[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect the strongest motivating factor is that Apple really does believe they are innocent and will eventually win. Otherwise, Apple would have settled long ago without having to admit guilt.

An unwillingness to admit to guilt is often a by-product of simply a great abundance of arrogance and money. We know that in the U.S., great wealth can often buy the guilty a “get out of jail free” card. No one knows what all the motivating factors are on Apple’s side. My guess is that they at least know they did the things as charged. What they are banking on is exploiting small holes or ambiguity within the current law to get off the hook.

I seriously doubt this is a situation where a law firm is trying to milk Apple for lots of money. Apple has a pretty good staff of lawyers who can give Apple legal advice to keep them from being taken to the cleaners like that.

I think all law firms try to “milk” situations such as this -- whether they are working for a big company like Apple or the government … especially if the client has extremely deep pockets. “Being taken to the cleaners” implies trickery or deceit, and that’s not what I said is going on here. As I said in my previous post, “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.”

As far as I can tell, 3rd party lawyers who comment on the case (as opposed to Apple fans or Apple bashers) seem pretty much split on the matter. Some say that Apple has a good case for getting the judgement overturned, while others say they don't.

Can you provide a link to one detailed opinion from a lawyer or respected legal website that says Apple has a good chance of succeeding on appeal, as opposed to the slimmest of chances? By detailed, I mean at least a reference to the specific parts of the law or the case that appear to be on Apple’s side. Not just someone stating they think Apple can win on appeal. I’m curious to see the reasoning behind any such optimism from a legal professional.

“Actually, pointing out that Judge Cote appointed a long time friend of hers (what else would you call it when she says that after working with him for two years, she stayed in touch with him for eight years after he left?) might be a conflict of interest isn't an ad hominem attack. Nor is pointing out that many lawyers have reported that she tends to pre-judge cases.”

“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 judge being friends with a court-appointed trustee, monitor, or arbitrator is not in itself reversible error. Nor is a judge expressing opinions about the strength or weakness of the evidence presented in a non-jury legal proceeding where the judge is essentially the jury. Can you provide a link where lawyers (not just some commentators in a forum) are stating she tends to pre-judge cases? Specifically, a link to such a comment as the one you put quotes around?

“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.”

$495 was simply his rate in a case 5 months ago, not necessarily his usual rate. It’s not uncommon for lawyers to charge differently according to the depth of the pockets of their clients and the type of case they are working on.

“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.”

This is rich. You are defending Apple based on the need to keep tech companies out of court, yet Apple is considered to be one of the primary instigators of the costly and wasteful patent wars – at least in the U.S. The patent wars buttress my point that Apple is litigation-happy and, win or lose, right or wrong, will fight anything in court because it has a good amount of arrogance and the idle money to do so.

“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.”

Cote essentially said that Apple’s role in this went beyond just being just a vertical partner ... that their role was as a vertical player facilitating a horizontal conspiracy. Hence, they didn’t fall squarely under Leegin. Anything can happen on appeal, obviously, but based on what I’ve heard and read of the evidence, I think Cote’s decision is sound and will be upheld.

--Pat