|
As has been pointed out previously, and repeatedly, the DOJ chose to file only a civil suit instead of going with a criminal case for say racketeering, which might actually have fit if thry were really out to "get them".
In civil antitrust cases, the judge looks at the facts, tries to get both sides to settle the dispute (which even MacMillan decided to do) and, failing that, issues a finding of facts with a verdict favoring one side of the other. The penalty that follows is tailored to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff, in this case, the DOJ.
The process by now is pretty formalized and there is little room for bias to creep in. The only place where the judge exercises unfettered judgment is in the findings of fact and the publicly available evidence makes it clear the ruling is both appropriate and unavoidable.
In antitrust cases, "Yes, but..." equals "Yes."
For the remedies, her ruling was constrained by DOJ requests; theoretically she *could* have applied any relevant remedy, above and beyond DOJ requests, but she didn't. Which argues against bias. (And if she was really looking for publicity, initiating perjury charges against the witnesses that tried to lie in her court would have bern more effective than giving the DOJ 80% of what they asked for.)
As her reply to Apple's filing said, if Apple has a problem with the remedies, they need to take it up with the DOJ. As the winners of the trial, they call the shots now. They can scale back the penalties if they see compliance or ask for escalation if they don't see cooperation and progress. At that point the judge can grant or deny the changes the DOJ seeks based on the progress reports she gets.
Court filings on the monitor's behavior are literally a waste of the court's time. And this particular court has seen a lot of time wasted on irrelevancies. That nobody has been cited for contempt shows a great deal of restraint.
|