filed appeals on different aspects of the ruling, with Epic focusing on the conclusion that Apple isn’t a monopoly.

Foss Patents detailed the three amicus briefings. The first was submitted by Utah’s state attorney general and included 34 other state attorneys general (AGs). Foss Patents notes the list is basically the same as the states suing Google alongside Epic in a separate antitrust case. The list is as follows:

“The states–led by the Beehive State–are (in alphabetical order): Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I’m not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington.”

The states’ argument focuses on Section 1 of the Sherman Act, a key piece of U.S. antitrust legislation. A short explanation from 9to5 is that Section 1 says companies can’t make agreements among themselves to distort competition (for example, several companies agreeing to charge the same price for something). Section 2, however, says that companies in a dominant position can’t take unilateral actions designed to give themselves a monopoly.

Foss Patents explains that the focus on Section 1 is strange for the Epic v. Apple case but notes that it stems from the states’ own case against Google.

The White House claims not to support either party, but its arguments back Epic

Microsoft’s amicus brief focuses on “Apple’s extraordinary gatekeeper power” and serves as an example of another ‘Big Tech’ company concerned and impacted by Apple’s conduct.

Finally, the White House filed its own amicus brief, claiming that it’s “in support of neither party” before laying out several arguments that support important elements of Epic’s case, including that Section 2 of the Sherman Act should apply to Apple. Foss Elements has a great breakdown of the brief here.

However, it’s important to note that these amicus briefings do not mean Epic will win its appeal. A judge is obliged to consider amicus brief arguments but ultimately makes their own decision. Still, the sheer amount of support behind Epic in the appeal is impressive and could definitely lead to a ruling in Epic’s favour.

Source: 9to5Mac, Foss Patents, (2)