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 Jan 21, 2014, 10:25 AM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Apple Wins Brief Stay of External Monitoring in E-Books Antitrust Case




The ongoing dispute over external compliance monitoring of Apple in the e-books antitrust case has taken another turn today, with a federal appeals court granting Apple a brief reprieve from monitoring as it considers the possibility of a longer stay as Apple appeals the original decision, reports Reuters.
Quote:
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York granted Apple an "administrative stay" of the court order appointing the monitor, Michael Bromwich, while the company seeks permission for a longer stay during its appeal.

In a brief order, the 2nd Circuit said a three-judge panel would hear Apple's motion for a stay pending appeal as soon as possible. It gave the government until Jan. 24 to file opposition papers. The government did not oppose the request for an administrative stay.
Last November, Apple filed a formal complaint regarding Bromwich, alleging significant overreach and exorbitant fees. In response, Bromwich, who has no significant previous antitrust experience and whose ties to Judge Denise Cote have been questioned, claimed that Apple was hindering his investigations.

Apple formally requested removal of Bromwich earlier this month, but Cote declined to do so, arguing that "Apple's reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition."

Apple is continuing to pursue an appeal of the original decision, and the appeals court will ultimately decide whether the monitoring by Bromwich should be put on hold while that appeal is heard.

Article Link: Apple Wins Brief Stay of External Monitoring in E-Books Antitrust Case
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 10:33 AM   #2
PBUser167
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
It is about time for the tide to turn on this case!
PBUser167 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 10:57 AM   #3
Consultant
macrumors G5
 
Consultant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
It's a conflict of interest for the judge to hire an unqualified friend.
Consultant is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 10:59 AM   #4
t.gillespie
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBUser167 View Post
It is about time for the tide to turn on this case!
Well, you'll note it was out of Cote's hands at this point. Everything up to this point has been all Judge Cote. Who, really, is on the defensive, though thats not how many news media's present it.

Her conduct and link to Bromwich is a very big deal and has the potential of pulling her from the bench.

I honestly don't think Apple would have kept pushing unless they thought they had something to that effect. They just needed to hold out long enough to get it into the Appeals Court. I often wonder if thats what Cote meant when she "supposedly" told Bromwich to hurry up and get in there, that he wouldn't have much time.

Anyway, we'll see I guess. All bets are off at this point I think. Depends on what kind of hand Apple really has.. we should now in the next few weeks/months.

Now the real pop-corn, head turning, begins. I want extra butter on mine.
t.gillespie is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 11:00 AM   #5
BigBeast
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Finally– A sane decision from the court. I won't hold my breath for the next one.
__________________
2012 cMBP 2.6GHz Core i7 16gb 512 SSD iPhone 5S iPad Air
BigBeast is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 11:19 AM   #6
PBUser167
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by t.gillespie View Post
Well, you'll note it was out of Cote's hands at this point. Everything up to this point has been all Judge Cote. Who, really, is on the defensive, though thats not how many news media's present it.

Her conduct and link to Bromwich is a very big deal and has the potential of pulling her from the bench.

I honestly don't think Apple would have kept pushing unless they thought they had something to that effect. They just needed to hold out long enough to get it into the Appeals Court. I often wonder if thats what Cote meant when she "supposedly" told Bromwich to hurry up and get in there, that he wouldn't have much time.

Anyway, we'll see I guess. All bets are off at this point I think. Depends on what kind of hand Apple really has.. we should now in the next few weeks/months.

Now the real pop-corn, head turning, begins. I want extra butter on mine.
I completely agree that it being out of her hands is why the tide has turned. It was such a sham on all accounts and the monitoring stuff has been a fiasco. Hopefully we see more sanity injected into this process as we move forward.
PBUser167 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 11:57 AM   #7
Orlandoech
macrumors 68030
 
Orlandoech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
In the end... I still hope Apple gets fined "One million dollars muhahahaha".

