Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 10, 2014, 05:30 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Loses Appeal to Delay E-Books Antitrust Monitorship But Gains Boundaries




The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York today ruled that Michael Bromwich, the lawyer assigned to monitor Apple's antitrust compliance policies, may continue with his duties while Apple continues to pursue another appeal to remove its monitorship all together.

Back in early January, Apple requested that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote disqualify Bromwich from his monitorship because he had demonstrated personal bias against the company. Apple asked for both a stay on the original order requiring an external monitor and the removal of Bromwich, both requests that Cote denied.

Apple did manage to win a brief emergency stay as the Appeals court examined its request for a longer stay, but with today's decision, Bromwich will be able to continue on as monitor.

The ruling did, however, limit some of Bromwich's power, suggesting that he is not able to demand access to any document or interview Apple executives with respect to any subject.
Quote:
Thus, according to appellees, the monitor was empowered to demand only documents relevant to his authorized responsibility as so defined, and to interview Apple directors, officers, and employees only on subjects relevant to that responsibility.

We agree with that interpretation of the district court's order. In addition, we take counsel's statement as a formal representation that appellees also accept that interpretation, and that the monitor will conduct his activities within the bounds of that order, absent further action by the district court or by the panel that will in due course hear the merits of the appeal
Apple's antitrust monitor was originally put in place after the company was found guilty in July 2013 of conspiring with five publishers to raise the prices of e-books. Since then, Apple and Bromwich have engaged in several back and forth disputes stemming from Bromwich's fees and his insistence on interviewing key Apple executives.

Bromwich, for his part, has said he has seen a "surprising and disappointing lack of cooperation from Apple and its executives."

Apple's second appeal, which requests the removal of Bromwich entirely and questions Cote's decision to appoint a monitor, is ongoing.

Article Link: Apple Loses Appeal to Delay E-Books Antitrust Monitorship But Gains Boundaries
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 05:33 PM   #2
proline
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Well, MacRumors is having a great day! Lots of stories, and they haven't had to resort to publishing the day's numbers from Apple's version tracker. Sooner or later, they will go for the cheap story though, only a matter of time...
proline is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 05:34 PM   #3
Lymf
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
I'd say that's a good compromise. That he stops annoying people like Ive or Gore, who have nothing to see with the iBook saga...
Lymf is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 05:44 PM   #4
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymf View Post
I'd say that's a good compromise. That he stops annoying people like Ive or Gore, who have nothing to see with the iBook saga...
It could lead to further bickering, though, as Bromwich will push as far as he can one direction, and Apple the other.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 05:49 PM   #5
proline
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymf View Post
I'd say that's a good compromise. That he stops annoying people like Ive or Gore, who have nothing to see with the iBook saga...
Exactly. Neither of them had anything to do with this- going after them was nothing more than a power trip.
proline is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 08:41 PM   #6
AnalyzeThis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymf View Post
I'd say that's a good compromise. That he stops annoying people like Ive or Gore, who have nothing to see with the iBook saga...
Yeah, I have no idea what Gore is doing there perhaps he is busy inventing internet...
__________________
"Experience: the wisdom of a fool" -kino (ru)-
AnalyzeThis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 09:13 PM   #7
Will do good
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Earth
The winner is this idiot Bromwich, he's charging Apple $900/hr. to fight Apple.
Damn, for that kind of money, I'll fight day & night too.
Will do good is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2014, 09:24 PM   #8
rdlink
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will do good View Post
The winner is this idiot Bromwich, he's charging Apple $900/hr. to fight Apple.
Damn, for that kind of money, I'll fight day & night too.
If he's able to charge them $900 an hour to annoy them I'd say he's not too much of an idiot...
__________________
Desktop, Desktop, Laptop, Phone, Tablet
rdlink is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 02:31 AM   #9
cal6n
macrumors 68000
 
cal6n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brighton, UK
It's fortunate that Apple spun out iBooks, both the App and the Store, in Mavericks. Without that move, even after the ruling, this bozo would be able to to justify an all-out attack on the whole of iTunes by stealth.

Shrewd move, Apple. Well done.

__________________
Is your internet experience tainted by trolls, shills, bigots & fools?
Select "User CP" > "Edit Ignore List" > Add [username] to Your Ignore List > Save List
Every little helps.
cal6n is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 03:37 AM   #10
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymf View Post
I'd say that's a good compromise. That he stops annoying people like Ive or Gore, who have nothing to see with the iBook saga...
I can see it now,

Bromwich: 'So Mr Ive what do you know about the contractual issues surrounding iBooks?'

