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.
|
There are defense lawyers and antitrust lawyers. If a company is serious about obeying the antitrust laws they would have a lawyer that specializes in antitrust and is accountable for them not running foul of the laws. The company is supposed to have these processes and checks in place and Apple obviously doesn't and that's why the monitor was put in place. Apple is to implement a minimal compliance process and the judge didn't believe they could be trusted to do so on their own. The appeals just prove she was correct. Apple obviously wants to continue negotiating deals that run afoul of the laws.