Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
|
This is an excellent article about the current state of the case. To be clear, it is the judge's most recent ruling that is 64 pages long, not the analysis and excerpts you linked to. At first I thought you meant the latter and I didn't click on it. Good thing I eventually did. It has some very salient points. And it's just 1 page long.
First off:
"Ever try to give a cat a bath?" LOL. Spot on.
Now here are some of the important points made in the article:
Quote:
|
Disappointingly, Apple made little showing at or before the August 9 conference that it had taken to heart the seriousness of the price fixing conspiracy it orchestrated. Nor did Apple provide the Court with any evidence that it was seriously reforming its internal antitrust compliance policies to prevent a repeat of its violation. Apple’s submissions failed to demonstrate that it took seriously the burden that its participation in the price fixing conspiracy imposed on consumers and on the resources of the federal and state governments that were compelled to bring Apple and the publishers into federal court to put an end to that harm.
|
The above is from Cote's most recent ruling. It explains exactly why she decided on a monitor. Had Apple shown sufficient remorse or admittance of wrongdoing, then they might have avoided a monitor entirely.
The article then states that Apple's lawyers helped craft the agreement and made no objections during that time:
Quote:
|
During the process of selecting and briefing the monitor, Cote notes, Apple didn’t make any objections that the court had no constitutional grounds for imposing one, though they had several chances to do so. They helped craft the final injunction order that gave him his powers, and didn’t make any objections at that time.
|
The article also talks about Cote's response to Apple's complaint about the monitor's fees (bold emphasis mine):
Quote:
|
"Cote points out that his conduct so far has been in keeping with his brief to monitor, not investigate, and that Apple has not supported its complaints about Bromwich’s hourly wage with any authoritative sources suggesting he shouldn’t be. She also notes that the final order specifically includes a section meant to protect Apple from fee-increasing incentives, requiring the monitor “to act diligently [and] in a cost-effective manner,” and that if anyone has been stretching things out, it’s Apple."
|
Ah-ha! It's all about the money! Well not entirely, maybe. But no doubt money plays a big part in this. These Apple lawyers are being paid as much or more than Bromwich. The more they appeal and draw things out, the more they pad their own retirement and children's college funds. Apple is likely one of their biggest paying clients ever, and they can freely run up their hours without much guilt, knowing how flush Apple is with cash.
The article says that Apple's lawyers kept shifting their arguments in recent filings too. Which lends credence to the idea they are drawing things out and shooting in the dark.
Everything I've seen up to now concerning the actions of Cote and Bromwich appear to be above board and without bias. It doesn't appear than any of Cote's actions constitute reversible error. I doubt Apple's efforts in the appeals court will succeed.