or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple at odds with e-book antitrust monitor over $70K per week fee, 'unreasonable' demands
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple at odds with e-book antitrust monitor over $70K per week fee, 'unreasonable' demands

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Apple this week filed an official complaint with a U.S. district court, saying the antitrust compliance monitor tasked with keeping tabs on the company's dealings is requiring excessive pay, over $138,000 for the past two weeks, and is making unreasonable requests outside of his mandated jurisdiction.

Bromwich
Michael Bromwich | Source: ZUMA Press via mnn.com


In July, Apple lost its case against the federal government over e-book price fixing in the iBookstore and was subsequently handed a punishment that was, at the time, considered fairly lenient. Apple is appealing the ruling.

The court restricted Apple from entering unfavorable agreements with book publishers for at least five years, called for staggered iBookstore negotiations and assigned a "compliance monitor" to protect against further price-fixing. Now Apple claims the monitor, former Department of Justice Inspector General and federal prosecutor Michael Bromwich, is overstepping his bounds with a gratuitous fee, which comes out of the company's pockets, and "inappropriate" requests in the name of fact finding.

In a strongly-worded complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York earlier this week, Apple lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. outlines Bromwich's recent activities since he was assigned as a monitor in October.

Michael Bromwich is already operating in an unfettered and inappropriate manner, outside the scope of the Final Judgment, admittedly based on secret communications with the Court, and trampling Apple's rights; the Court's proposal out of the blue to grant him even greater powers as monitor would only make things worse. Since his appointment, Mr. Bromwich has run far afield from his mandate and informed Apple that his fee structure is designed to "generate profits" for himself and the law firm he has retained to make up for the antitrust experience he lacks.


Boutrous is referring to an order from presiding Judge Denise Cote that extends further power to Bromwich by allowing him to interview Apple executives and personnel without the presence of a lawyer. While the nature of the monitor's proposed meetings is unknown, he demanded time with "the very top executives" of the company, including those who do not in any way deal with the daily operations of the iBookstore. One such ask was SVP of Design Jony Ive.

As for Bromwich's pay structure, Apple said it is unconstitutional for the company to be investigated by "an individual whose personal financial interest is for as broad and lengthy an investigation as possible."Bromwich and his team have accrued pay of $138,432 over the past two weeks, almost 75% of what a federal judge makes in a year.

So far, pay stands at $138,432.40 for two weeks of work, which will go to Bromwich and his four-member legal team. Apple points out that the amount accrued is nearly 75 percent of a yearly judicial salary. The monitor has also failed to outline a budget, saying only that he needs to "generate profit."

For his part, Bromwich said he has seen a "surprising and disappointing lack of cooperation" on the part of Apple. In a letter to the company's board of directors, he noted Apple did not provide interviews despite being requested in advance due to unavailability of its senior executives. Bromwich explained the meetings were intended to get a better understanding of the company's compliance framework.

Additionally, Bromwich in a letter to Apple's lawyers explained the required fees are acceptable because his group is not a law firm and thus does not practice law. In comparison to consulting firms, the rates are at the low end. Further, because he is an outside compliance monitor and not Apple counsel, the submission of a budget is not required.

It appears Apple and Bromwich have gotten off to a rocky start, but this is just the beginning of what will likely be a long-term relationship. Unless Apple quickly and successfully concludes its appeal of the court ruling, Bromwich will be on the job for the next two years.

post #2 of 67
Bromwich is probably going to report secrets to Samsung and other Apple competitors.
post #3 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post

Bromwich is probably going to report secrets to Samsung and other Apple competitors.
That's what I'm thinking. I'm totally for Apple on this one, they did absolutely nothing. Hope this guy has an iPad, Mac, or iPhone, maybe apple'll shut it down for him same with that stinking judge. Samsung never gets in trouble for everything, but Apple, the one company that is actually trying to be a "good force in the world" always is. The judge stinks, this guy stinks, if I were apple, I'd just shut down their iPhones and say oops, technical error, we can't fix it... Sorry! Go Apple!
post #4 of 67

Just another scumbag lawyer...

 

"$138,432 over the past two weeks... the submission of a budget is not required."

 

Yup, this guys is just making shit up as he goes. I would not be surprised he has ties to the judge.

post #5 of 67
I'd like to compare Apple's costs with Microsoft's during their lengthy monopoly monitoring. I'm sure someone was monitoring Microsoft and since their finding was much larger in scope, I'd think there would be more people assigned to monitoring them. Oh, wait, the US government owns it's computing existence to Microsoft so they probably got a free ride.

