• US Department of Justice Argues against Apple Motion to Remove Antitrust Monitor

    In a recent opposition filing, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) argues that Judge Denise Cote acted within her power when she assigned an external antitrust monitor to Apple, recommending the company’s appeal have the monitor removed be denied. The document was originally spotted by the folks over at CNET and mentioned the following regarding the matter:

    In any event, the district court did not exceed its authority in ordering an external monitor for Apple or abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify the selected monitor. Nor can Apple establish that it will be irreparably harmed by the monitorship. Finally, the public interest weighs firmly against any delay in the monitor's work.
    For those of you who didn’t already know, Apple won a temporary reprieve when the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered a halt to the ECM’s oversight pending appeal. The DoJ argues that Apple has not shown “irreparable harm” by the ECM’s presence, a stipulation needed to remove Bromwich from his monitorship. Even if Apple were able to prove such conditions, the government says a replacement monitor is called for, not a complete removal.

    The filing is the latest development in an ongoing battle between Apple and its court-appointed antitrust monitor Michael Bromwich. After finding Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme, Judge Cote appointed Bromwich to ensure the company’s current and future dealings remain above board. Apple and Bromwich have been butting heads since the beginning of the monitorship though. The company has accused Bromwich of conducting an unconstitutional wide-roving inspection which is atypical of a monitorship. In December, Apple filed a motion to suspend the “inquisitorial” nature of Bromwich’s assignment. Aside from his actions, Bromwich is charging exorbitant fees to the tune of over $70,000 per week according to Apple.

    Judge Cote denied Apple’s request to remove the ECM earlier this month, which is what caused Apple to take its case to appeals court. We’ll have to wait and see what happens going forward though.

    Source: Scribd via CNET
    This article was originally published in forum thread: US Department of Justice Argues against Apple Motion to Remove Antitrust Monitor started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 4 Comments
    1. WHUDS's Avatar
      WHUDS -
      Why does the monitor need to charge 280,000 a month? Heck I'll do it for 100,000 a month
    1. Jahooba's Avatar
      Jahooba -
      The punishment does not fit the crime - This is gestapo tactics from the Obama admin. They're using e-book price fixing ruling as an excuse to keep an all-access spy in-house at Apple. How better to keep an eye on the most valuable company on the planet?

      Obama and his DOJ are corrupt and rotten to the core and are constantly abusing their power.
    1. XweAponX's Avatar
      XweAponX -
      I'm sure Oboma sits up late at night thinking of ways to screw apple. Lots more likely this "monitor"?is a repukucan.

      This has NOTHING to do with Obomma, just because repukucan practices are being used.

      If Robotny would have won, would you say "Robotny's" DOJ? Unless you are nothing but a negro hater, you would.
    1. darth-pup's Avatar
      darth-pup -
      Quote Originally Posted by WHUDS View Post
      Why does the monitor need to charge 280,000 a month? Heck I'll do it for 100,000 a month
      Apple is being disingenuous here: they don't want any monitor (who would?) and have stone walled the guy right from the start. Story I heard is that if Apple complied with the court ordered process, the costs would be a fraction of what has been charged.

      Apple is just pushing as hard as they can to see what they can get away with.

      They got caught price fixing and trying to control the market and they don't like it. Apple is in a dominant position and guess what? They sound like and act the same as MicroSquash did when they dominated the PC market.

      Be interesting to see what the appeals court has to say.
  • Connect With Us

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook