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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 7, 2014, 10:29 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Requests Removal of External Compliance Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case




Apple today requested that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote disqualify Michael Bromwich, the external compliance monitor Apple was ordered to hire to ensure the company complies with all antitrust requirements in the future, from serving in his position,*reports Reuters.
Quote:
An attorney for the consumer technology giant on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan to disqualify Michael Bromwich from serving as an external compliance monitor, arguing he had shown a personal bias against the company.
In a letter to Cote, Apple's attorney claimed the report filed by Bromwich last month, in which he accused Apple of blocking interviews and disrupting his investigation, was a "wholly inappropriate declaration".

Bromwich's report was filed in reaction to a complaint Apple had filed in November, in which the company claimed Bromwich was overcharging them for his services. In addition, Apple cited Bromwich had aggressively sought to interview top executives when his mandate required him to assess the company's antitrust policies 90 days after his appointment.

Those same complaints were re-asserted in Apple's letter to Cote requesting the removal of Bromwich. Apple was found guilty of conspiring with five publishers to raise the prices of e-books in July.

Article Link: Apple Requests Removal of External Compliance Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 11:02 PM   #2
lolkthxbai
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
If they remove Bromwich they should get another external monitor as to complie with the court order. Those fees were extremely overpriced. The fact that he needed to sub-contract someone else because he wasn't familiar with antitrust law for the exact purpose he was hired for is just ridiculous!
lolkthxbai is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2014, 11:07 PM   #3
thaifood
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkthxbai View Post
If they remove Bromwich they should get another external monitor as to complie with the court order. Those fees were extremely overpriced. The fact that he needed to sub-contract someone else because he wasn't familiar with antitrust law for the exact purpose he was hired for is just ridiculous!
He probably is good mates with the judge and thus got thrown a big name company to work on. Typical government benefits.
thaifood is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 01:08 AM   #4
herr_neumann
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
Send a message via AIM to herr_neumann
Really surprised they haven't filed complaints with the the state bar in each state he is admitted. If he is being unethical or violating some other clause they could push to get him disbarred, which would end these cushy golden parachute roles.
herr_neumann is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 01:42 AM   #5
fredaroony
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkthxbai View Post
If they remove Bromwich they should get another external monitor as to complie with the court order. Those fees were extremely overpriced. The fact that he needed to sub-contract someone else because he wasn't familiar with antitrust law for the exact purpose he was hired for is just ridiculous!
Compared to what? Do you know the correct fees for this type of work?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by herr_neumann View Post
Really surprised they haven't filed complaints with the the state bar in each state he is admitted. If he is being unethical or violating some other clause they could push to get him disbarred, which would end these cushy golden parachute roles.
The big question is IF is he is being unethical etc. Just because Apple wants to complain doesn't mean it is so.

Considering what they were doing to warrant this monitor to begin with was completely illegal doesn't make them very credible.
fredaroony is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 02:47 AM   #6
Rogifan
macrumors G3
 
Rogifan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Compared to what? Do you know the correct fees for this type of work?

----------



The big question is IF is he is being unethical etc. Just because Apple wants to complain doesn't mean it is so.

Considering what they were doing to warrant this monitor to begin with was completely illegal doesn't make them very credible.
Apple will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if it has to and Judge Cotes decision get will overturned IMO.
__________________
"I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups." -- Steve Jobs , Wired interview
Rogifan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 02:51 AM   #7
fredaroony
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Apple will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if it has to and Judge Cotes decision get will overturned IMO.
What qualifications do you have to come to your opinion? Are you lawyer?
fredaroony is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 03:17 AM   #8
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
If I was getting paid $1100 per hour I'd demand to visit the new campus so I could watch the paint dry.
mw360 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 05:58 AM   #9
lolkthxbai
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Compared to what? Do you know the correct fees for this type of work?
Compliance monitors are typically paid on average a salary of 55k-65k depending on the company and field compliance. Considering Bromwich doesn't have experience in antitrust law, he doesn't even deserve half of the average salary.
lolkthxbai is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 06:40 AM   #10
hansonjohn590
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
Apple will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if it has to and Judge Cotes decision get will overturned IMO.
Lol. If you think the Supreme Court would ever take up this case, your gonna have a bad time. This case poses no constitutional question.
hansonjohn590 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 07:08 AM   #11
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Send a message via Skype™ to roadbloc
Oh give it up Apple already.
__________________
roadbloc is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 07:16 AM   #12
Mak47
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Based on Apple's documented complaints about this guy, and his own letter in defense of himself, Apple is absolutely in the right to request his removal. They're not objecting to having a compliance monitor as ordered by the court, they're objecting to having this one.

