So, signing the code constitutes Apple saying this code is safe to run.  But Apple doesn&#x27;t think this code is safe to run.  The argument will be that forcing them to sign the modified code is compelled speech.  Interesting.<p>Is there any reason Apple can&#x27;t use more than one argument in its defense?<p>According to USA vs. New York Telephone, &quot;unreasonable burdens may not be imposed&quot;.  I think Apple will bear quite a burden if it must force its engineers to implement this code.  It will be telling them to reverse their work and go against company values.  Also, the public is going to know the outcome of this case.  If Apple doesn&#x27;t come out cheering, we will all know its security features have been weakened, which will impact sales.