I find it perfectly reasonable. Apple broke the law, and is now required to pay for a monitor to make sure they comply. For a business as big as Apple, you don't select a garden-variety lawyer, you pick the best you can--and the best are expensive. The top bankruptcy lawyer in the country has offices down the street from mine--his hourly rate starts at $1200. One of the top immigration lawyers in the country also has offices nearby, three of their partners have hourly billing rates in excess of $1000/hour.
This is, in practice, no different from Google, et. al., paying through the nose to acquire top tech/programming talent.
You find it perfectly reasonable because 1) it's not you and 2) you have no idea if it is or not.
I find it totally unreasonable. I think the Judge needs to be investigated for deciding the case before trial and changing the scope of the investigation.
" I think the Judge needs to be investigated for deciding the case "
The judge did no such thing. This has been gone over before. Judges commonly give opinions on the current strength of a case when asked by parties. This is to encourage parties to settle. IE they will often say "you may have a tough time proving X given the evidence you've submitted so far". This is an opinion on the strength of a case as it exists at the current. Not a decision about the merits.
The judge had mountains of evidence and motions that had been gone through at that point. Heck, I think there were even motions for summary judgement pending (IE for a verdict before trial).
What happened is perfectly normal, and not "deciding a case".
You're right again. If you are the same guy who has the "Learn code the hard way", I honestly think you should
run for political office. Get your name out there. You
say, and think the way a lot of us feel, but are afraid
to speak up.
This is, in practice, no different from Google, et. al., paying through the nose to acquire top tech/programming talent.