Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
As per the rules of US law, the appeal of the District judge's refusal to stay her monitor was properly heard, and ruled upon. Unless Apple wants to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court, it's the final ruling and Apple must shut up and comply with the monitor, at least until the appeal of the District Court's judgment is ruled upon by the Appellate Court.
Strictly following the US law's forms.
<Bangs the gavel> Next Case!
|
Actually, if you read the order, that isn't what was said at all. Here is the relevant part
" In addition, we take counsel's statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order, absent further action by the district court or by the panel that will in due course hear the merits of the appeal."
Thus they are saying that they will leave the monitor in place pending the appeal, but that he has to stay in the narrow bounds of monitoring the compliance, i.e. no more demands to talk to people having nothing to do with ebooks. This is probably as good as Apple could expect. They got everyone to agree that their interpretation was correct, and that the monitor didn't have a carte blanche to do whatever he wanted.
One thing to keep in mind that this was an appeal for the request for a stay, not the appeal of the ruling itself. It's a very narrow point and does not address anything other than whither or not Judge Cote legally has the right to appoint the monitor and what his duties were. There was never a doubt that Cote had the legal authority to appoint the monitor, but lots of doubt about his authority and duties. I'm pretty sure that the actual appeal of the findings hasn't been heard yet and probably won't be for a while.