Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I disagree, it's quite germane to the case. Certainly, Apple is using it to show that Judge Cote had/has a very faulty understanding of the ramifications of various actions with regards to competition.
Many times, judges will decide on a desired outcome and then look for rationals for that decision, rather than decided a case purely on the legal merits. In other words, they will decide what they think is a fair outcome, and then rationalize that outcome. I suspect this tendency is what Apple is playing on. It will be interesting to see if it works.
|
Appellate judges carefully review the proceedings of the lower court to see if errors were committed that could have led to an incorrect verdict. Nothing else. They will not consider "blogging" by the Apple lawyers as evidence. If the appellate judges look at it, it will probably serve to P them off more than they already are. Judge Lynch is the appellate judge who said last February (he certainly seemed a bit miffed) that Apple's valuable time should be spent avoiding antitrust violations. He doesn't need any more convincing.
When the court rejected Apple's request to delay the damages trial, they cited a case (can't remember, but I'll find it if you like) and I got the distinct impression that the reason they wouldn't delay the damages trial is because the appeal is as good as lost anyway. The only smart move Apple has made during this whole mess is settle the damages portion before it went to trial. They saved themselves about $400K with that move.
Will they take this to the SCOTUS? If they actually agree to hear it, I wouldn't even begin to guess at the outcome. I'm not sure if I'd be surprised if this SCOTUS overturned the Sherman Antitrust Act.