Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Well, for one thing, I would like to see the case evolve beyond one judge's opinion sans jury.
There is a lot more to this story than some are willing to admit. Here is a story from CNN
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co.../?iid=HP_River
Apparently appointing a monitor at all in a case like this is a very unusual act, as is appointing a monitor who has the close personal ties that this person seems to have with Judge Cote. It sure seems a lot like Bromwich is trying to rack up as many hours as he can before the appeal hearings come to pass. |
Appointing a monitor is unusual because the party being monitored usually agrees to being monitored.
And this can be a matter of opinion, but it doesn't seem to me like Bromwich is trying to rack up as many hours as he can before the appeal hearings come to pass:
- Time was wasted because Apple insisted that the monitor was supposed to only start working after January 14. Apple was wrong.
- Time was wasted because Apple insists on discussing Bromwich's fees.