"Dr Evil, one million dollars isn't a lot of money these days".
Orlandoech is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 12:52 PM   #8
JAT
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
So, what, Bromwich just sits in a hotel for a while?
__________________
-- Spiky
JAT is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 01:00 PM   #9
PBUser167
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
So, what, Bromwich just sits in a hotel for a while?
If nothing else, he cannot bill Apple $1100 an hour for the remainder of this week.
PBUser167 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 02:06 PM   #10
firedept
macrumors Demi-God
 
firedept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere!
This is a good decision. It is clearly a conflict to put someone who has no antitrust experience into a position of overseeing such a large decision by the courts. Especially a friend of the judge who handed down that decision.
__________________
Success only comes before work in the dictionary!
firedept is online now   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 03:02 PM   #11
Cuban Missles
macrumors 6502a
 
Cuban Missles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: East Coast, USA
I really never understood why Apple was guilty of price fixing. And this whole business with this guy is really beyond me. I do hope that in appeals things get sorted out better. The idea of going back to Amazon setting the price for books just does not sound right (I know that is not exactly what was decided, but in essence the judge said that Apple was guilty of colluding in breaking the Amazon model and that in doing so that was a bad thing).
__________________
I have a collection of Apple stickers from all my Apple product purchases - they are white (the stickers not the products)
Cuban Missles is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 04:00 PM   #12
Nevaborn
macrumors 6502a
 
Nevaborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
I really never understood why Apple was guilty of price fixing. And this whole business with this guy is really beyond me. I do hope that in appeals things get sorted out better. The idea of going back to Amazon setting the price for books just does not sound right (I know that is not exactly what was decided, but in essence the judge said that Apple was guilty of colluding in breaking the Amazon model and that in doing so that was a bad thing).
I think a digital book can be worth more than a printed one. It won't age or get damaged and it can have possibly audio and animated Illustrations. A book can come to like and give depth.

I can't say if Apple was right or wrong but I do know that a judge appointing an unqualified friend is unethical and enough to discredit a judge. The ruling should be thrown out.
__________________
(>^^)> *** A Wild Kirby Appeared ***
Nevaborn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 05:32 PM   #13
japanime
macrumors 65816
 
japanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuban Missles View Post
I really never understood why Apple was guilty of price fixing. And this whole business with this guy is really beyond me. I do hope that in appeals things get sorted out better. The idea of going back to Amazon setting the price for books just does not sound right (I know that is not exactly what was decided, but in essence the judge said that Apple was guilty of colluding in breaking the Amazon model and that in doing so that was a bad thing).
As a book publisher, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rather than focus only on Apple, the court needs to look at the bigger picture and delve into Amazon's ebook pricing tactics as well.
__________________
Put Manga University in your pocket — get our free iPhone app!
japanime is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2014, 05:32 PM   #14
rmatthewware
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
If someone is guilty of price fixing, it's Amazon. They had set the price artificially low in an attempt to kill the competitors, control the market, and inadvertently harm publishers. I'm not for higher prices, but the market should determine those prices, not one seller. What Apple did was get together with publishers and said, 'hey, why don't you set the price of the book and if no one buys it, you'll have to lower prices'. This is how the economy is supposed to work. The government, and many citizens, only care when price fixing raises prices. Keeping a price artificially low hurts the very businesses whose product you want. While it may not hurt the big authors, it can really hurt smaller authors and prevent new authors from ever getting published. The publishers get the prophet but they also assume all the risk.
rmatthewware is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 12:28 AM   #15
charlituna
macrumors 604
 
charlituna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consultant View Post
It's a conflict of interest for the judge to hire an unqualified friend.
Biased comments before trial started (and apparently not the first time she has done that regarding apple) as well

I remember seeing the coverage of the whole thing and then noticing that her opinion seemed to ignore all testimony that supported that the DOJ timeline was wrong.

Happy to see the courts giving this a needed review.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by t.gillespie View Post

I honestly don't think Apple would have kept pushing unless they thought they had something to that effect.
Yes they are appealing the whole thing but right now I suspect they want a leash on this guy. Control who he talks to and how (ie no demanding disruptions to work, no denying a lawyer), and the fees. If he wants to consult with a lawyer fine. But bringing in a huge team and sticking Apple with the bill, not cool

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by japanime View Post
As a book publisher, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rather than focus only on Apple, the court needs to look at the bigger picture and delve into Amazon's ebook pricing tactics as well.
I'll back that. All forms of media could do with some limits across the board. Dump the ability to have exclusive deals that keep items on only one service for long periods, set upper price limits so we are paying $50 for a digital version that is half the quality and no features on something that sells on disk for $30 etc.

But the key is rules for all players
__________________
Return of the Non Tech's Wish List
(She's family so I'm biased )
charlituna is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 02:48 AM   #16
fredaroony
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmatthewware View Post
What Apple did was get together with publishers and said, 'hey, why don't you set the price of the book and if no one buys it, you'll have to lower prices'.
Erm..yeah and that's illegal champ...
fredaroony is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 02:57 AM   #17
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Erm..yeah and that's illegal champ...
Which is no problem, because it's also not what happened.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 04:32 AM   #18
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
I for one certainly hope that Apple will be at least partially successful with their appeal of the original decision, as their punishment seemed heavy-handed, and way out of proportion to the "crime" committed.

