Quote:
Originally Posted by bgalbrecht
... so all of these complaints about Cote and Bromwich could be an Apple tactic to go judge shopping by getting Cote removed from the case due to bias and overreach. I don't know if Apple would pay their lawyers for unlimited appeals unless they have reason to believe they might get something out of it.
|
Apple has yet to petition to have Cote removed, and doing so would be a very long shot, to say the least, as it appears there is no substantive basis to the charge of bias and overreaching. There’s a good reason to keep the same judge through cases like this – because it could take a new judge months just to get up to speed with all the evidence, players and issues involved. The burdens on the Apple lawyers to prove bias and overreaching would be overwhelming. I would be surprised if they even attempted to get Cote removed.
In a case like this involving very complex anti-trust laws, Apple would likely agree to whatever their lawyers tell them is the proper course, since money is no object. Therefore, their lawyers could appeal up the kazoo and only when slapped down innumerable times -- and possibly even by the Supreme Court -- will they put down their weapons and stop racking up the big billing hours. A less wealthy client might, of course, have already agreed to all the court-ordered sanctions by now and told their lawyers to just settle and have the fines paid. The lawyers for the big 5 have more or less stopped their major billing phases. But Apple’s lawyers carry on in full battle gear – and in full billing mode as well. As I said, money may not be the only factor, but I believe it is a major one. And Apple is likely all too willing to make their lawyers rich and contribute to their retirement and children’s college funds. They are a willing partner in what I think will end up to be meaningless litigation. But the point remains, money and billable hours may be a primary motivating factor – obscured by all the charges of bias and overreaching.
--Pat