Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The DOJ made it clear in their filings they were not looking for the broadest, harshest punishment, nor even a true restoration of the status quo ante, which is what antitrust usually prescribes (hence the precedents where companies get broken up). All they asked for is for Apple to stop conspiring. Since Apple refuses to even pretend they won't do it again, the least of the available penalties was monitoring.
|
I don't actually see the monitoring as a punishment. Companies are supposed to have antitrust compliance policies. Apple's policies didn't work. They have to be changed. Usually, a company in this situation would agree to be monitored, but Apple doesn't agree to the verdict. If they agree that the policies need to be changed, they agree with the verdict.
Which is why we have the present situation: Apple can't be trusted to manage the situation on their own when they insist that there was no antitrust violation to begin with, so a monitor is necessary. Since they couldn't come to an agreement with the DoJ regarding monitoring, the judge had to appoint someone.