Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
Where did pwalker focus on the judge's history of rulings and possible reasons for going after larger companies?
|
I thought he did in the following passages, but perhaps I gave him a Hank too much credit. I might have conflated the contents of his CNN link with what he actually said here on MR:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
[M]y issue isn't that Apple is getting whacked. . . . My issue is that this is clearly a case of what I consider a major [problem] in the US these days[:] prosecutor overreach. Basically, there is an ongoing issue where prosecutors will come up with what is referred to as a novel legal theory, find a sympathetic judge and go after a company hammer and tongs to either extract a lot of money (the reason many of the states are jumping on the bandwagon) or to notch up a big press win to further their political ambitions.
They get away with it because they tend to go after unpopular companies and most companies would rather pay the extortion[ate price] [] than risk being run out of business. . . . [T]here are always people willing to assume that a big company deserves to be beaten, no matter the facts in the specific case. While some may sneer and declare Apple[] [guilty?] whatever happens to them, the bottom line is that if you have that attitude, you give up your right to complain when the same thing happens to Amazon, or Google, or whatever company you like [that] gets picked as the ATM to be raided.
Prosecutors do it because, currently, there is no downside. Even if they lose, they just move on with no penalty. In this case, Apple is a big enough company that they can afford to fight the case and have the willingness to fight what they perceive as an injustice. I fully expect them to win in appeals. Judge Cote gets overturned frequently.
It's unusual to appoint a monitor absent certain criteria. This case doesn't meet [those] criteria. What makes this case unusual isn't Apple's actions, but rather the novel legal theory that the judge bought into. As far as I know, Apple hasn't done anything particularly unusual (or what was previously considered illegal). 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.
|
It does appear that what I took for allusions to a pattern of precedents might hinge on character assassination rather than research. Then again, I'm not privy to Walker's unstated motives and intentions.