Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
Nobody said that the monitor had a carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. But the things that he wanted fell under the narrow bounds of monitoring the compliance. Talking to senior executives and board members particularly is necessary.