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.