Judge says 'issues have shifted' for DOJ e-book trial against Apple
A U.S. District Court Judge presiding over the Department of Justice's antitrust trial against Apple made a cryptic statement on Wednesday, saying the "issues have shifted" after hearing two weeks worth of testimony from both parties.
With only one day remaining in the DOJ's e-book case against Apple, Presiding Judge Denise Cote offered her two cents on the previous two weeks of evidentiary findings, with the statement being a possible positive for the defense.
According to in-court reports from Fortune's Philip Elmer-Dewit, Judge Cote made an unsolicited remark regarding what transpired during the proceedings.
"I thought I had prepared so well. I learned a lot," she said. "But you have helped me understand so much more through the evidence. It seems to me the issues have somewhat shifted during the course of the trial. Things change. People have to stay nimble. I'm looking forward to understanding where we are now."
The jurist could be referring to a a rare "tentative view" she offered before the trial got underway in June. At the time, Judge Cote appeared to side with the Justice Departments, saying it would likely be able to prove Apple colluded with five major book publishers to inflate e-book prices.
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that," Judge Cote said at the end of pretrial hearing in May.
Both sides will give their summations on Thursday, after which Judge Cote will consider the evidence and issue a ruling. There is no set timeline for a decision, but the average is about two months for a bench trial.
With only one day remaining in the DOJ's e-book case against Apple, Presiding Judge Denise Cote offered her two cents on the previous two weeks of evidentiary findings, with the statement being a possible positive for the defense.
According to in-court reports from Fortune's Philip Elmer-Dewit, Judge Cote made an unsolicited remark regarding what transpired during the proceedings.
"I thought I had prepared so well. I learned a lot," she said. "But you have helped me understand so much more through the evidence. It seems to me the issues have somewhat shifted during the course of the trial. Things change. People have to stay nimble. I'm looking forward to understanding where we are now."
The jurist could be referring to a a rare "tentative view" she offered before the trial got underway in June. At the time, Judge Cote appeared to side with the Justice Departments, saying it would likely be able to prove Apple colluded with five major book publishers to inflate e-book prices.
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that," Judge Cote said at the end of pretrial hearing in May.
Both sides will give their summations on Thursday, after which Judge Cote will consider the evidence and issue a ruling. There is no set timeline for a decision, but the average is about two months for a bench trial.
Comments
iSheep line up for iPhone 5 release
@Zombie Steve, yes indeed, Android is like the walking dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Steve
iSheep line up for iPhone 5 release
Pssst. Steve. Samsung makes the cheap plastic shells for their phones...
Hey Steve,
The video didn't render too well on my screen, but nice one anyway and thanks for the family pix. I guess you have (at least) some $$$$ to make a presentation like that, so maybe we shouldn't diss how people might spend their money . . . What do you think?
What the frick? The title for the story can be taken either way. Either the tide has changed against Apple or for them. I would tend to think that since the Judge didn't say specifically what had changed re: the issues, for either side, and what she commented previously it would more liekly be that Apple had provided evidentiary info that has perhaps changed her mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac95
@zombie steve, what a bland dumb comment of yours to this article. I logged in just to tell you that.
Well, I am honored.
I thought this video was very funny and spot on in its mockery of the iSheep. I guess Crapple's pretentious ads are more up your's (alley, that is).
honored, eh? i was thinking something a little different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And what have the issues shifted to?
The issues have shifted from 'it appears the government has an airtight case' to the judge exclaiming "I love my iPad".
Winner = Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Steve
iSheep line up for iPhone 5 release
Didn't you cameo in Plants vs Zombies Steve? Anyways, troll harder
The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.
Jurisprudence at its finest!
Yes the video was lovely satire - I'm just not sure what it had to do with the content of the original article's thread . . .
One, I refuse to post that piece of crap on my post. Second, and most importantly, what the hell did that video offer in terms of this article other than showing that you are both on the wrong site and illiterate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots
The old girl ought to be bitch slapped for making such a dumb-ass comment early on - no matter how the ruling turns out.
Jurisprudence at its finest!
and you need to watch your mouth . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumergo
and you need to watch your mouth . . .
Quite true. Just because you think you are protected by your seeming anonymity on the web, does not make it true. In fact, you are still accountable for slander and libel and could be sued quite easily. Freedom of speech does not protect you from scurrilous statements. Remember, the NSA knows everything about you online.
I honestly laughed out loud when I read this! I think that the lawyer for Apple's defense team should have the right to slap each one of the prosecutor's in the face, followed up finally with the judge being "Pimp Slapped" for her pre-trial arguments.
Yeah, not very professional or realistic…. But damn funny if you think about it.
Actually slander is "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." and libel is "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." Nothing in his statement could be considered either of those, so his first amendment rights are very much in force. And while yes, the NSA has their hands in everything, I refuse to be crippled by fear.
That is why I post with my actual name, not a pseudonym.