Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
You do realize that Apple does not acknowledge that antitrust laws were violated, right? And they have lawyers who argue this. How would consulting the company lawyers ensure that this will not happen again when the company lawyers are the ones who say that their actions were legal?
This was the point of appointing a monitor, and the point for the monitor interviewing the executives. If Apple would have accepted that they violated antitrust law, the judge wouldn't have had to appoint a monitor. But Apple insists that they didn't violate antitrust law so they are not in a position to change the procedures without being monitored. The monitor needed to asses the executives' view of the matter before the procedures get changed to know if the changes are sufficient.
|
I'm pretty sure for most people, claims that they did not violate the law is not considered proof that they should be punished. While I know that most here would rather engage in their favorite sport of Apple Bashing (and the corollary that anyone who disagrees must be an Apple fan boy), there really are some fairly serious legal issues with the case. That's why Apple decided to go to trial and why Apple decided to appeal. No idea if they will win or not, but it will be interesting to follow. The next step will be the DOJ's response sometime in May.