Apple needs to push for a quicker appeal and when they win, I'm looking at Apple suing this jerk for everything he has. One of these days someone will also go after the legal system in this country, exposing all the payments these judges get on the side. Then they'll need to go after Amazon and expose all their anti-competitive operations and discover how much they are paying off the government and judges.

Of course Apple could just tell the government to stick it and move all their operations off-shore, not sell anything to Americans and see how long these judges and government agencies last before citizens vote them out of office.
post #6 of 67

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

post #7 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person - which is frankly not that bad for high-end lawyers.

I don't care. Did the judge assign the monitoring to Bromwich or to his bogus company? I believe it was only to him. How much did Apple make on this supposed violation? From the look of his bill, Bromwich will surpass any profits Apple made in short order. 

post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

I don't care if it's considered "reasonable." This entire episode is a government-sanctioned shakedown. I'd be in favor of Apple moving their data centers outside the US...Canada and Mexico, anyone?...to get beyond the clutches of our insane, out of control politicians.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post
 

I don't care. Did the judge assign the monitoring to Bromwich or to his bogus company? I believe it was only to him. How much did Apple make on this supposed violation? From the look of his bill, Bromwich will surpass any profits Apple made in short order. 

If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job - declining interviews at times without giving any reasons, failing to provide documents he asks for, and in several cases ignoring his queries entirely. Whether that's intentional or just due to Apple's corporate culture in some way, it's still a problem that's going to cost Apple a boatload of cash. If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor. Ignoring him will only end in disaster and bigger charges.

 

I'd actually recommend reading the documents involved (http://allthingsd.com/20131129/apple-doesnt-want-to-pay-the-feds-e-book-lawyer-70000-a-week/ ) - they're very interesting on both sides.

post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job - declining interviews at times without giving any reasons, failing to provide documents he asks for, and in several cases ignoring his queries entirely. Whether that's intentional or just due to Apple's corporate culture in some way, it's still a problem that's going to cost Apple a boatload of cash. If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor. Ignoring him will only end in disaster and bigger charges.

I'd actually recommend reading the documents involved (http://allthingsd.com/20131129/apple-doesnt-want-to-pay-the-feds-e-book-lawyer-70000-a-week/ ) - they're very interesting on both sides.

Apple is busy. Tim Cook and Jony Ive are in meetings, designing new products, etc. They're not the guy's slave, the Judge never said they had to submit to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I don't care if it's considered "reasonable." This entire episode is a government-sanctioned shakedown. I'd be in favor of Apple moving their data centers outside the US...Canada and Mexico, anyone?...to get beyond the clutches of our insane, out of control politicians.
I agree 100%, although id miss apple, they should stop ALL sales to Americans for about 1 month and see what happens. They should also make OS X and iOS cease to work in America too, that way, we could get so mad and vote all these stinking politicians out! I AM SICK OF THIS GOVERNMENT. All I've got to say is Obama better intervene and support Apple, otherwise, I'll be mad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I don't care. Did the judge assign the monitoring to Bromwich or to his bogus company? I believe it was only to him. How much did Apple make on this supposed violation? From the look of his bill, Bromwich will surpass any profits Apple made in short order. 
Agreed too. And to be honest, I doubt Apple really did any of that. They are giving Authors the choice to pick their price. And you're telling me Amazon hasn't done any of this? Think again, I bet they have.
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I'd like to compare Apple's costs with Microsoft's during their lengthy monopoly monitoring. I'm sure someone was monitoring Microsoft and since their finding was much larger in scope, I'd think there would be more people assigned to monitoring them. Oh, wait, the US government owns it's computing existence to Microsoft so they probably got a free ride.

Apple needs to push for a quicker appeal and when they win, I'm looking at Apple suing this jerk for everything he has. One of these days someone will also go after the legal system in this country, exposing all the payments these judges get on the side. Then they'll need to go after Amazon and expose all their anti-competitive operations and discover how much they are paying off the government and judges.

