TeleRead's viewpoint:
Quote:
"Note that bit in there explicitly recognizing that “the monitor was empowered […] to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees” as part of his job. Apple partisans might try to spin this “limitation” as a victory, but all the appeals court really did is restate the limitations that were already in effect from Judge Cote’s final order (PDF). From that perspective, it’s hard to see this as anything more than another in a series of total legal losses for Apple, and perhaps a sign that the court is inclined not to find fault with the way Cote is doing things as of yet."
http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/appea...trust-monitor/
|
It's odd that anyone would claim Bromwich wanted to investigate new violations of anti-trust law when Judge Cote's
original judgment pertaining to the monitor, dating back to September 5th of last year, specifically barred that. Here is the section of her ruling from last year which covers that:
Quote:
|
"If the External Compliance Monitor in the exercise of his or her responsibilities under this Section VI discovers or receives evidence that suggests to the External Compliance Monitor that Apple is violating or has violated this Final Judgment or the antitrust laws, the External Compliance Monitor shall promptly provide that information to the United States and the Representative Plaintiff States. The External Compliance Monitor shall take no further action, including seeking information from Apple pursuant to Section VI.G of this Final Judgment, to investigate any such potential violation of the Final Judgment or the antitrust laws."
|
So, that is proof that nothing has changed. The limitation already existed back then. What the appellate court just said is that they agree with the DOJ's interpretation of Cote's order, which was left to stand.
Apple knows they lost the appeal, which is why they will likely not issue a statement about the ruling. Or if they give one, they are not so delusional as to claim any victory from what is clearly a defeat.
--Pat