U.S.A. v. Apple judge: ‘The issues have shifted’

“U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who played her cards close to the chest throughout the proceedings of the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Apple, opened up a bit on Wednesday,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.

“‘It’s been a privilege to be part of this trial,’ she began, thanking both sides for their courtesy and professionalism,” P.E.D. reports. “She had worked hard before the trial began, she said, 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.'”

Advertisement: ZAGGskins™ Custom Skins for Apple iPhone.

P.E.D. reports, “‘I look forward to your summations,’ she continued. ‘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.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Perhaps, by now, she realizes just how flimsy and baseless the U.S. DOJ’s so-called “case” really is? We can always dream, we suppose. In other words: We’ll believe in justice we finally see some.

Related articles:
U.S.A. v. Apple e-book U.S. District Judge Denise Cote just loves her Apple iPad – June 19, 2013
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


    1. i have a bad feeling about this too

      I fear the judge goes ” see I love my iPad and I have evaluated the evidence again…. ” just to prove she’s ‘unbiased’ (after her first biased pre trial comments) then she whacks apple with some crazy sentence.

      google used to get into court trouble all the time (invasion of privacy , author and artists copyright issues, monopoly issues etc.) But after paying 9 times apple’s amount in govt. lobbying the cases against google has miraculously diminished…. Google which has got more convoluted tax schemes than apple didn’t get called up to answer the congress, android handsets found to infringe doesn’t get banned like apple products etc.

  1. Eventually will come down to Tax Evasion or Money Laundering, like most high profile cases that have no credible evidence and with some huge fine attached.

  2. Well it’s pretty clear to me that the DOJ has done a fine job at finding the smoking gun email draft and exposing it to the world to see. Thing is that it was a draft, and until it was sent it was not part of Apple yet but rather the creation of Steve Jobs.

    Steve Jobs is guilty and will be fined a million dollars, two million if the judge is in a good mood.

    Class closed.

      1. Not that I want to make a political discussion out of this… but it was the current administration that greenlit this case. Most likely there will be no Supreme Court vacancies until the next admin which will again, be opposite of current.

        1. You mean there is hope it will be the opposite of the current one? Actually, in an ideal world it would be the logical half of both running the country, but that’s an impossible dream these days. We always end up with the extremes of eother calling the shots. I don’t like what’s in there now, even though I fell for it and voted it in the first term.

          1. Too bad more people didn’t realize as soon as you did how badly we were all fooled. Kudos for your courage to change with the facts as you come to recognize them; too many on both sides of the aisle decide, and then refuse to change regardless of what facts come to light – because it takes courage to do that.

            1. I register Republican, but I vote for whoever I want in any party that I feel appears be the better candidate. I vote across party lines frequently. There is no party in the logical middle to join, we are all subjected to the worst extreme ideals of BOTH parties that lead them around by the nose, while the rest of us just shake our heads and hope for someone to buy a clue in the logic department.

          1. not as far as I can ascertain from a google search:

            Daily Mail:

            “The appeals-court judge who forced Apple to make a high profile apology to Samsung has been hired by the South Korean firm as an expert witness in its latest patent dispute.
            Sir Robin Jacob will testify on behalf of Samsung during the US International Trade Commission investigation into the company’s patent dispute with Ericsson.
            The retired judge, who is now a professor of law at University College, London, made headlines last year when he accused Apple of a ‘lack of integrity’.
            It came the Silicon Valley said it would take them two weeks to properly comply with a court order that it publish a notice that it had lost an earlier legal fight with Samsung.
            Sir Robin’s involvement with Samsung has raised eyebrows in the legal world. Such expert witnesses are often paid thousands of dollars for appearances.””

            Samsung’s explanation:

            The Telegraph:
            “Samsung said: “Sir Robin Jacob is not a legal representative of Samsung Electronics. A highly reputed intellectual property expert and academic, Sir Robin has been contracted as an expert by a law firm that represents Samsung Electronics in its case against Ericsson.”

            So Samsung’s excuse that they didn’t HIRE the judge DIRECTLY but via one of their law firms….


            but i’m willing to be corrected…
            Maybe you have a link?

            1. I think you are correct, Schema. I was probably wrongly recollecting comments such as the BBC one below and others suggesting that the Judge may have to withdraw:

              “But another intellectual property lawyer suggested that the news might raise eyebrows in the profession.

              “Robin Jacob is an internationally recognised intellectual property judge of high repute, and I am sure he would have considered the implications of his stepping back into the arena in this way, especially where it appears to be on behalf of someone to whom he recently handed a major victory across Europe to defeat Apple in the iPad wars,” said Jonathan Radcliffe, a partner at Mayer Brown International.

              “It is a bold step that will prompt a debate on what exactly judicial independence means and how long it lasts.

              “This is a highly unusual move – retired English judges have hitherto confined themselves in retirement to sitting as a mediator/arbitrator and sometimes giving opinions on points of law.”

              See here for full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21613152

    1. Yes!! There’s a novel idea. Atotal waste of taxpayer money and resources. There should be consequenses for frivolous law suits especially when it’s it DOJ that is abusing it’s power and weight.

        1. There should be a threshold to qualify lawsuits brought by a government agency that demands concrete proof and a factual basis that is indisputable, for starteres. Circumstantial evidence needs to be be much more than speculation or conjecture, allegations need to have a basis in fact.

          If that threshold is not met, lawsuits should not be allowed. If the government body is allowed to proceed anyway, based on ‘ benefit of the doubt’ exceptions made due to probability, the government body should be held accountable for all legal costs including the court’s and should issue a national vindicating public apology to the defendant.

          Consequentially the people in charge of the legal assault should be dismissed when the facts prove reckless dogma in initiating legal action, or unprovable accuations.

          1. If that threshold is not met, lawsuits should not be allowed. If the government body is allowed to proceed anyway, based on ‘ benefit of the doubt’ exceptions made due to probability, the government body should be held accountable for all legal costs including the court’s and should issue a national vindicating public apology to the defendant, if they do not prevail.

            1. Is the judge not able to make the DOJ if the case may be accountable for all legal costs and issuing a national apology already? Seems to me that’s what one British judge did to Apple.

          2. I like it!

            I know some people consider it a waste of time to ponder improving such things as our train-wrecked government. But nothing improves without first planning what those improvements should be.

            For newbies, this is the improvement process:
            1) Identify the problem.
            2) Plan the solution.
            3) Enact the solution.
            4) Verify the solution to the problem is successful.
            This last step is the MOST important of the four. Oddly, it is typically skipped, which makes steps 1-3 entirely pointless.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.