Quote:
Originally Posted by bgalbrecht
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.
|
No, actually not. What they said was that as long as Bronwich stays within the narrowly defined bounds, then Apple will not receive any lasting damage and thus a stay is not appropriate.
Here is the first paragraph of the order which explains what the issue is
"During the argument, it became apparent that the parties differed considerably regarding the proper interpretation of the order as to the scope of the monitor’s duties, particularly with respectto two questions: First, whether the monitor was empowered to demand access to any document,and to interview Apple executives with respect to any subject, without limitation, and without regard to the relevance of such documents or subjects to the specific purpose of the monitorship. Second,whether the monitor had the authority to investigate new violations of anti-trust laws (or, for thatmatter, any unlawful conduct), or if the order limited the monitor to determining whether Apple had instituted appropriate compliance programs and taken steps to ensure that those programs wereeffectively communicated to Apple’s officers and employees."
These were all things that Bromwich had asserted that he could do and that Apple said that he could not and were the crux of what Apple was complaining about. (well, that, Bromwich's rates and Bromwich going out of his way to be a royal pain, but the ruling does not address the later two. I have no idea if Apple can sue Bromwich for return of the payment if they win the appeals)
In the next paragraph the court basically said that since the Counsel for the government conceded that Apple's interpretation of the order is correct, there was no need to grant the stay.
I repeat again, these sort of things tend to be very narrowly defined.