Because not a SINGLE criminal charge has been brought yet.
Judges can't issue criminal charges, merely nudge those who are supposed to handle that part of the system into action.
These cases are all civil matters and the fallout from them, as such the solutions are limited and imperfect to deal with this sort of asshattery.
This entire episode highlights how out of date the legal system and the laws have become in the face of what is possible today, imagine in 10 years they might finally update the laws to cover today as technology still marches forward.
I forget didn't the DoJ lawyer pushing this case recently switch back to a private sector job again? IIRC he was a BSA (no the other one without kerchiefs) lawyer, went to DoJ pushed some IP cases and then left.
This case moves so slow its hard to remember all the players.
"Hacking" - using a login and password published on a website by an "unknown" party, that magically became active after being shut down years ago. By downloading the content they forced the machines to work harder and causing damage.
"Stolen emails" - That idiot we hired off of Craigslist got his email account compromised and spammed everyone in his contact list. Must be the work of people who are against our noble quest to protect copyright.
"Lawyer" - He uses this word a lot, not sure he knows what it means.
"Valuable Copyrights" - Ignore my partner declared them worthless in a depo.
Politics is a zero sum game. They have trained everyone to accept that it is all black & white. If you don't want to pay for crack babies to be aborted, you have to support this guy. If you don't want welfare for corporations, you have to support this guy.
People vote on single issues, and damn looking at anything else. Perhaps maybe just a simple campagin asking, how is this working out for you? It doesn't matter who you vote for in the end, they care about their coffers not constituents. Many of them leave office much richer than when they started, and those they are supposed to represent much poorer.
Maybe if we worried less about taking control of a womans uterus, and more about billions being funneled into programs that do nothing while cuts are made to programs that might help those babies they demanded be born...
Oh I think they did. The you all are to stupid to understand our glorious terms means this isn't done. They will find a way to make sure they can find some way to shield themselves from the law, only now they might have to do it the old fashioned way and buy a congress critter.
Yep. I mean its not like we have to ask nicely to get products that kill people recalled. We don't have to worry that corporations who pollute might declare bankruptcy to avoid having to clean up spills. We don't have to worry that unknown chemicals are being pumped into the ground and then dumped, because some words on paper call them trade secrets.
And nothing happened to the people who abused the law.
Sorry just using my crystal ball to look ahead.
Everything will be found perfectly okay, and people will continue to vote for those in charge because change means fear.
Even if this time something does stick to the police who abused their powers, some board answerable to no one will undo any actual punishment and give them a post-paid vacation and put them back on the streets.
This is how the country works, and until the citizens actually decide it is unacceptable and find the will to change it... well they should just watch their backs if they decide to dare speak an unkind word about their fearless glorious leader who seems to have a really thin skin.
Pity we spend so much time playing private security force for corporations instead of enforcing the laws that are meant to apply to everyone, not just the serfs who blindly pull a lever to reelect the ass with the best soundbites.
"That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood."
Or everyone at General Mills was to fscking stupid to understand how these words would read outside the fishbowl. Perhaps it might be best to fire the lawyers who suggested such a stupid idea and managed to undo much of the goodwill your corporation had managed to gain.
Perhaps rather than trying to execute legal agreements to show us your intentions, perhaps being straightforward about those intentions would have been for the best. I doubt we misread your terms, I think you're just trying to salvage flushing a large amount of goodwill to make some lawyer happy.