Ive: 'Nothing'

Bromwich: 'This is intolerable. These Apple directors are being difficult, we must tell the judge immediately so that my power to investigate can be widened.'

So in summary, this is a total wast of everyone's time because they already have all the documents and emails and cross examination from the original court proceedings.
everything-i is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 05:05 AM   #11
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
I can see it now,

Bromwich: 'So Mr Ive what do you know about the contractual issues surrounding iBooks?'

Ive: 'Nothing'

Bromwich: 'This is intolerable. These Apple directors are being difficult, we must tell the judge immediately so that my power to investigate can be widened.'

So in summary, this is a total wast of everyone's time because they already have all the documents and emails and cross examination from the original court proceedings.
This whole monitor business seems like a bit of a 'rub-salt-in-the-wound' over-reaction by the court, and out of proportion to the 'crime committed' by Apple.

It's not like after the verdict, the DoJ was suddenly ceasing to scrutinize Apple.
__________________
Due to my aversion to bragging and clichés, no words of wisdom to be found on this line.....
macs4nw is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 07:07 AM   #12
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
This whole monitor business seems like a bit of a 'rub-salt-in-the-wound' over-reaction by the court, and out of proportion to the 'crime committed' by Apple.

It's not like after the verdict, the DoJ was suddenly ceasing to scrutinize Apple.
Exactly, it seems like a big waste of time especially as the guy who has been put in there apparently has no training or knowledge of this kind of case and has therefore hired a team that has experience to do the job for him after all its not like Apple have been repeatedly convicted of doing this or that it was an obvious cut and dried case. Also to deny those interviewed access to legal council while being interviewed by an agent of the courts is just wrong.
everything-i is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 07:40 AM   #13
mabhatter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by everything-i View Post
I can see it now,

Bromwich: 'So Mr Ive what do you know about the contractual issues surrounding iBooks?'

Ive: 'Nothing'

Bromwich: 'This is intolerable. These Apple directors are being difficult, we must tell the judge immediately so that my power to investigate can be widened.'

So in summary, this is a total wast of everyone's time because they already have all the documents and emails and cross examination from the original court proceedings.
Exactly. This guy is not a general "antitrust" monitor. He's there for JUST iBooks. That's incredibly narrow and all he should really be doing is monitoring contracts Apple makes with PUBLISHERS and possibly their plans for new products that might hide ibook contracts onthe sly. Directors and isn't like Cook or Ives don't personally write those contracts, Apple's marketing and legal departments do. But low level minions nobody knows or cares about aren't any fun to harass. The guy has no PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in software or antitrust, so he PERSONALLY has no business on the grounds at all.. He contracted that out to other lawyers!
mabhatter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 09:10 AM   #14
albusseverus
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Let the monitor and the judge dig themselves deeper and deeper holes.

Nepotism, perjury, and serious consequences.

I look forward to watching the legal system sort this mess out, and the contortions it will have to go through if tries to protect the judge and the monitor.

All power to Apple to get the whole thing thrown out.
albusseverus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 10:03 AM   #15
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mabhatter View Post
Exactly. This guy is not a general "antitrust" monitor. He's there for JUST iBooks. That's incredibly narrow and all he should really be doing is monitoring contracts Apple makes with PUBLISHERS and possibly their plans for new products that might hide ibook contracts onthe sly. Directors and isn't like Cook or Ives don't personally write those contracts, Apple's marketing and legal departments do. But low level minions nobody knows or cares about aren't any fun to harass. The guy has no PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in software or antitrust, so he PERSONALLY has no business on the grounds at all.. He contracted that out to other lawyers!
You said it, the whole thing stinks. Looks like a judge giving a buddy a high paid job when he isn't even qualified to do the job.
everything-i is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 2014, 01:33 PM   #16
Nevaborn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
This needs to be thrown out in the appeals. This is miss use of power by the judge appointing an unqualified friend and the court is showing a distinct lack of co-operation with Apple. They should at least allow a change of monitor to someone who can do the job., so they arent paying two wages and not one.
__________________
We Watch Because We Care
Nevaborn is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > iOS Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Files Formal Appeal in E-Books Antitrust Case MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 95 Mar 6, 2014 01:46 PM
Samsung Loses $1 Billion in Market Value After U.S. Veto on Apple Ban, Files Appeal Against Patent Ruling MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 226 Aug 10, 2013 03:03 PM
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 88 Jun 3, 2013 08:33 AM
Apple Loses Appeal in 'iPhone' Naming Rights Case in Mexico MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 76 Apr 15, 2013 06:30 AM
Apple Loses Appeal on UK Ruling Requiring Ads Acknowledging Samsung Did Not Infringe iPad Design MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 428 Oct 28, 2012 06:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC