Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I see. So if the judge doesn't rule the way you want her to, then it's because she bought into Apple's hairspliting and spin, rather than, unlike you, she actually listened to and read all the evidence? Interesting. Regardless, I suspect that if she rules within the next few weeks, then it's a sign that she thinks the ruling is very straight forward rather than a close decision.
|
Pretty much.
I'm not a judge so my judgment is on the common sense reading of the testimony; the BPHs *only* went to Agency because they coordinated through Apple to make sure they were *all* doing it. Otherwise they wouldn't have. That puts Apple clearly inside the conspiracy as the leader of the scam.
Apple's legal position is that since they themselves are not publishers their serving as coordinators is not enough to *legally* put them *inside* the conspiracy circle.
I grant that that might have a small chance of holding legal water; it might actually be legally possible to participate in a clear conspiracy but not be legally liable if you are clever enough to let all the legal onus fall on the suckers you partner with. Stranger things have happened in courts. (It's not unlike a gang leader having somebody killed and letting an underling take the fall.)
I do agree that the quicker the judge rules--after allowing a discrete period to make sure the ruling is properly grounded in law--the more likely that she will reject Apple's position. Thus my expectation for a ruling this week or next depending on the holiday and vacation time she has coming.