@GreggS I did not think that security was a central function just stretching a point ;)
I thought the judge was saying that security is not a central function of the product (iPhone, iPad).
"In evaluating the centrality of a defect, courts in this District have found that security vulnerabilities are central defects for network security products, Beyer v. Symantec Corp., 333 F. Supp. 3d 966, 980 (N.D. Cal. 2018); defects affecting speed and performance are central to a smartphone’s central function, Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications Am., LLC, No. 14-CV00582-JD, 2018 WL 4772302, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018); and cellular and wireless connectivity defects are also central to a smartphone, Anderson v. Apple Inc., 500 F. Supp. 3d 993, "
That the defect has to be central to the product's (iPhone, iPad) function. The CPU is not the product.
"Plaintiffs are asserting that the affected component (i.e., the Processor) is central to the product’s function, but the standard as set forth in Hodsdon requires that the defect be central to the product’s function. See Hodsdon, 891 F.3d at"