Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
All true.
But...
US antitrust law has a lot more flexibility in its "remedies" toolkit than just fines.
Especially when dealing with companies with cashflows bigger than your typical small country.
If Apple could have gotten out of this just by writing a check they would've settled along with the rest of the gang. But as ringleaders and repeat colluders, the feds wanted more from Apple than a promise not to misbehave again. They asked for 5 years of day to day monitoring of Apple dealmaking activity. It's not impossible to collude with federal lawyers and beancounters tracking your every move but it certainly makes it trickier. And a third offense might bring out the big guns...
There is no indication the judge intends to penalize Apple much beyond the DOJ settlement terms but...she can and she could. Given the evidence the DOJ presented she can arguably apply an ATT solution as an alternative or supplement to monitoring.
From here on out Apple needs to be "wewy, wewy caweful..."
|
I'm out of my depth here, but I just don't see anything huge happening. Monitoring may be onerous for Apple, but is it really a big deal?
Quote:
|
... she can arguably apply an ATT solution as an alternative or supplement to monitoring...
|
You mean as in AT&T? As in break up Apple into smaller companies? I just can't picture this. I think Apple should be punished (and beyond any simple monetary gain they achieved by colluding), but I just don't see in any way them breaking up the company.