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.
|
That's not what the order said, and by repeating the government's position about
Quote:
|
"ensur[es] not just that [Apple] ha[s] an anti-trust compliance program in place but [that Apple's] employees particularly, senior executives and board members are being instructed on what those compliance policies mean and how they work"
|
they made it perfectly clear that Bromwich could talk to anyone he wanted to about the compliance program, especially senior management, even if it doesn't appear that they have direct involvement with ebooks (for example, members of the board).