Whether the exploit is single-use, about a phone, Apple, the 5c, or any other specific parameters is fundamentally irrelevant.<p>What this case is doing is setting precedent that the courts can compel a company to _create_, no matter how trivial one may think that creation may be today.  _That_ is the precedent so many draw exception to, because stare decisis is also a doctrine of incrementalism, of gradual expansion of interpretations.  Today Apple is compelled to create a very controlled firmware; who&#x27;s to say in the figurative tomorrow that Samsung won&#x27;t be compelled to create and send a firmware update to a specific Blu-Ray player that creates an air microphone out of the laser?  Where does it stop?<p>To be complete (as was pointed out in another sibling thread) incrementalism may be curtailed if implications are carefully argued and acknowledged by the judge.  I am skeptical of the value of that approach, but have no hard argument against it.