Apple is pure comedy. In their appeals brief, they claim they did “nothing more than hearing out the publishers’ complaints” and that Apple “had no knowledge that the publishers were engaged in a conspiracy.” The evidence showed otherwise, revealing Apple directly manipulated and actively orchestrated a horizontal conspiracy. It wasn’t just a spectator; they were the ringleader. You can’t do that and claim protection as a vertical player and exemption from per se liability.
In the words of the inimitable Judge Judy, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.” I believe the appeals court will feel likewise and deny Apple a new trial or reversal of Cote’s decision.
On another front, the cat is still refusing to take a bath in regards to the monitor. Apple recently told Cote that they would only turn over to Bromwich documents which they themselves felt were relevant to his official duties. Cote quickly nixed that, telling Apple to comply with ALL of Bromwich’s requests or bring up any disagreements first with a referee she assigned to iron out any disagreements between the two parties.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...or-appeal.html
Apple is losing at every turn. But for their highly paid external lawyers, of course, it's win-win. Without Apple's cavernous pockets, I don't think you'd be seeing any of this litigation. Most companies would simply have recognized and accepted their precarious legal position long ago and settled with the DOJ, just like the publishers did.
--Pat