quote: During the argument, it became apparent that the parties differed considerably regarding the proper interpretation of the order as to the scope of the monitor’s duties, particularly with respect to two questions: First, whether the monitor was empowered to demand access to any document, and to interview Apple executives with respect to any subject, without limitation, and without regard to the relevance of such documents or subjects to the specific purpose of the monitorship. Second, whether the monitor had the authority to investigate new violations of anti-trust laws (or, for that matter, any unlawful conduct), or if the order limited the monitor to determining whether Apple had instituted appropriate compliance programs and taken steps to ensure that those programs were effectively communicated to Apple’s officers and employeesThe government conceded that the injunction would not allow the monitor to investigate whether such personnel were in fact complying with the antitrust or other laws. Thus, according to appellees, the monitor was empowered to demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility as so defined, and to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility. We agree with that interpretation of the district court’s order. In addition, we take counsel’s statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order.
quote: But nothing about this was positive,