Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Uh, Apple can't hide behind the presumption of innocense: they were found G-U-I-L-T-Y.
They need to understand that antitrust has no hard bounds or limits.
Ask IBM.
Ask Mictosoft.
Ask AT&T.
It is a crime of the entire corporation, not the division that ran the scam, especially when the evidence goes straight to the very top.
Having been found guilty, the onus is on Apple to prove they aren't going to do it again. And that they aren't still doing it.
If they cannot convince the court they won't/aren't, then the court is (already) empowered to ensure they can't. Whatever it takes.
Ask AT&T.
(The original, dead and gone one.)
One more time: monitoring is the *least* of the Court's options.
|
AT&T really suffered from the anti-trust breakup, just like Rockefeller did... especially all the extra money that shareholders made from the shards of the original - there was a quote somewhere that Rockefeller really made his really big money from/after the "breakup"
And like I said earlier, guilty for one thing then the "lLand of the Free" screws 'em to the wall for everything whether connected or not... automatic presumption of guilt, really fair legal process... one more time, "They need to understand that antitrust has no hard bounds or limits." is not fair which is kind of funny when you consider that the case was essentially about conspiracy to act in an unfair manner but I guess that it's OK for court and government bureaucracies to ignore such concepts...
