Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
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.
|
I agree that monitoring isn't much of a punishment considering the harm done to epub vendors but there really aren't many options in precedent; even a $1B fine or more is trivial to a company with Apple's financials. Forcing out the cheating execs isn't an option for DOJ--that decision belongs with the Apple board--and forced divestiture or criminal charges are more likely as fallback options to be invoked if all else fails.
Monitoring has the virtues of precedent and forced transparency, which can bring to light further ongoing violations. In which case either forced divestiture or criminal charges might become viable options. Which might explain the foot-dragging; maybe its just arrogance, but maybe it's Apple trying to keep the skeletons buried.
Antitrust enforcement is a process and in Apple's case it is just beginning.