And the merry go round...
... probably _will_ break down. er, I mean 'again'.
The appeals court said that he would only be able to demand documents and interviews that were relevant to his responsibilities.
So who decides exactly what, on an instance by instance, request by request, document by document and interview by interview basis, _is_ 'relevant to his responsibilities'? Judging purely by the events to date, is it not likely that Apple and the court appointed monitor will not quite 100% agree? And that, say, one or both of them will be dragging this horse back to court again for another flogging, with a different 'justification'?
Sigh. Le Sigh, and le sigh again.