Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
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:
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.
|
No unstated motives. Much of my opinion of Judge Cotes comes from what I found out in my initial research into the original case and if you go back to the original Apple ebook lawsuit thread some time ago, you will find the various links that I posted.
My bottom line issue is that I fail to see how a company can be accused of monopolistic practices when they aren't even in the market yet. In general, it appears that the prosecutor was unable to prove any of the normal things one most prove in a monopoly case, which is why the prosecutor introduced their novel legal theory that Apple should be held to a new standard.
According to the various lawyers who critiqued Judge Cote, she is well known for picking winners and losers very early in a case and for slanting her actions towards whomever it is she favors. It was pointed out that Judge Cote apparently wrote most of her opinion before the case was actually heard. Most of this strikes me as unusual and dangerous. When I read that she took steps such as appointing a monitor that were described as unusual in a case like that, it confirms my impression that the whole situation is very troubling. When I read that the monitor wishes to "monitor" Apple's entire business rather than just the ebook potion, then I suspect that something far beyond the pale is going on here.