Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Believe what you wish. I can point to articles that paint this as a vindication of Apple
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...n_AboveLEFTTop
Not terribly surprising given that the WSJ has viewed the case with extreme skepticism from the start.
As I said in an earlier post, what the prosecution said in front of the appeals court was rather different that what they were asserting to Apple or in the press. If Bromwich had acted within the limitations described by the appeals court to begin with, Apple would probably not have appealed the stay denial. And no, the government did not state this from the beginning. I've already linked to the court document where Bromwich asserts that he can talk to anyone at Apple about anything he wishes.
Of more interest to me was an article behind a paywall that predicted the ruling on the day of the hearing based on what was said at the hearing.
http://www.law360.com/articles/506965
Sometimes it's necessary to understand what is actually happening and what the purpose of the various steps of the process before you can determine winners and losers. Apple went into the hearing wanting to make sure that Bromwich would not be allowed to act as a roving special investigator for Judge Cote and that's what they got. |
Linking to articles that are behind paywalls doesn't add support to your claims. Quote the relevant paragraphs if you want to make a point. As Graham said there has been no link to Bromwich making that assertion but documents can be quoted for the opposite.
The reason why Apple is making a fuss about this can be easily seen if you look at what was said in the second article that
you linked to on the thread:
Quote:
|
An Apple inhouse attorney, Kyle Andeer and, later, its lead outside appellate counsel, Ted Boutrous of Gibson Dunn, each pushed back -- first gently, but later more pointedly. They said they saw no need for either Bromwich's rush or for the wide-ranging battery of interviews he sought, since, as they read the final judgment, the monitor would have nothing to review or evaluate until Apple finished drafting its new compliance and training procedures, which weren't due till January 14, 2014 -- 90 days after Bromwich's appointment.
|
Apple was supposed to work with the monitor and have the drafts a month ago.