Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane R
Apple is supposed to put good training in place, the monitor is supposed to make sure good training is in place.
Quote:
|
I am giving the monitor a somewhat different function than that proposed by the plaintiffs. The monitor will not be charged with assessing Apple’s compliance generally with the terms of the final judgment. This could be a very expensive and intrusive undertaking. The monitor, however will have two other important tasks . . . .The monitor will evaluate Apple’s internal antitrust compliance policies . . . [and] will evaluate Apple’s antitrust training program.
|
Quote:
|
Under the terms of the Injunction, the Monitor has two main tasks. Reviewing and producing recommendations and reports about: 1) Apple’s antitrust compliance policies and procedures; and 2) Apple’s antitrust training program. The Injunction provided that the Monitor would submit a written report to Apple, the plaintiffs, and the Court 180 days after the Monitor’s appointment assessing Apple’s antitrust compliance policies, procedures and training.
|
http://sdnyblog.com/wp-content/uploa...st-Monitor.pdf |
So you are just going to skip over the first main task and pretend that only the second one exists?
But I do want to thank you for the link. It is nice to know that the judge was against appointing a monitor, but was left with no choice when Apple gave no proof of trying to fix the problems themselves:
Quote:
|
The Court explained that it would have appreciated a presentation by Apple that a monitor is unnecessary. At this point, it has made no such showing. There is no admission of wrongdoing. There is no contrition. There is no showing of any awareness of illegality or the danger of collusion by publisher defendants to raise eBook prices. There is no showing of institutional reforms to ensure that its executives will never engage again in such willful and blatant violations of the law.
|