External Compliance Monitor: Apple is Blocking Interviews, Disrupting E-Book Antitrust Investigation [Updated]

[KPOM]

So funny that when Apple is accused of doing wrong, or actually does wrong, so many of you jump to defend them like they are perfect and get all upset like its YOU being accused.

Seriously? Apple is probably guilty, same with Amazon and all the other retailers. Businesses WORSHIP money.

But so does that idiot "monitor" whose charging $1025/hour to have first year law school graduates do administrative tasks. Read the WSJ editorial from a few weeks ago for more information.

Compliance monitors are fairly routine parts of court sanctions and DOJ settlements. However, this particular monitor may have conflicts of interest (he helped get Judge Cote appointed in the first place), and appears to be overstepping his authority. It shouldn't take that much time and effort to see whether or not Apple is complying with the court order. Take a look at a few contracts and read them. There's no need to go on a fishing expedition, which is what this guy seems to be doing.

It's not just Apple. The "DOJ is always right" crowd got a smack down a few months ago when they tried unsuccessfully to block the American Airlines/US Airways merger. The DOJ hemmed and hawed about how "anticompetitive" the deal was and how they were going to do everything they could to block it. Then a more level-headed judge weighed in and suddenly they caved. Unfortunately, this judge made up her mind before the trial, and stuck her crony in as a "monitor."

 

[Rogifan]

$1025-$1100/hr is very cheap rate. I would change 10 x of that to Apple.

Apple pays top dollar to "top brass" lawyers. Why not to pay top dollar to "top brass" monitor as well?

And yes, spending some time in jail should set bitter Apple execs who broke the law a bit more cooperative.

So you think Eddy Cue should spend time in jail? Would you say the same for Steve Jobs if he was still alive?

----------

Yup... its ridiculous. Then they claim "Apple execs/employees have better things to do". Better things to do then comply with the law? lol... yea ok.


EVERYONE worships money, even the Lawyers here... they all want a piece of the pie.

What does Jony Ive have to do with iBooks? Why would this monitor need to speak with him? I would argue in his case he does have better things to do.

 

[AnalyzeThis]

So you think Eddy Cue should spend time in jail? Would you say the same for Steve Jobs if he was still alive?

I would spare Steve Jobs and Jony Ive, the rest are expandable.

 

[Radiating]

And what law is he breaking?

Just because Apple is used to overcharging their customers and now finds itself on the receiving end, it doesn't make it illegal.

If Tim Cook wants to play hardball, perhaps some jail time for contempt will set him straight.

He's doing completely irrelevant work to increase his billable hours. They have every right to tell him to go to hell. This guy is asking to waste hundreds of hours of billable time and the time of Apple talking to people who have literally nothing to do with eBook pricing practices.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Sorta dispicable. Same way Apple is asking for a greedy and ridiculous $30 per device from every device Samsung sells. So Apple shouldn't be so shocked at such dispicable requests.

And other companies (including Samsung I believe) have demanded the same in the past of Apple. Heck one patent holder was trying to demand 10% of the MSRP, as I recall, (as in a floating cost) for a fee on a FRAND patent.

LOL tell him

All I know is I was a huge ebook buyer. When Apple began its dealings with publishers, ebook prices skyrocketed, many ABOVE paperbacks! After the trial prices came down to more competitive levels.

Prices were going down before the trials. Example : Tor was originally trying to sell the WoT books at 15-20 bucks each WITH DRM on their site. Not just the new books still in hardback, but all of them. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.

Also, I was one of the people that thought prices did need to go up a little - but I've also worked food service. Like waitstaff, authors need to make a living.

I would spare Steve Jobs and Jony Ive, the rest are expandable.

Woot, another word to add to the list of "a/e is an important difference" list.

Unless you really meant expandable and not expendable.

Lets see, got me some Affect/Effect, Accept/Except, Dual/Duel, Faint/Feint, and now Expandable/Expendable.

 

[GadgetDon]

The trial has been fought over again and again, and nobody's mind is getting changed at this point.

But regardless of agree or disagree, the decision was reached on a very narrow and specific set of facts, and the DoJ's attempt to expand it beyond iBooks was rejected by the judge. And unlike Microsoft, where there was a whole RAFT of alleged anticompetitive behaviors alleged and furthermore the near-complete control of the OS market and Office Suite market, this is the only charge I can recall.

So, the "compliance" being monitored is (a) don't put back MFN with various book publishers, and (b) renegotiate contracts based on the court's timetable. Maybe you could expand it to (c) and if Apple is entering an existing digital products market, don't negotiate MFN and agency together.

This should be REALLY simple to test compliance with. Eddie Cue and the lawyers would be the one to talk to about (a) and (b). And given there are no digital product markets I can think of that Apple isn't in already (and in all of them there is price competition), (c) is a non-issue.

Instead, it looks like either the compliance guy is on a witch hunt to find anything else that might be called anti-trust instead of the specific charge he is there to resolve, or he padding his hours, or searching for info not under is charge for various purposes (writing a book, working for a competitor, etc.).

