&gt; Except that one Apple claim is making, whether true or not, is that once the &quot;device the FBI has&quot; is unlocked, it potentially exposes &quot;everyone&#x27;s device&quot; to the same exploit<p>The court will not care about that. The FBI is expected to open devices only with a warrant and that&#x27;s it. Just because they have a tool doesn&#x27;t authorize them to use it.<p>Just because the FBI bought lockpicks, doesn&#x27;t mean they can go around opening locks.<p>&gt; this is information the manufacturer already has. In Apple&#x27;s case, they are claiming they do not currently have this information, and would need to do work to create the information being requested.<p>Also irrelevant. At best Apple can request to get paid (and that would probably be approved).<p>It&#x27;s completely ordinary for companies to be ordered to go collect and collate information relevant to a warrant. They can charge a reasonable fee to do so, but they can&#x27;t refuse to unless it would severely impact them (and the definition of severely is up to the judge).<p>In Apple&#x27;s case the Judge is unlikely to believe them that doing this would be a big problem for them - they are a huge company.