>it's borderline contempt of court

I don't see how that's the case when judge explicitly mentions that apple is entitled to be paid for their IP.

I dont think the courts are bothered at all. Apple is complying with the ruling, and exercising the rights the court agreed it has.

The judge literally suggested Apple could do this in her ruling:

"Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission."

"The Court presumes that in such circumstances that Apple may rely on imposing and utilizing a contractual right to audit developers annual accounting to ensure compliance with its commissions, among other methods."

Hopefully the judge isn't like that. Bit of a silly character trait for a judge.

turns out courts don't like people treating them with contempt

Doesn't mean you get angry, though. Just judge and move on.