• Apple Denied Request to Remove E-Books Antitrust Monitor



    Apple was recently denied its motion to remove a court-appointed antitrust monitor tasked to ensure the company wouldn’t enter into further illegal agreements after being found guilty in an e-book price fixing scheme last year. In a hearing, US District Court Judge Denise Cote blocked the motion to remove Michael Bromwich from his post, saying there was “nothing improper” about the monitor’s recently filed declaration. Apple cited the filing as grounds for dismissal, claiming it suggested personal bias against the company.

    Cote ended up saying the following regarding the matter:

    I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple.
    The jurist’s full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple’s counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.

    The recent determination is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Apple and Bromwich, a relationship which has been strained almost since the start of the former Justice Department Inspector General’s assignment. As seen in multiple court filings, Apple takes issue with how Bromwich is handling his monitorship, including what the company feels is an overstepping of boundaries, exorbitant fees and conducting a “roving” investigation. For his part, Bromwich claims Apple has been less than cooperative in furnishing employee interviews and deemed-necessary documentation in a timely manner. Both complaints were outlined in detail in the ECM’s December declaration.

    For those of you who didn’t know, Bromwich was vetted and selected by Judge Cote to monitor Apple after she found the company to have conspired in falsely inflating the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore. As of right now, after Judge Cote’s decision is officially filed, Apple has 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from a federal appeal court. We’ll have to wait and see what happens next.

    Source: Reuters
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Denied Request to Remove E-Books Antitrust Monitor started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 9 Comments
    1. andreix's Avatar
      andreix -
      Is anybody surprised?
    1. rockyseay's Avatar
      rockyseay -
      Apple just really hates losing in court and so does every other corporation.
    1. holyshnikes's Avatar
      holyshnikes -
      I think this whole thing is just stupid. It doesn't help the consumer at all in the end and from what I understand this guy is stepping out of bounds with what he is supposed to be doing. Maybe he is right, but I think they need to set clear roles for him to operate within. This is a very secretive company, you can't just snoop and get what you want.
    1. WHUDS's Avatar
      WHUDS -
      Quote Originally Posted by holyshnikes View Post
      I think this whole thing is just stupid. It doesn't help the consumer at all in the end and from what I understand this guy is stepping out of bounds with what he is supposed to be doing. Maybe he is right, but I think they need to set clear roles for him to operate within. This is a very secretive company, you can't just snoop and get what you want.
      Price Apple has to pay for cheating consumers and lying or do you support that? ( funny how its fine for apple to do anything it wants to with the "fans")
    1. NSXrebel's Avatar
      NSXrebel -
      Quote Originally Posted by WHUDS View Post
      Price Apple has to pay for cheating consumers and lying or do you support that? ( funny how its fine for apple to do anything it wants to with the "fans")
      so I take it you're not a fan?
    1. qumahlin's Avatar
      qumahlin -
      Quote Originally Posted by holyshnikes View Post
      I think this whole thing is just stupid. It doesn't help the consumer at all in the end and from what I understand this guy is stepping out of bounds with what he is supposed to be doing. Maybe he is right, but I think they need to set clear roles for him to operate within. This is a very secretive company, you can't just snoop and get what you want.
      Snoop around? He has a court appointed job because they were caught breaking the law and ever since he was appointed Apple has gone out of their way to give him as little info as possible and ignores multiple parts of the agreement of to what he should have access to...I love apple products, but they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now when someone was appointed to make sure they don't get caught again they are doing what they can to make his work life a problem

      Anyone defending apple on this is an idiot or believes companies should be able to do whatever they want...which is idiotic. There is a clear and defined reason their motion was denied, the fact they even filed it is the amazing part, even a jr paralegal would know this would be denied
    1. holyshnikes's Avatar
      holyshnikes -
      Quote Originally Posted by qumahlin View Post
      Snoop around? He has a court appointed job because they were caught breaking the law and ever since he was appointed Apple has gone out of their way to give him as little info as possible and ignores multiple parts of the agreement of to what he should have access to...I love apple products, but they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now when someone was appointed to make sure they don't get caught again they are doing what they can to make his work life a problem

      Anyone defending apple on this is an idiot or believes companies should be able to do whatever they want...which is idiotic. There is a clear and defined reason their motion was denied, the fact they even filed it is the amazing part, even a jr paralegal would know this would be denied
      I'm not necessarily defending apple, but I've heard two different reports on this. He's questioning people thst have nothing to do with ebooks or pricing in any way and trying to meet with board members without notice. How do you expect these guys to drop everything and go talk to to this guy without a legal representative. They're not sure what this guy will take away from it. Although the ruling is against Apple, I'm not sure I 100% agree with the ruling. It's a weird case.
    1. tridley68's Avatar
      tridley68 -
      Quote Originally Posted by qumahlin View Post
      Snoop around? He has a court appointed job because they were caught breaking the law and ever since he was appointed Apple has gone out of their way to give him as little info as possible and ignores multiple parts of the agreement of to what he should have access to...I love apple products, but they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now when someone was appointed to make sure they don't get caught again they are doing what they can to make his work life a problem

      Anyone defending apple on this is an idiot or believes companies should be able to do whatever they want...which is idiotic. There is a clear and defined reason their motion was denied, the fact they even filed it is the amazing part, even a jr paralegal would know this would be denied
      This is nothing but a judge and her cronie with a hard on for Apple i say Apple keep the little snooper in the dark and make him have to work for every litle snippett.
    1. Feanor64's Avatar
      Feanor64 -
      Quote Originally Posted by tridley68 View Post
      This is nothing but a judge and her cronie with a hard on for Apple i say Apple keep the little snooper in the dark and make him have to work for every litle snippett.
      Um he's probably getting paid taxpayer money so uh it would be nice if they cooperate lol. I mean c'mon man. If you break the law, there are consequences...
  • Connect With Us

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook