Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
No, it didn't. I think some of you are spinning this according to what you want it to mean rather than in the context of what was being argued. They made it very clear that Bromwich is on a tight leash. I expect that he won't be demanding any more interviews with Johnny Ive or Al Gore, or access to any and all Apple documents and if he does, this may get revisited.
|
IANAL, but I think you're the one with the spin. By repeating the purpose of the monitor, and saying that Apple was not entitled to a stay, the Appellate Court was clearly saying that Bromwich's role is appropriate, and that he has not exceeded his duties as the compliance monitor. If he had exceeded his duties, they would have either granted the stay or modified his role in their decision.