Apple now cooperating says external compliance monitor Bromwich in first report
Apple's court-appointed external compliance monitor Michael Bromwich on Monday issued his first report to U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote, noting a marked improvement in relations between himself and the Cupertino, Calif. company.
In the 77-page report, first spotted by The Wall Street Journal, Bromwich says Apple has been more cooperative since he was installed last year to watch over the company's dealings.
The report is the first of many to Judge Cote, who in July found Apple culpable of conspiring with five major book publishers to fix the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore. price fixing the U.S. Department of Justice's successful case over e-book price fixing,
"As described above, and more fully in this Report, there has been a shift of tone in our relationship with Apple since mid-February, largely attributable to Apple's designation of a new in-house principal point of contact and to changes Apple has made in the outside counsel with whom we deal," Bromwich writes.
Apple has made attempts to remove Bromwich from his position after claiming the ECM was conducting an unconstitutional and wide-roving investigation of the company that far surpassed his jurisdiction. Complaints ranged from supposedly excessive pay to unreasonable requests for interviews of high-level executives not involved in the company's day-to-day operations.
In January, Apple's motions to remove culminated in an official request to dislodge Bromwich that was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in February. The appellate court ultimately shot down the attempt, saying the company failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm.
Bromwich goes into detail regarding his monitorship thus far, with more than half of the document describing friction between himself and Apple. He notes that Apple's Vice President and Associate General Counsel Doug Vetter is the company's new "point of contact" and has proven to be more willing to work with the ECM than his predecessor.
With documents furnished and requests fulfilled, Bromwich appears to be optimistic that he and his team can complete the court's assigned task. He goes on to note the various programs and initiatives Apple has instituted -- or is planning to -- with an eye on avoiding another antitrust kerfuffle.
"Our judgment is that Apple has made a promising start in enhancing its Antitrust Compliance Program since issuance of the Final Judgment, but that it still has much work to do," Bromwich said.
In the 77-page report, first spotted by The Wall Street Journal, Bromwich says Apple has been more cooperative since he was installed last year to watch over the company's dealings.
The report is the first of many to Judge Cote, who in July found Apple culpable of conspiring with five major book publishers to fix the prices of e-books sold through the iBookstore. price fixing the U.S. Department of Justice's successful case over e-book price fixing,
"As described above, and more fully in this Report, there has been a shift of tone in our relationship with Apple since mid-February, largely attributable to Apple's designation of a new in-house principal point of contact and to changes Apple has made in the outside counsel with whom we deal," Bromwich writes.
Apple has made attempts to remove Bromwich from his position after claiming the ECM was conducting an unconstitutional and wide-roving investigation of the company that far surpassed his jurisdiction. Complaints ranged from supposedly excessive pay to unreasonable requests for interviews of high-level executives not involved in the company's day-to-day operations.
In January, Apple's motions to remove culminated in an official request to dislodge Bromwich that was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in February. The appellate court ultimately shot down the attempt, saying the company failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm.
Bromwich goes into detail regarding his monitorship thus far, with more than half of the document describing friction between himself and Apple. He notes that Apple's Vice President and Associate General Counsel Doug Vetter is the company's new "point of contact" and has proven to be more willing to work with the ECM than his predecessor.
With documents furnished and requests fulfilled, Bromwich appears to be optimistic that he and his team can complete the court's assigned task. He goes on to note the various programs and initiatives Apple has instituted -- or is planning to -- with an eye on avoiding another antitrust kerfuffle.
"Our judgment is that Apple has made a promising start in enhancing its Antitrust Compliance Program since issuance of the Final Judgment, but that it still has much work to do," Bromwich said.
Comments
In fact, I wish Apple would just sell off this low-margin business so that these two losers can be jettisoned.
Not sure that's a big seller. It's full of BS.
I wonder how many times a day does this guy have to remove a "kick me" sign off his back.
Didn't the judge end up limiting the scope of what he could do?
Exactly. So to say Apple is cooperating implies Apple is caving in to Bromwich when in fact his scope was significantly narrowed (which is what Apple really wanted).
Didn't the judge end up limiting the scope of what he could do?
My understanding is that Bromwich was put on a shorter leash. He couldn't request to interview executives (like Jony Ive), people that have absolutely nothing to do with the ebook debacle.
Sounds like Apple assigned one guy to be the focal point that Bromwich could be a pest to. I just hope they assigned Bromwich a broom closet to do his "business" from.
Meanwhile the appeals continue.
How many million dollars is "irreparable harm"?
His pay may still be way-out-of-line but that can be dealt with later. Apple might win that, or not, but now is not the time for that fight.
His scope of operation would appear to be much more concentrated on the issues at trial and his ability to dig into unrelated lines of business seems to be either very limited or eliminated.
The appeal is the big deal here and Apple does not want to provide a pile of prejudicial material to the other side. Everything is therefore proceeding nicely and will continue to do so until the Court rules on the appeal.
From a personal perspective, I don't know how the appeal will go. That's because appeals are based upon the law, and not upon the facts. The facts are decided at the initial trial and, in my opinion, the Judge got them wrong. But the appeals court can't correct that, although it can find that - in the vernacular - it was borked and should be done over. That is, vacate the decision and send it back for retrial. But if the appeals court accepts the facts then remedies at law are not plentiful. This will be an interesting case to follow.
How many million dollars is "irreparable harm"?
No amount of money is "irreparable harm". I'm not sure if it's in the definition, but the essence of irreparable harm is that which can NOT be compensated for by money. Such as one's personal reputation, or the market position of a business..
Consider this thought-experiment: RSA. Many have criticized it lately for its alleged involvement with the NSA. And its reputation has certainly suffered as a result of these allegations. Now consider what might happen if RSA receives and produces a gold-plated certificate of non-involvement and "goodness". Will its former reputation be restored? Can it somehow be "made whole"?
And now contemplate again what is "irreparable harm" in light of this scenario.
The biggest error was treating Apple as a horizontal participant when in fact they were a vertical participant.
The verdict was determined under this fatal flaw.
That woman, Judge Cote, is not a good judge.
More than half of the lawyers who rated her on a judge rating site said that she was biased and pre-judged cases before hearing any evidence.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/14/apple-ebook-judge-cote-2/
And just what does the current DOJ have against Apple? The current DOJ is a big joke, one of the worst in recent history, if not the worst ever, and not just because of Apple. That's minor, compared to the other stuff.
Could you explain what the terms horizontal and vertical mean in this instance?
Wouldn’t it be the same as anywhere else?
Horizontal as in cornering the market on all aspects of one level of the process: i.e., deals with all publishers in the market. Vertical as in owning one piece of every aspect of the process in a direct line from content creator to content consumer.
When this all comes out and Apple gets to countersue for tens of billions in damages by the government, I certainly hope Amazon foots some of that bill.
Bromwich noted that the company also complied with his request to park in Tim Cook's parking spot and also to name a company cafeteria sandwich after him: "The Bromwich."
I can see a sandwich being named after him. Tim Cook doesn't care about sandwiches anyway. Apparently Fries are his thing...
Amazon already paid the DOJ to investigate.
It actually sounds like Apple figured out a way to deal with him with out dealing with him. The fact his report is just him lambasting about how Apple is treating him tells me he is not doing anything of substance which I what Apples original complaint was. He is just now seen as the cost of doing business and Apple gets to write this guys costs off their taxes. Just means the government is making less money off Apple.
I’m not as big a fan of humor that makes you mad as some people.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />