Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
No offense, but your response sounds like an Apple fanboi's "Apple can do no wrong, no matter what". The US law and it's implementation is clear. Every person and organization is required to follow it, whether they agree or not. This is the issue. Apple was found guilty of a charge. The punishment was not stayed until after the appeal. Both the punishment and the refusal to stay were within the the sentencing constraints of the crime (sic) that Apple was found guilty of. Therefore the judge did not exceed her authority. The guilty do not get to determine what punishments are applied to a case, they cannot pick and choose the punishments. This is true for any person or organization before the bar in the US. So why is Apple any different? To me, this is the ultimate question.
|
All I can say is that if you think that US law and it's implementation is clear, you are clearly not a lawyer and haven't had much dealings with them. With the law, things are rarely as cut and dried as you seem to think it is. Many think this will go to the Supreme Court because Judge Cote has broken new ground with regards to anti-trust law and taken a very different interpretation of the law than previous cases. For those who are actually interested in the legal issues, I would recommend Robert Bork's The Antitrust Paradox. The book is supposed to be the most cited book on anti trust. It's actually quite readable, Bork was a very good author in that regard. Judge Cote is basically going against the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc v PSKS, Inc Supreme Court decision. The real question is will the appeals courts agree with her rational for doing so.