To be honest I expected a bit more. If not more endorsement of Apple, some more, well, opinion. This read like a news piece with the word "persuasively" as the only bit of subjectivity. It's an odd piece overall.
I don't see any reason for them to mix additional opinion into their news coverage.
I believe expectations of what constitutes an opinion piece have changed with the advent of blogs/talk radio etc. At the Times, that style is reserved for columnists while the opinion pieces that express the opinion of the institution itself are more measured. In this case, they're just basically endorsing the judge's position.