 

[Earendil]

More important things to do than comply with something they have been ordered to do as a result of a court case?

Apple is not above the law.

They are not asking to be above it, they are saying that how this guy is carrying out the law is incorrect, and they have the right to make such an accusation.

And what law is he breaking?

Just because Apple is used to overcharging their customers and now finds itself on the receiving end, it doesn't make it illegal.

Do you know what customers that think Apple is overcharging do? They choose to not be customers, and buy other products. There are a few of us around here that are getting our dollar value from our Apple products.

 

[AnalyzeThis]

Woot, another word to add to the list of "a/e is an important difference" list.

Unless you really meant expandable and not expendable.

Lets see, got me some Affect/Effect, Accept/Except, Dual/Duel, Faint/Feint, and now Expandable/Expendable.

"Expendable" it is. Thanks for noticing.

----------

Do you know what customers that think Apple is overcharging do? They choose to not be customers, and buy other products. There are a few of us around here that are getting our dollar value from our Apple products.

Except when Apple ensured it is not possible to find a better deal elsewhere through unlawful arrangements with publishers. Guilty as charged - case closed.

 

[adamneer]

It seems like anyone that believes the monitor is overstepping his bounds and charging too much is being accused of believing Apple was innocent of the original charge, or that they don't deserve punishment for their crimes. But I haven't really read many posts that confirm this sentiment, so I'd say all of the evidence regarding the original trial being posted here is unnecessary at this point. It would be hard to deny that they were guilty and that they deserved punishment because of it. But being guilty of one thing does not give anyone the legal right to demand privileged information regarding unrelated company business. Apple is a company that relies heavily on secrecy to maintain their highly profitable balance of emerging technology, marketing and innovation. Without this secrecy, it would be easy for other tech companies to dilute the market with cheap, conveniently timed product releases. Would the original iPad have been so successful if Samsung, LG, HTC, and Asus had pushed out their tablets before Apple got theirs to market? I can only imagine the consequences for Apple if Bromwich is given full access to their inner workings, including recorded interviews with their lead hardware/ios designer. It would be naive to think that once his investigation is over, all of the information his team has gathered will not be some of the most sought after data on the planet, with companies like Samsung or Google clearly having enough brainpower and/or monetary influence to gain access to at least some of that information. There doesn't seem to be any regard for this potential issue, which could easily cause considerably more harm to Apple than it has caused others on account of the original case.

 

[HiRez]

You've got to separate out the judgement and the execution of the monitoring. Even if Apple is guilty (let's assume they are since that is the judgement), it does not give the monitor the right to do whatever he pleases. Again, what possible justification does he have to interview Jony I've, man who has nothing to do with the business side of things? Does Ive ever negotiate an agreement for iBooks, or anything? Does he have anything to do with setting prices? No. Apple May need monitoring, but it certainly sounds like the monitor needs monitoring as well. Add in the fact that this guy is long-time buddies with the judge and not experienced enough for the job and the whole thing emits a pungent stench. That doesn't mean Apple should not be monitored, but they need to stick to what is actually relevant to the decision.

 

[liavman]

Update: The Justice Department has urged Judge Denise Cote to reject Apple's requests and that the attacks on Bromwich "only highlight the critical need for his monitorship to continue uninterrupted", saying the company was looking to "shield its highest-level executives and board members from the perceived inconvenience" of meeting with the court monitor.

Welcome to the adversarial system of jurisprudence. it is only natural to get worked up about this if one is not used to it. Most of us think intuitively that something close to 'inquisitorial system' is how it should be since it is all supposed to be about truth and justice by all parties. That may be the end goal and that is the Judge's responsibility to ensure who is supposed to be strictly neutral.

I know it is frustrating why the Justice Department has to be such a pain against Apple. Having decided to pursue the case, they have to be. Let us hope the Judge does not side with the Justice Department and stay as neutral as possible.

The one problem here is this external compliance monitor is court appointed and he was probably hand selected by the Judge. May be this judge should recuse herself from deciding on this complaint since it is now about the conduct of one of her appointees.

 

[itr81]

When all competition is gone because Amazon lowballed everyone out of the game and raise prices the same ones that praised Amazon will be the same ones complaining about prices going up again... It's just matter of time. Breaking up the bells was suppose to do same thing and now prices are always rising almost every yr now.. I personally think breaking up monopolies only have short term gains instead of long term gains everyone is hoping for..

 

[neu1958]

And what law is he breaking?

Just because Apple is used to overcharging their customers and now finds itself on the receiving end, it doesn't make it illegal.

If Tim Cook wants to play hardball, perhaps some jail time for contempt will set him straight.

Big difference... Apple is being forced to pay an hourly rate for a dubious ruling by this judge. Legal or not, you believe they should be forced to pay his bill based on invoices padded by nonsense meetings.

If you don't like the price of Apple's products (which I'd venture to guess you can't afford based on your bitterness) your choice is to not buy them.

