[angli]

To be honest I expected a bit more. If not more endorsement of Apple, some more, well, opinion. This read like a news piece with the word "persuasively" as the only bit of subjectivity. It's an odd piece overall.

[dang]

Either way, there isn't much there, so we changed the URL from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/the-iphone-stays-l... to what appears to be the closest substantive news article. If someone has a better URL we can change it again.

[Archio]

Not sure if you're unaware, but the NYT editorial board formally endorsed Apple on February 18th: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right...

I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news coverage.

[morgante]

If it's merely meant to be news coverage, it shouldn't be in the opinion section.

[matt4077]

This must be the first time someone complains about the NYT newsroom invading the editorial section :)

I believe expectations of what constitutes an opinion piece have changed with the advent of blogs/talk radio etc. At the Times, that style is reserved for columnists while the opinion pieces that express the opinion of the institution itself are more measured. In this case, they're just basically endorsing the judge's position.