I&#x27;ve written up the piece for InfoQ here:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.infoq.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;all-writs-denied" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.infoq.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;all-writs-denied</a><p>Basically, the motions in the piece indicate that the relationship with the All Writs Act that was successfully used before are not relevant; because in the prior case, the business property was being used to commit the crime, but in this case, the property was the owner of the accused, not Apple.<p>The Judge also highlighted &quot;in other cases in the country&quot; and had an explicit callback to the founding fathers and the constitution, suggesting that if the All Writs Act allowed the government to compel any American company to do anything it wanted that wasn&#x27;t explicitly illegal, and therefore any American citizen, could be compelled to do almost anything.<p>Reuters are now reporting this directly, rather than just a link to the court order:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-apple-encryption-deny-idUSKCN0W22Q0" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;us-apple-encryption-deny-idUS...</a>