Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
|
Rubbish. From the the first paragraph of the article you quoted (my emphasis):
Quote:
|
The first 122 pages of the 160-page ruling against Apple (AAPL) that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote handed down on Wednesday could have been written before the trial began.
|
You've said before that you've read the ruling. You'll realise therefore that the first 122 pages make reference to things that occurred during the trial from p6 onwards, mainly in footnotes. You'll also note that the structure of the document is to cover the history leading up to the launch of iBooks in the first 100 pages, followed by 12 pages of analysis of the legal standards against which the case should be judged, before getting into the analysis of the evidence.
So, sure, the first 112 pages or so 'could have been' written before the trial, based on the known history and the detailed evidence presented to the judge
as part of the trial before the actual courtroom sessions, but there's no evidence that they actually were written at that point, as you contend.
And even if they were, that wouldn't negate the reasoning presented in the remaining 47 pages of the document.
The judge's pre-courtoom deliberations and tentative reading of the evidence, as requested by both Apple and the DOJ, are just as valid a part of the overall trial as the subsequent courtroom arguments.
She was handed the evidence in detail. She formed a preliminary opinion on that evidence, as requested by Apple and the DOJ, and then proceeded to the courtroom with her 'homework' done.
Graham