I think it is implied that "any task" means "any legal task". $1100/hour is definitely the highest I have ever heard of for a lawyer, much higher.
Kind of funny to think when he looks at a clock for 2 seconds, that's $1 right there. But he's highly experienced and a very good appellate litigator. You wouldn't hire him unless it was high stakes litigation and the legal fees were little compared to what you might lose in a judgment against you.
That being said, 15 years ago I worked in high end corporate law, and our partners charged $750/hr+. I'm hardly surprised that $1,100/hr is being charged now, especially when it includes overheads.
Not going to happen. Why?
From the complaint: As Apple explained to Mr. Bromwich, of all known past Apple matters, “not a single partner had an effective billing rate as high as or higher than those that [Mr. Bromwich has] proposed.” ... . And Mr. Bromwich’s rates in this matter dramatically exceed what he has quoted in the past.
Apple seems to be posturing.
This is, in practice, no different from Google, et. al., paying through the nose to acquire top tech/programming talent.
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.
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".