Apple vs DOJ: This is why people hate lawyers

The Apple antitrust saga continues. From MacNN News:

"The Second US Circuit Court of Appeals handed Apple a minor defeat on Thursday in its fight to both get rid of the antitrust 'watchdog' a biased lower court had appointed for it, as well as overturn the earlier court ruling entirely. In a decision on the fate of Michael Bromwich—a personal friend of the original trial judge Denise Cote who Apple has argued is not qualified in antitrust and who has attempted to conduct investigations outside his remit—the court decided that while there was evidence of abuse, Bromwich can stay in place until the court decides on Apple's overall appeal.

The court did take note of the evidence of overreach by Bromwich, noting that his actions have given the court 'pause' and appearing to agree with a number of outside observers which have complained about both his qualifications and exorbitant fees, but said that Apple lacked sufficient reasons to throw out Cote's original appointment — leaving some to wonder what exactly it would take to replace a monitor."

Well, good grief—if incompetence, abuse, and gross and 'exorbitant fees' aren't sufficient grounds to replace a monitor, what is? This is the kind of garbage that makes people think the entire legal profession is despicable.

If Cote's verdict is entirely overturned and the law allows it, Apple should sue Bromwich to recover those 'exorbitant fees' plus some extra as compensation for having to deal with his fishing expeditions outside his remit. Apple also ought to push for Judge Cote to be censured for appointing an unqualified personal friend to the monitor's job in the first place. The whole arrangement reeks of cronyism and corruption. I'm starting to wonder if she didn't declare Apple guilty just so she could give her friend a chance to enrich himself at Apple's expense.