Apple ebook bench called out as 'offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary'
The Wall Street Journal began the year making me wonder if they'd thrown journalistic integrity out the window in an effort to ride the Apple is Doomed train into clickbait history, and now they're ending it with about as pro an Apple editorial as possible. In the piece, which appears without byline, the WSJ calls Judge Denise Cote "abusive" and the special prosecutor a "friend" who is "besieging" Apple in an arrangement that's "flatly unconstitutional". And that's not the worst of it:
Judge Cote backed off her plan for secret communications with Mr. Bromwich when Apple objected, but otherwise she is giving her friend whatever he wants. The Second Circuit where her ruling is on appeal should remove her from the case. Her condominium with Mr. Bromwich is offensive to the rule of law and a disgrace to the judiciary.
To see the backstory and understand some of the context, check out this overview by Roger Parloff in Fortune:
But what may have started as a routine spat between posturing litigators appears to have escalated into a weighty legal dispute, destined for the appellate court, about the limits of a court's power to interfere in the internal affairs of a corporation. And one of country's most admired, powerful, and illustrious corporations, at that.
Whatever the WSJ's motivations are aside, the danger with insane levels of rhetoric, pro-Apple or con- is that it often obscures or makes easy to dismiss real issues. The fire blots out the stars. This much is clear: Apple is taking issue with how it's being treated by the bench, and it has legal recourses available.
As for the rest, grab your popcorn and spicy drink and grab a seat, it looks like the ebook case is far, far from over.