Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
Actually, the order says nothing about restricting his activities to ebooks. The court agrees that he should only ask for talks with people with regard to his authorised responsibility:
and that responsibility is defined just above as:
i.e. nothing to do with ebooks specifically, but to do with compliance programs generally.
What both sides have reaffirmed is that Bromwich does not have the authority to actively look for compliance violations. But I don't believe he has ever been accused of doing that.
Graham
|
You have to look at the ruling in the context of what was actually being appealed and what was argued in the court. Appeal rulings tend to be very narrow and only concerned with what specifically is being appealed.
Here is a fairly good review of what the ruling actually means
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/...itrust-monitor
In their appeal, Apple did indeed accuse Bromwich of "a broad and amorphous inquisition". Bromwich himself asserted that there was no real limit on what he could demand, something the three judges found very troubling. Lynch telegraphed this ruling when he asked Apple's lawyer if "it would be acceptable if the 2nd Circuit spelled out the limits of Bromwich's duties while the appeals process proceeds. "
It is also interesting to note that what is said to the press, and what is said in court, in front of the judges are two different things. The prosecutor wasn't nearly as assertive in front of the judges as he was in the press.