 

[Oletros]

I know it is frustrating why the Justice Department has to be such a pain against Apple. Having decided to pursue the case, they have to be. Let us hope the Judge does not side with the Justice Department and stay as neutral as possible.

So, the only way to be neutral is side with Apple?

----------

When all competition is gone because Amazon lowballed everyone out of the game and raise prices the same ones that praised Amazon will be the same ones complaining about prices going up again... It's just matter of time.

Precog too much?

 

[liavman]

So, the only way to be neutral is side with Apple?

Talk of an adversarial system! Ha.. ha.. Just kidding.

No, of course not. I am just saying that people have a tendency to think that the "justice department' and the "judge" are all on the same side. My point is, they are not, the judge is supposed to be neutral. I at least hope so.

My more significant point is what you did not comment on which is that the judge herself has a conflict of interest ( having chosen this monitor ) and the right thing to do for her to let someone rule on this complaint.
I do not think she is required to do so.

 

[Rajani Isa]

So, the only way to be neutral is side with Apple?

I could be mistaken, but in this case yes - as siding with Apple in this case means to actually look into Apple's complaint about the actions and billing of the monitor vs simply setting it aside as the DOJ asks.

 

[Oletros]

My more significant point is what you did not comment on which is that the judge herself has a conflict of interest ( having chosen this monitor )

Hace you read the final ruling and the way the monitor is chosen?

----------

I could be mistaken, but in this case yes - as siding with Apple in this case means to actually look into Apple's complaint about the actions and billing of the monitor vs simply setting it aside as the DOJ asks.

And looking and setting aside is being neutral?

 

[Rajani Isa]

Hace you read the final ruling and the way the monitor is chosen?

----------




And looking and setting aside is being neutral?

Looking into the complaint? Neutral. You acknowledge Apple has a complaint, but then you are determining if it's valid, that there is wrongdoing of some kind. It could still be found against Apple/dropped because it's invalid, but it would be done with looking into it.

Simply setting it aside? Not looking into someone who (according to Apple's complaint) sees the whole company as his playground? Siding with the DOJ/not being neutral.

 

[cmwade77]

Bromwich sounds like a crybaby. Apple executives have more important things to do than interview with someone who is overseeing iBooks. I doubt iBooks even shows up as a blip on the revenue stream.

Honestly, Apple DID fix prices and violate antitrust laws on this one, so they need to own up and do the time, as it goes.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Hace you read the final ruling and the way the monitor is chosen?

By the way, got a link to that?

----------

Honestly, Apple DID fix prices and violate antitrust laws on this one, so they need to own up and do the time, as it goes.

There is owning up and doing the time, and there is being taken advantage of.

If this was simply them saying "this shouldn't happen" it would be part of the appeal and not a separate complaint.

 

[Oletros]

By the way, got a link to that?

Post 39

 

[LordVic]

in this thread, Lawyer calling out Apple's bad behaviour...

which i find ironic... I had the (dis)pleasure of working collections for lawyer to lawyer business for a short while.

Lawyers are some of the whinniest, most corrupt non paying schmucks evers.

I have had lawyers, despite signed copy of a contract in tripplicate, hold out 7 months on a bill, refuse to pay it and claim "nah, I don't agree to the rates afteral"

the stories about these lawyers who charge $500 / hour for consulting, refusing to pay clerks $10/hr over petty squables.

lawyers are some of the most self righteous individuals. worse than Apple board of directors

 

[liavman]

Hace you read the final ruling and the way the monitor is chosen?

Of course.

Look at the definition H in section 1. That is what matters in the end.
I am aware of the procedure. By design it is skewed in favor of the plaintiffs, they recommend, Apple can only object. But the bottom line is it is the court ( and the judge ) who appoints.

My problem is not just that. This monitor seems to be getting in to prosecutorial territory. The judgement is quite specific. It is not about whether Apple is currently engaging in anti trust activities, all he is authorized to do is to review and assess Apple’s internal compliance policies, procedures, and practices, and specifically whether Apple’s internal antitrust compliance program is “reasonably designed” to uncover antitrust violations.

One can say that is subject to interpretation but even if there is a perception of a prosecutorial role by this monitor, then he can not be an ally of the court as a neutral agent. But someone has to rule if that is the case or not. And Judge Cote can not be that person.

Also, the judge had ruled that the monitor can hold private meetings with her with no transcripts or anyone else present. Again, that may not be against the procedure but given this background, I do not see how this Judge can rule on this complaint by Apple against the monitor ( filed a month or so back ) and now this complaint by the Monitor against Apple.

 

[Maxipeg]

Monitor the monitor?

Apple is likely guilty of trying to make $$$ where they shouldn't have. The judgement is clear, and so far, Apple has only been complaining about the behavior of the monitor, not about the ruling itself.

Everybody, whether found guilty or not, has the right to get a fair trial, and nobody, guilty or not, has to accept abusive punishment...

 

[Maxipeg]

Do not agree

Honestly, Apple DID fix prices and violate antitrust laws on this one, so they need to own up and do the time, as it goes.

Apple may be guilty. But they don't have to accept abusive treatment.