Phillip Elmer-Dewitt reports for Fortune that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, the same judge who said before the trial started that she believed the government would be able to show by direct evidence that Apple ‘knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books,’ interrupted Apple’s U.S. iBookstore honcho Robert McDonald as he began a demo of how page turning works in Apple’s iBooks App.
P.E.D. reports, “This will probably come as no surprise, she began. ‘I have an iPad. I love my iPad. I have seen this feature.’
Advertisement: ZAGGskins™ Custom Skins for Apple iPhone.
“If anyone in the court believed that the judge’s feelings for the device would affect her decision one way or the other, they gave no indication,” P.E.D. reports. “Thursday has been set aside for summations. Each side will get two half hours to make their closing arguments.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Rainy Day” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
In U.S.A. v. Apple e-books case, witness Barnes & Noble VP Theresa Horner was everything Apple could hope for – June 19, 2013
The Apple e-books trial takes a detour into the absurd – June 18, 2013
Steve Jobs, Winnie the Pooh and the iBookstore Launch – June 17, 2013
Apple set to present its defense in e-book antitrust case – June 17, 2013
Steve Jobs was initially opposed to entering the e-book market – June 14, 2013
U.S.A. v. Apple: DOJ’s last best chance in e-book case has passed – June 14, 2013
Obama admin trying to throw the book at Apple; U.S. DOJ goes after an innovator whose market entry reduced prices – June 13, 2013
Apple’s Eddy Cue denies price-fixing allegations at U.S v. Apple e-books trial – June 13, 2013
Apple fires back at DOJ with email Steve Jobs actually sent – June 13, 2013
Is Steve Jobs’ unsent email a smoking gun in Apple e-book case? – June 12, 2013
Winds shift toward Apple in U.S. DOJ’s e-book trial – June 12, 2013
Day 5 of the Apple ebooks trial: Publishing execs testify; Rupert Murdoch’s role – June 11, 2013
U.S. v. Apple iBookstore case could go to the Supreme Court – June 5, 2013
Apple accuses DOJ of unfairly twisting Steve Jobs’ words in e-book case – June 4, 2013
U.S. DOJ prosecutors accuse Apple of driving up e-book prices – June 3, 2013
U.S. v. Apple goes to trial; DOJ claims e-book price-fixing conspiracy with Apple as ringmaster – June 3, 2013
U.S. DOJ takes Apple to trial alleging e-book price-fixing – June 2, 2013
In pretrial view, judge says leaning toward U.S. DOJ over Apple in e-books case – May 24, 2013
Penguin to pay $75 million in e-book settlement with US State Attorneys General – May 23, 2013
The hot mess that is Apple’s e-book legal fight with U.S. DOJ – May 16, 2013
Apple: Deals with publishers improved e-books competition – May 15, 2013
Apple tells U.S. DOJ of tough talks, not collusion, with publishers – May 15, 2013
EU ends e-book pricing antitrust probe into e-book pricing; accepts offer by Apple, four publishers – December 13, 2012
Apple, publishers offer EU e-book antitrust settlement – September 19, 2012
Judge rubber-stamps U.S. e-books settlement – September 6, 2012
Apple, four publishers offer e-books antitrust concessions, says source – August 31, 2012
Apple bashes Amazon, calls U.S. DOJ settlement proposal ‘fundamentally unfair, unlawful, and unprecedented’ – August 16, 2012
U.S. antitrust settlement with e-book publishers should be approved, feds say – August 4, 2012
U.S. Justice Department slams Apple, refuses to modify e-book settlement – July 23, 2012
U.S. senator Schumer: Myopic DOJ needs to drop Apple e-books suit – July 18, 2012
Apple’s U.S. e-books antitrust case set for 2013 trial – June 24, 2012
U.S. government complains, claims Apple trying to rush e-books antitrust case – June 21, 2012
Barnes & Noble blasts U.S. DOJ e-book settlement proposal – June 7, 2012
Apple: U.S. government’s e-book antitrust lawsuit ‘is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law’ – May 24, 2012
Federal Judge rejects Apple and publishers’ attempt to dismiss civil case alleging e-book price-fixing – May 15, 2012
Court documents reveal Steve Jobs email pushing e-book agency model; 17 more states join class action suit – May 15, 2012
Apple vs. Amazon: Who’s really fixing eBook prices? – April 17, 2012
Apple: U.S. DOJ’s accusation of collusion against iBookstore is simply not true – April 12, 2012
Apple not likely to be a loser in legal fight over eBooks – April 12, 2012
16 U.S. states join DOJ’s eBook antitrust action against Apple, publishers – April 12, 2012
Australian gov’t considers suing Apple, five major publishers over eBook pricing – April 12, 2012
DOJ’s panties in a bunch over Apple and eBooks, but what about Amazon? – April 12, 2012
Antitrust experts: Apple likely to beat U.S. DOJ, win its eBook lawsuit – April 12, 2012
Why the market shrugged off the Apple antitrust suit – April 11, 2012
What’s wrong with the U.S. DOJ? – April 11, 2012
Macmillan CEO blasts U.S. DOJ; gov’t on verge of killing real competition for appearance of competition – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ hits Apple, major publishers with antitrust lawsuit, alleges collusion on eBook prices – April 11, 2012
U.S. DOJ may sue Apple over ebook price-fixing as early as today, sources say – April 11, 2012
He was demonstrating the feature in response to DOJ saying that this feature was previously implemented by others.
What does this have to do with the case in hand? Anyone?
I wouldn’t count my chickens before the eggs hatch, but if this isn’t a slam dunk Apple victory, it will just be anther case of blind justice.
Justice is supposed to be blind, but not corrupt.
Before the trial, she said that the government would be able to show by direct evidence that Apple “knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books”.
Then yesterday, she said that she had worked hard before the trial began, poring over all the pre-trial documents. “I thought I had prepared so well. I learned a lot. But you have helped me understand so much more through the evidence. look forward to your summations. 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.”
Things change. Issues have shifted. She is clearly trying to signal that DOJ may have made a mistake here.
yeah, but the point is – she shouldn’t be signaling anything at any time to any one.
this judge doesn’t sound very judicious.
Judge Judy?
@dr. sparemachinery, I understand what you are saying, but most attorneys appreciate a judge making subtle, or not so subtle comments, on the evidence. Now I am not going to speculate on these comments, as I am not privy to the transcript or the context in which they were stated.
As you know this trial is jury waived, as such, judges comments like these, afford the parties and counsel an opportunity to make adjustments, or alternatively take a second, serious, look toward settlement.
The DOJ has no clothes.
Judge Cote is far less circumspect than what an esteemed member of the court should be. She is getting her instruction from DOJ by way of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Umm, actually the Judicial branch gets their “instructions” from 1 First St.
Look, Judge Cote has been a federal judge since 1994 and knows how her court should be run. As maczac pointed out, attorneys appreciate a judge making subtle, or not so subtle comments, on the evidence.
While I personally am not a fan of the President that appointed her nor the 103rd Congress which confirmed her, I do respect the separation of the branches as created by the Constitution. Obama has no power over a sitting Federal Judge. The DOJ is part of the Executive branch, Judges are the Judicial branch and no Judge will cowl down to a bunch of lawyers, especially a Judge who has been seated for almost 19 years.