Judge Denise Cote issued a 64-page ruling Thursday explaining why she rejected Apple's request to remove the monitor she imposed on the company. In that ruling, she said that Apple has only itself to blame for any trouble it has with the monitor, and that the company's objections are proof that she was right to have appointed one in the first place.
TMO's Artist's Rendition of Thursday's Ruling
“While Apple would prefer to have no monitor, it has failed to show that it is in the public interest to stop his work,” Judge Cote wrote, according to Bloomberg. “If anything, Apple’s reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition.”
On Monday, Judge Cote issued the main part of her ruling by denying Apple's motions to have Michael Bromwich replaced as monitor and to remove the monitorship in its entirety. At that time she said she would explain why "soon," and today's 64-page ruling is that explanation. Apple now has two days to appeal her decisions.
Her point in the explanation appears to be quite clear: Apple is a convicted antitrust offender and needs to think differently about how it approaches the monitor. She argued more than once that it was in the public interest to keep the monitor in place.
“Hopefully, that relationship can be ‘reset’ and placed on a productive course,” judge Cote wrote. “But it is strongly in the public’s interest for the monitor to remain in place.”
Apple has said it will appeal her decisions.
Image made with help from Shutterstock.