Apple Loses Appeal to Delay E-Books Antitrust Monitorship But Gains Boundaries

[MacRumors]

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.

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

 

[proline]

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...

 

[Lymf]

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...

 

[KPOM]

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.

 

[proline]

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.

 

[AnalyzeThis]

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...

 

[Will do good]

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.

 

[rdlink]

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...

 

[cal6n]

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.

 

[everything-i]

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.

 

[macs4nw]

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.

 

[everything-i]

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.

 

[mabhatter]

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!

 

[albusseverus]

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.

 

[everything-i]

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.

 

[Nevaborn]

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.