Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
Which is probably why Judge Cote went on to expound in great detail in her opinion on how it would also have failed the legal tests required even if it wasn't a per se violation. She seems to like to tie up little details like that. She also addressed all the points Apple had originally raised then dropped as time went on or that events had rendered moot in her decision denying a stay of the monitorship, even though the argument could be made that they were no longer relevant since Apple had dropped them.
That kind of attention to detail is probably part of why those aforementioned legal experts tend to think her decision is so strongly appeal-resistant.
|
She seems to think so, certainly she wasn't interested in hearing any counter argument when she was the judge listening to the appeal. But then again, that's her reputation. As I've said before, she has been overturned a number of times, even though she shows this level of detail in most of her judgments.
As I mentioned before, most of the legal opinions that I've read are split. Some say she made some serious errors in her judgment and will certainly be over turned, others say that she dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's and thus is appeal proof. We will have a better idea once Apple actually files the text of their appeal, which will give the legal rational.