The monitor has no right to investigate the company on a wider scale than was ordered by the court. He has no legitimate reason to meet with people like Jony Ive. He has no right to meet with employees of the company without legal representation. To top all of that, he has a long-time personal relationship with the judge in the case. That alone is a clear conflict.

They're also appealing the ruling entirely. So not only is it not in their interest to have someone inside the company gathering information that will benefit their opponent in court--there is a question of constitutionality at play. Apple should not be required to incriminate itself or open itself to further intrusive investigations. The appeal should be based on the original case and evidence at hand.

As for Apple engaging in illegal activity before this...that's questionable at best. Having followed the case closely and seen the evidence presented by the prosecution, I saw nothing that indicated that was the case.

What I saw was a judge that was inclined from the start to find them guilty. Despite records of meetings, emails and phone calls that didn't at all indicate an ongoing or long-term conspiracy, that's exactly what happened.

Apple (or any company) has a right to engage in competitive business practices. Even if those practices are aggressive or damage the income of their competitors. Content creators have the right to charge whatever they please for their content--even if it had previously been offered for less.

The one piece of evidence that seems to have hurt them was a draft email from Steve Jobs indicating that his desire was to raise the price of ebooks so that Apple could compete against the likes of Amazon. The problem is that this was a draft email. It was never sent. If having a personal desire to beat your competitors in business is a crime, or to think up potentially bad ideas to do so is a crime, then we'd have to lock up every business owner in the country.

It is quite clear to me that Apple was targeted by the DOJ (and multiple states) as an easy target. They assumed that like the publishers, Apple would just cave in, pay their shakedown money and the DOJ would get to claim a "Pro-consumer" victory. They're now being punished for not being obedient. This follows a long history of Apple not playing the corporate lobbying (bribery) game and came on the heels of Apple embarrassing the congressional committee that attacked them over their completely legal tax practices.
Mak47 is offline   15 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 08:49 AM   #13
mccldwll
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mak47 View Post

What I saw was a judge that was inclined from the start to find them guilty. Despite records of meetings, emails and phone calls that didn't at all indicate an ongoing or long-term conspiracy, that's exactly what happened.

.

If your tool of choice is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you look at Cote's entire legal background, her experience is in enforcement. She has a predisposition to side with authorities as opposed to the accused. Neutrality is not her strong suit, to say the least. She has a history of being criticized by lawyers for that bias. She even wrote a draft of her opinion before the case was heard (an outline might have been fine but she went much further). It was a mistake to have Cote on the bench for this case in the first place since her bias was certain to shine through resulting in issues for appeal--a waste of everyone's time and money. Lawyers like Cote are perfect for enforcement agencies but make bad judges. She's made that abundantly clear to all by her behavior throughout this case.
mccldwll is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 09:03 AM   #14
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Compared to what? Do you know the correct fees for this type of work?
First, his fees are high considering that he is paying someone else who actually knows how to do the job and adds his fees as well.

Second, his fees are high considering that he uses an external company who charges 15% of his fees and his underlings fees to send the bill to Apple, which he also charges Apple.

Third, his fees are high considering there is nothing to monitor yet, but he is trying to interview everyone at Apple, interfering with Apple's business, trying to rack up more billable hours.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
What qualifications do you have to come to your opinion? Are you lawyer?
Common sense. There is a monopoly in the e-book market, and that monopoly is Amazon. When Amazon got competition that threatened to break that monopoly, they ran to the courts, and this judge then restored Amazon's monopoly.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mw360 View Post
If I was getting paid $1100 per hour I'd demand to visit the new campus so I could watch the paint dry.
For half of that, I'd watch you watching the paint dry
And then you'd have your company charge 15% of that for sending the bill to Apple.
gnasher729 is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 10:15 AM   #15
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkthxbai View Post
If they remove Bromwich they should get another external monitor as to complie with the court order. Those fees were extremely overpriced. The fact that he needed to sub-contract someone else because he wasn't familiar with antitrust law for the exact purpose he was hired for is just ridiculous!
This. And I suspect a big reason why Applei a crying foul.

