Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
That's a bit like saying I'm going to whip you and if you complain, that just proves that you need to be whipped harder. As I said, circular logic. If Apple didn't complain and appeal, then the same people would say "See, that proves that Apple did it and the punishment was just." You can't have it both ways.
|
That analogy doesn't work. The monitor isn't a punishment. It is supposed to help Apple be in line with the law. The people that Apple hired to ensure antitrust compliance didn't do their job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
And I read somewhere that Cote and Bromwich are long time friends (since the mid 80's) and that Cote wrote Bromwich a nice letter of recommendation to get him a job with the Government. The difference is that Cote's letter of recommendation for Bromwich in 1994 is recorded in the Senate hearings for Bromwich's confirmation, ( http://www.archive.org/stream/confir...3unit_djvu.txt ) while you are discussing internet speculation. |
Person A recommending person B means that person A has confidence in person B's ability to perform the job that they are recommended for and puts their reputation on the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Of course, part of the problem is that he has zero experience in anti-trust or publishing, so he's having to hire someone else who has experience in anti-trust. One might ask why Judge Cote would appoint someone who has zero experience in anti-trust to monitor anti-trust compliance, certainly Apple is raising that question. It's not terribly surprising that Bromwich is acting like a special prosecutor on a fishing expedition given that _is_ what he's most experienced in.
|
How many people have experience in antitrust monitoring?