[JumpCrisscross]

> what does apple have to do with this conversation?

It also sued the government. My point is “suing the government is not a sign of strength” or weakness. It’s a non-signal. I think DoorDash is wrong here, though they have a kernel of a point in why grocery delivery is not covered by the rule. But their suing the government says nothing about their strength or weakness.

[tacker2000]

Yea but Apple didnt sue the government because of some issues affecting the profitability of their main business model. This comparison makes no sense.

Companies that have made similar moves are Uber, Airbnb for example, but not Apple.

[JumpCrisscross]

> but Apple didnt sue the government because of some issues affecting the profitability of their main business model

Fine, Disney. Or hell, Oracle [1] and Boeing [2]. Is there a serious view that someone suing the government always does so out of desperation?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Enterprise_Defense_Infra...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSeries_dumping_petition_by_Bo...

[dotnet00]

While I generally agree that suing the government isn't in and of itself and indicator of desperation, I also feel like there's a distinction between the lawsuits that are always immediately thrown around contesting government contract awards compared to lawsuits filed against legislation.

In the former, companies sue because it doesn't really cost them much to try and see if something works out in their favor, while in the latter they're suing because the legislation would have some negative effect on their existing business.