Frankly Apple wants the whole monitor removed period. They feel it is way over the top. They are pushing to get the whole judgement reversed if possible.

But as a first step they want a monitor that isn't asking for crazy fees to support lawyers he shouldn't need (the monitor should be someone versed in antitrust law), and is playing by the rules. Including one that the monitor can't speak to anyone without their lawyer or Apple lawyers present and he has tried to force this. Which they refused and thus why they refused his meetings. Also he is there to monitor iBooks stuff and he's trying to stick into things that aren't even slightly connected. If it was iTunes related okay that isn't so bad. But this is stuff way out on another field and Apple won't have that and shouldn't have to.

So a new monitor that doesn't need his own hired crew, a firm pay rate and firmer rules about what the monitor can and can't do. That's the first step Apple is demanding. And to me it all seems very reasonable

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

The big question is IF is he is being unethical etc. Just because Apple wants to complain doesn't mean it is so.
If he's violating specific court orders like denying folks the right to have a lawyer present when that right was listed in the judgement, then yeah that probably breaks some kind of rule that would get him in trouble

Quote:

Considering what they were doing to warrant this monitor to begin with was completely illegal doesn't make them very credible.
Actually Cote said several times that the MFN, the agency terms etc are all totally legal. And frankly many don't agree with her determination that Apple was part of any conspiracy to collude. Certainly it seems clear that the publishers did, just not that Apple was an active part in it and created it as the DOJ claimed. Time will tell when Apple is done if higher courts that didn't give their opinions before the trial started agree or disagree.

And whether those higher courts will step up and set rules that affect all players and not just the one with the big pockets. Amazon pulled some pretty anti competition moves in their hey day and not a peep. It's time to look at that and to prevent such crap in all digital markets by all players.
__________________
Return of the Non Tech's Wish List
(She's family so I'm biased )
charlituna is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 10:19 AM   #16
giantfan1224
macrumors 6502a
 
giantfan1224's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
I'm not familiar with correct procedure on this type of request but Judge Cote should recuse herself from ruling on this because of the obvious conflict of interest that exists between her and Bromwich. It's this conflict of interest and her blatant bias pretrial that leads me to believe that Apple has a good chance of at least getting the verdict thrown out and a new trial on appeal.
giantfan1224 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 01:06 PM   #17
fredaroony
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by giantfan1224 View Post
I'm not familiar with correct procedure on this type of request
You should have stopped there.

All these armchair lawyers are hilarious....
fredaroony is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 01:15 PM   #18
giantfan1224
macrumors 6502a
 
giantfan1224's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
You should have stopped there.

All these armchair lawyers are hilarious....
Are you saying the procedure for this request would not allow for her to recuse herself? What I'm saying is she should recuse herself if procedure for such a request would be appropriate. How is that being an "armchair lawyer"? Please enlighten me...
giantfan1224 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 06:18 PM   #19
cmanderson
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Send a message via Skype™ to cmanderson
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
What qualifications do you have to come to your opinion? Are you lawyer?
The poster doesn't require any qualifications to come to an opinion. The issue is whether or not you'd be willing to pay the poster for their opinion. Considering they gave it away for free already, the point is moot, I believe.
cmanderson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 06:28 PM   #20
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Compared to what? Do you know the correct fees for this type of work?
Do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
The big question is IF is he is being unethical etc. Just because Apple wants to complain doesn't mean it is so.

Considering what they were doing to warrant this monitor to begin with was completely illegal doesn't make them very credible.
Apple doesn't complain just for fun. And most people think this judgement against Apple was a complete farce, and that Apple didn't do anything illegal to start with. A judge who wrote a draft of her decision before the trial even started. Which makes Apple's case _very_ credible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
What qualifications do you have to come to your opinion? Are you lawyer?
Are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
You should have stopped there.

