FORTUNE -- To her credit, the remedies U.S. DIstrict Judge Denise Cote proposed last week to prevent Apple (AAPL) from ever again conspiring to fix e-book prices were far less draconian (and frankly bizarre) than the ones the Department of Justice had requested. See DOJ remedies.
But the air of unreality that permeated her earlier decision in the case -- in which Amazon (AMZN), a monopolist engaged in the predatory pricing of e-books, escaped untouched, and Apple, the new entrant in the market, was found liable for violating antitrust law -- carried over into Friday's hearing. (Transcript.)
One of the strangest moments came in a set speech Judge Cote gave just before she made her remedy proposals.
After describing Apple and the five so-called publisher defendants as playing "hard ball" in a "rough and tumble game ... for high stakes," she added this complaint:
None of the publisher defendants -- and this is true for Apple, as well -- have expressed any remorse over their actions, made any public statements admitting wrongdoing, undertaken any voluntary program to prevent a recurrence. They are, in a word, unrepentant.
She may have been playing to the press box -- and indeed, the news that the judge had "scolded" Apple for being "unrepentant" showed up in dozens of headlines.
But the passage was also unintentionally revealing.
For as Harper Collins lawyer Shep Goldfein took pains to point out "with all due respect," his company -- like Apple -- does in fact have an antitrust compliance department to prevent a recurrence. And as for admitting wrongdoing, Goldfein reminded the judge that "It's routine in any settlement agreement, for a whole host of reasons, including some tax law reasons, that you don't admit liability."
Judge Cote knew -- or should have known -- about the antitrust compliance programs. And after 19 years on the federal bench, she must have known that having settled, none of the publishers were going to make public statements admitting wrongdoing.
If the attorneys for Apple and the publishers took objection to the tone of her remarks -- which seemed more appropriate for a crusading prosecutor than a fair-minded judge -- they would not be the first. Many of the 21 reviews she received in The Robing Room -- a kind of Rate My Professors for judges -- described her as hard-working and meticulous. But more than half complained that she was "biased" and pre-judged cases before she heard the evidence.
Here's a sample of what lawyers who have appeared before her -- writing anonymously for obvious reasons -- have posted:
For more, go to The Robing Room.
|NJ agrees to ban Tesla direct sales|
|Inside the underground sex economy|
|West prepares sanctions against Russia over Ukraine|
|Five predictions for the World Wide Web that were way, way, way off|
|The Deep Web you don't know about|