Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
So what we have here is a judge that at a scheduled preliminary hearing at which she had to give a preliminary statement that can be either 'the plaintiffs have presented enough evidence to justify a trial' or 'the plaintiffs have not presented enough evidence to justify a trial' decided there was enough evidence to justify a trial.
This part of the procedure is done for the benefit of the defense and as such it is the defendant's right to waive it. Apple's defense chose not to waive it.
For whatever reason we don't have a direct quote of the judge's statement about the draft of the final decision just the author of the article paraphrasing it as "she says she's already begun writing a draft of it".
I've searched for the judge's name and "wrote most of her decision", "wrote the majority of her decision", "wrote most of her final decision", "wrote the majority of her final decision", "wrote most of the decision", "wrote the majority of the decision", "wrote most of the final decision", "wrote the majority of the final decision" and according to google none of these variations exist outside of mobileread.
|
The Fortune article was basically a retweet of a Reuters article with it's own spin. They did have a link to the source Reuters piece though.
www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/23/us-usa-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE94M19A20130523
The Reuters article claims that:
Quote:
|
Cote, who is hearing the case without a jury, said at the start of the proceedings that she was working on a draft of a written decision that she would expand and publish after the trial.
|
It also says:
Quote:
|
She emphasized that no final decision would be made until after the trial takes place. And she also said she had not read many of the affidavits submitted in support of the parties' positions.
|
So she emphasized that no final decision had been made, she admitted to not reading all the evidence and many of the affidavits yet but she had read enough that she believed that the DoJ would be able to prove their case. Hardly a smoking gun that she was biased or proof that she had written most of her decision prior to the trial.