Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Besides, as I've already said, the case and result was clear from the beginning, sure something could have changed it, but in this case we all knew the outcome (even Apple) other than the fanboys.
|
Here's some legal commentary on the decision:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2...racy-case.html
Read.
Bookmark.
Wait for the appeal to come back stamped: Concur.
But do remember this: Don't even try to bad mouth Cote. It won't work.
Quote:
In footnote 66 on p. 143, Judge Cote labels individual Apple and Publisher Defendant executives as "noteworthy for their lack of credibility" — which I would paraphrase as meaning they're "liars lying under oath and they can't be believed."
-----------
Okay, finished. The last 30+ pages are devoted to anticipating every argument Apple can be expected to make on appeal and methodically rebutting or undercutting each of them. Judge Cote is a Clinton appointee who's senior status, so she has a lot of experience; and she's clearly learned how to write opinions in a way that make them particularly hard to reverse. The smartest and best federal district judges are usually the best advocates for why their own written decisions ought be upheld — they try to anticipate how the appeal is likely to proceed, and to make their decisions as nearly "bulletproof on appeal" as possible (which is to say, clear, well-reasoned, and correct). And this may be a candidate for the Second Circuit to "affirm on the basis of the district court's opinion" — basically the appellate court, instead of writing its own opinion, just saying, "Yeah, what she said." It's a very high compliment to a district judge when that happens in an important case.
|
Lots of zingers but this one I really like:
Quote:
|
This whole fact pattern would never make a good exam question in an antitrust course in law school. It's way too easy. There's an arsenal of smoking guns. It's like no one at Apple ever heard of the Sherman Act.
|