All these armchair lawyers are hilarious....
Says the heckler. Look, you haven't contributed anything of any value here. Others have.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 07:20 PM   #21
AnalyzeThis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolkthxbai View Post
Compliance monitors are typically paid on average a salary of 55k-65k depending on the company and field compliance. Considering Bromwich doesn't have experience in antitrust law, he doesn't even deserve half of the average salary.
50k-65k? U call it a salary? Can not afford even toilet paper on this salary. LOL. I hope U and all Apple execs would live on this salary and their spouses and all of off springs for the rest of lives.
__________________
"Experience: the wisdom of a fool" -kino (ru)-
AnalyzeThis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 07:45 PM   #22
clibinarius
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mak47 View Post
Based on Apple's documented complaints about this guy
Apple was convicted. They can appeal but, you're ignoring the fact that they were convicted and proclaiming them innocent. It might be a miscarriage of justice. That's what appeals are for. But I fail to see how Apple was innocent...

And Apple has an interest here to get as much of the ruling overturned as possible, so any further settlement would be further diminished. I don't give much stock in what Apple says about the matter for obvious reasons. It is like OJ Simpson or Robert Blake saying they're not guilty-that doesn't mean they are or aren't. But it is to say they have situations and have reasons for testifying in the manner they do.
clibinarius is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2014, 11:39 PM   #23
fredaroony
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post

Says the heckler. Look, you haven't contributed anything of any value here. Others have.
How exactly? By complaining about poor Apple and how this guy isn't qualified or is charging too much but in reality they probably have no clue.

I never I did know how much he should charge and also never said I was qualified to make the statements regarding the legality of the case.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmanderson View Post
The poster doesn't require any qualifications to come to an opinion. The issue is whether or not you'd be willing to pay the poster for their opinion. Considering they gave it away for free already, the point is moot, I believe.
Good point, I would not be willing to pay that poster for that opinion.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by giantfan1224 View Post
Are you saying the procedure for this request would not allow for her to recuse herself? What I'm saying is she should recuse herself if procedure for such a request would be appropriate. How is that being an "armchair lawyer"? Please enlighten me...
I'm not saying anything or pretending like I know the law like some in this thread.
fredaroony is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2014, 08:46 AM   #24
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by clibinarius View Post
Apple was convicted. They can appeal but, you're ignoring the fact that they were convicted and proclaiming them innocent. It might be a miscarriage of justice. That's what appeals are for. But I fail to see how Apple was innocent...
Apple wasn't "convicted" of anything. They were found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by the DOJ. It's telling that the DOJ didn't bring a criminal case against them which would have required a much higher burden of proof.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2014, 09:07 AM   #25
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
Apple wasn't "convicted" of anything. They were found liable in a civil lawsuit brought by the DOJ. It's telling that the DOJ didn't bring a criminal case against them which would have required a much higher burden of proof.
I would argue that in the eyes of the consumer it doesn't matter. While there's a difference between civil and criminal cases - all they will "know" is that Apple was guilty of X.

So I think the true premise of the poster your quoting (and of course this is my assumption) is that some forum members try to assert that Apple is innocent. It's pretty irrelevant. Just like it's irrelevant if Samsung is innocent or not of infringing patents. If the courts say they are, that's what ultimately matters.
samcraig is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac 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 Complaint Over Monitor Fees in E-Book Antitrust Case MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 62 Apr 15, 2014 06:06 AM
Court Denies Apple's Request to Remove Compliance Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 51 Jan 15, 2014 11:50 AM
External Compliance Monitor: Apple is Blocking Interviews, Disrupting E-Book Antitrust Investigation [Updated] MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 117 Jan 11, 2014 09:59 AM
Publishers in E-Book Antitrust Case File Objection to DOJ's Proposed Punishment for Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 106 Aug 13, 2013 01:41 PM
Apple Could Owe $500 Million After Being Found Guilty in E-Book Antitrust Case MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 149 Jul 29, 2013 09:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.

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

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