I'm not going to jump into your argument over past posts that I did not write, but I hope a correct understand of civil procedure will be helpful to this discussion.
...because the judge said Apple was guilty before they went to trial? Of course she would. It's an antitrust hearing.
Incorrect. "Guilt" was not an issue, as this was a civil, not criminal, case. No worries, though. MR and most of the press have been getting this wrong too, from day one. The word you are looking for is "liable," not "guilty."
They have completely different standards from civil and criminal hearings, where two parties have to prove their point to a jury. In this case, it's the DOJ looking over the evidence, then calling in the defendant if they believe the evidence gives them enough reason to warrant doing so.
Why?
Because if the DOJ didn't think they were guilty of something in the first place, they never would've hauled them into court. Like I said, an antitrust hearing isn't a trial by your peers. It's more like "we've received complaints, we've subpoenaed evidence, looked it over, and damn if we don't think they're right.
Again, incorrect. Your post tries to draw a distinction between an "antitrust hearing" and a "civil trial." But this was just a plain old civil trial, where one party sued another, and the civil burden of proof and other rules applied. Don't let the fact that the judge served as the trier of fact in this stage of the case confuse you. In many civil cases, and on many civil claims, the judge serves as the trier of fact, not a jury, sometimes because that is what the law provides and sometimes because the parties agree to it. In fact, in future phases of the case, such as the damages trial next year, a "jury of Apple's peers" will be empaneled and will determine the amount of damages Apple must pay. Because it is an equitable issue, the court will determine the terms of a forward-looking injunction (if any).
The difference between "claims in equity" and "claims in law" can be confusing, I admit. It arises, in the US, from the fact that the English common law system we inherited developed around two court systems; one subject to the crown and the other subject to the church. It is a fascinating subject, and not one I pretend to be an expert on, although I did take several courses on the subject 25 years ago when I was in law school. If you are interested in further study of the subject, I would recommend Langbein's book History of the Common Law.
Also, a quick comment on the difference between a "hearing" and a "trial." The meaning of those terms comes more from the particular usage context, but typically a hearing, in this civil context, is any "meeting" before the court in which anything other than ultimate liability will be resolved. In the criminal context the statement is true if you substitute "ultimate liability" with "guilt or innocence." As the purpose of the proceeding sub judice was to resolve Apple's liability, or lack thereof, the proceeding is properly called a trial, not a hearing, although most lawyers would understand the reference if you used either term.
Again, I think the confusion in your post arises from the fact that the judge sat as the trier of fact in this part of the trial, not a jury. All that is required in a civil trial is a finder of fact, and that (depending on many rules, including even the Seventh Amendment sometimes) can be either the judge or a jury. Here, it was the judge.
Prove to us that we're wrong".
Also incorrect. The DOJ, as the plaintiff, carried the burden of proof (and, on these claims, also the burden of persuasion, which is something very different). The standard of proof properly applied by the court was a preponderance of the evidence, which is the proper standard for most civil claims-for-relief, and certainly for the claims in this case. Note that the court's opinion is replete with the statement "as the plaintiff, the DOJ carries the burden of proving....."
A lawyers job in an antitrust case isn't to defend their client so much as make the court believe they're mistaken.
Also not true. A lawyer's job in an antitrust case is the same as it is in any civil case: to zealously represent the client within the bounds of the applicable ethical and other rules. The lawyers in this case had the same "job" as the lawyers in a simple slip and fall case. No different.
In an antitrust case, you are guilty until proven innocent.
False. First, "guilt" and "innocence" had nothing to do with this trial, which the DOJ opted to bring as a civil, not criminal, case. (We can conjecture why, but, given the very different rules applicable to the two different types of cases in the antitrust context, it almost certainly had to do with the lack of proof around the mens rea required for criminal liability.) And, in the civil case, Apple was presumed not "liable" until and unless the finder of fact (here, the court) found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Apple had committed the acts alleged in the complaint.
I think the fact that the DOJ was the plaintiff is causing confusion. The DOJ, like a private plaintiff, may bring a civil suit for violations of the Sherman Act, as happened here. When that occurs, the DOJ is just a normal old plaintiff, with no power to adjudicate right or wrong, and certainly not liability. With respect to these particular issues (but, perhaps not to other issues, such as credibility), the DOJ is no different than if you had sued Apple. In that case, you could not have adjudged Apple's "guilt" (err, liability); neither could the DOJ. One difference you did get correct: the DOJ has pre-suit subpoena power, but, in fact, so do private plaintiffs in certain limited circumstances not applicable here. The DOJ also has some additional limitations, or rules, on its conduct, since it is the government, and not a purely private plaintiff, but I won't go into those here.
So really, why am I wasting my time
Well, good question.
My goal is not to argue, but to provide accurate information.