Removing the unqualified and excessively expensive Bromwich from his position as monitor would be a good first step.
__________________
Due to my aversion to bragging and clichés, no words of wisdom to be found on this line.....
macs4nw is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 08:39 AM   #19
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmatthewware View Post
What Apple did was get together with publishers and said, 'hey, why don't you set the price of the book and if no one buys it, you'll have to lower prices'. This is how the economy is supposed to work.
What do you call an economy where companies collude to set the price of products? Doesn't sound like capitalism. They should be competing with each other.
unlinked is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 08:45 AM   #20
BaldiMac
macrumors 604
 
BaldiMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Erm..yeah and that's illegal champ...
In what way do you consider that illegal? It appears to me to be a description of agency pricing which Judge Cote confirmed as a legal.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
What do you call an economy where companies collude to set the price of products? Doesn't sound like capitalism. They should be competing with each other.
The publishers didn't collude to set the price of products. In fact they all offered different products at different prices.
BaldiMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 09:16 AM   #21
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaldiMac View Post
The publishers didn't collude to set the price of products. In fact they all offered different products at different prices.
It would be rare that two book publishers (or two record companies for that matter) can offer the same product.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 03:24 PM   #22
rmatthewware
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
What do you call an economy where companies collude to set the price of products? Doesn't sound like capitalism. They should be competing with each other.
Apple didn't attempt to raise prices. What they did was come up with a system that allowed publishers to set their own prices rather than be held hostage by Amazon.

Keeping prices artificially low can be as bad or worse than keeping them high. Look at what happened in Venezuela when they tried it.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Erm..yeah and that's illegal champ...
What they did wasn't illegal. They didn't set a price or try to keep a price high. Nothing they did was to raise a price. Higher prices on ebooks don't help Apple attract customers. The only 'crime' Apple committed was trying to break up Amazon's monopoly over ebooks, champ...

----------

Too many people, including judges and politicians, think lower prices is always best for the American people. If the price gets too low, there isn't enough money left over to pay your people and develop new products.

It's like the fallacy that we should always look out for the little guy. But really, sometimes the little guy is wrong.
rmatthewware is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 22, 2014, 09:08 PM   #23
albusseverus
macrumors 6502a
 
albusseverus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
You'll notice here that the federal appeals court is behaving lawfully. Cote and the Justice Department are out on a limb here, and this is a sign that the court system is going to come down hard on them.

I refer you to Alex Lindsay's comments on MacBreak Weekly this week - nepotism, perjury, and serious consequences.

Cote could end up in jail or at least never work as a judge again.

Sadly, whereas you or I would end up in jail, Cote being of the ruling class, will probably get a nice pension, early retirement, and the Justice Department will drop its action against Apple.

No real repercussions for the "legal system's" illegal behaviour. It's all just part of a DEAL, for those in the right club.

Good for Apple, but bad for the public good, and those charged with administering the law, will once again demonstrate that they are above the law.
albusseverus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2014, 12:43 AM   #24
liavman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
but Cote declined to do so, arguing that "Apple's reaction to the existence of a monitorship underscores the wisdom of its imposition."
Is this correct? My recollection is that kind of an idiotic argument was made by the justice department lawyers mocking Apple. The judge was bring passive aggressive and paternalistic stating 'I think this monitoring is good for Apple. I want this monitoring to be successful for Apple'.
liavman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2014, 01:03 AM   #25
alphaod
macrumors Core
 
alphaod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 上海 (Shanghai)
If you want my unprofessional opinion, both Bromwich and Cote need to be reprimanded for unprofessional conduct and perhaps be debarred.
__________________
Mac Pro | iMac | Mac mini | MacBook Pro | MacBook Air | iPad | iPhone | iPod
alphaod is offline   1 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
Apple Loses Appeal to Delay E-Books Antitrust Monitorship But Gains Boundaries MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 15 Feb 11, 2014 01:33 PM
Apple Requests Removal of External Compliance Monitor in E-Book Antitrust Case MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 38 Jan 15, 2014 02:01 AM
Apple Blames Book Publishers in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 88 Jun 3, 2013 08:33 AM
Apple CEO Tim Cook 'May Testify' in E-Books Antitrust Lawsuit MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 70 Mar 11, 2013 06:39 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

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

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