Quote:
Originally Posted by bgalbrecht
And suggesting that Judge Cotes has a conflict of interest for appointing a former colleague of hers as the monitor (one who has been a monitor in several other cases not related to her, albeit not in the field of anti-trust) by using the phrase "good buddy of hers" is not an ad hominem attack?
I use the (perjorative) term fanboi because you seem to be taking every argument the Apple lawyers make at face value, argue that she's biased because she probably started working on the decision before the oral testimony was complete, even though she probably had already read all the evidence that showed the company’s actions were a per se violation of antitrust law before the oral testimony started, argue that providing 300 pages of documentation and interviewing 4 Apple employees and 7 Apple lawyers was egregious and spending 120 hours (if I got the math right) was a sign of bias and overreach by the monitor and a sign of incompetence. (I may be conflating some of your arguments with Steve Eisenberg's, if so, I apologize). I suppose it's possible that you're not a fanboi and you just don't believe that the government has any business trying to enforce anti-trust legislation and therefore anything the government and its agents do here is wrong.
And yes, we will see what the appeals court will do. I think Apple will fail, although I will admit I am biased, I've wanted them to fail from the day the case was filed.
|
Actually I don't take Apple's every argument at face value. What I do look at is, does the facts support their arguments. Quite a few lawyers have pointed out that Judge Cote tends to pre-judge cases. The complaints about that go back quite a few years, well before the Apple case.
When I see comments about her such as "Judge Cote predetermines outcome of the case and consistently rules accordingly even in contradiction to her own orders. She also lacks appropriate judicial temperment and decorum " in a comment dated from 2009, then Apple's complaint comes across as more possible.
A more important thing to keep in mind is that Apple _isn't_ appealing based on Judge Cote pre-judging the case, that is for the most part just an internet talking point. Apple is appealing based on the idea the Judge Cote mis-applied the law and did not follow precedent.
When Apple complains that Bromwich is over charging them and I see reports that his previous monitoring rate was $495 per hour just 5 months ago, twice what he is charging Apple, then that raises my eyebrow.
While some of you want the government to stick it to Apple, I remember the Microsoft anti-trust case from some years ago. A lot of people took the same view back then, any stick to beat Microsoft with. My problem with it was that it set a precedent that has gotten high tech companies to use the Justice Department as a club to beat their competitors with. Now, high tech companies routinely spend much of their time in court, suing each other over everything in the Sun. IMPO, this is a very bad trend.
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not an Apple fan boy. As I have pointed out several times, I buy my ebooks at Amazon, not Apple. I think Apple has a lousy ebook store. While I personally think that any monopoly that isn't supported by the government will eventually fail, the Sherman anti-trust act is the law of the land and has been such since the late 1800's. What I object to is a combination of Amazon using the Justice department as a club against it's competitors and the change of how anti-trust is determined. If it holds up, then there will be a lot of companies that are open to such charges.