Of course Apple could just tell the government to stick it and move all their operations off-shore, not sell anything to Americans and see how long these judges and government agencies last before citizens vote them out of office.
That's what I think they should do too. Yeah, knowing Microsoft, they probably didn't pay a penny.
post #12 of 67
When I first read about Apple's complaint, I wondered why the executives had to be interviewed without legal representation. When reading the interviews would be sent directly to the judge I felt immediate dread that the US government was on a mission to truly wreck Apple by having the confidential interview information "unintentionally" leaked to Apple competitors as well as being used against Apple in the future.

To learn that Bromwich had a legal team assisting him raised a lot of red flags as well. Isn't Apple fighting a patent infringement case now with a lawyer on one of its legal teams? I can see something like this happening with Bromwich.

$138 thousand-plus for two weeks worth of work! In two years this guy would earn north of $13 million!! Talk about being opportunistically greedy.

I am researching Bromwich and his company now and will report my findings. This whole case and punishment wreaks of pockets being lined with payoff money.
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

Six people working 80 hrs each(2 weeks) is 480 man hours. I'd like to see the 480 hours worth of work done here. Aside from that your numbers don't add up at all. 480 hours times $200 an hour is $96,000.
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

When I first read about Apple's complaint, I wondered why the executives had to be interviewed without legal representation. When reading the interviews would be sent directly to the judge I felt immediate dread that the US government was on a mission to truly wreck Apple by having the confidential interview information "unintentionally" leaked to Apple competitors as well as being used against Apple in the future.

To learn that Bromwich had a legal team assisting him raised a lot of red flags as well. Isn't Apple fighting a patent infringement case now with a lawyer on one of its legal teams? I can see something like this happening with Bromwich.

$138 thousand-plus for two weeks worth of work! In two years this guy would earn north of $13 million!! Talk about being opportunistically greedy.

I am researching Bromwich and his company now and will report my findings. This whole case and punishment wreaks of pockets being lined with payoff money.
I agree. I seriously think something's up. The government isn't trying to ruin apple, but bring competitors up to speed with Apple, instead of letting them monopolize the tech world. PM me what you find.
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

Actually, no it's not. Read the submission to the court. This scam-artist plainly states he's billing for 1,100.00$ per hour for himself, and another 1,025.00$ per hour for his support staff, which he's hired from another law firm because he admits he has no antitrust experience (I'm not clear on whether that's 1025 per person, or 1025 for all five, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt). Then on top of that, he's claiming he deserves another 15% as an "administrative charge" on all the billed fees. He's also flatly refusing to justify any of those fees, only claiming he needs to "generate a profit" for himself and his firm.

 

So, that's 2,125.00$ plus 15% for a total of 2,443.75$ per hour he's billing to do his "job".

 

At the very best, that's at least ~407$ per hour per person (a much more than reasonable fee), if and only of the fee is being split evenly between six practicing lawyers (and none of them are just paralegals or administrative assistants, which would command much lower billing rates). But that's not the case, as he states outright his personal fee is 1100$+15% (1265.00$) per hour. And he has to hire the additional outside help in the first place because he admits he doesn't have the experience to do the job himself (which begs the question of how he was appointed to this role at all - you gotta' raise an eyebrow to that, no?).

 

Doing the math, at ~138K for two weeks, he's actually only billing for about 56-ish hours of time for each of the six persons in his 'team' - but the final kicker is (again, according to the court documents), because the court-appointed three month window for establishing a new "anti-trust compliance program" hasn't closed, there's nothing he's even supposed to be doing yet in support of the court order (despite his apparent witch-hunt aspirations). So really, he shouldn't be billing for anything at all yet, never mind for 336 man-hours of questionable "work".

 

(Correct me if I did any of the math wrong. :))

post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

 

No, attorney "billable hours" are not split among a team. Each person who makes up an hour of work (heavily padded), bills for an hour. In this case, $1,100 per hour plus "handing." This is pure horseshit. 

post #17 of 67
This is worst than any other governments on the planet, communist or socialist. You call this American justice, I hope the other branch of government will do an investigation on this. Our founding father had a check and balance system built for us, just wish they will nail down Amazon and the DOJ
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job


You mean his job which is to start reviewing documents and/or interviewing Apple personnel on 14 January?
Quote:
declining interviews at times without giving any reasons,
No interviews were declined. Apple simple stated that they could not arrange the interviews on such short notice and at the time he requested. ("Mr. Bromwich also again sought to interview the new Antitrust Compliance Officer, even though the day of the interviews was literally her first day on the job")
Quote:
If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor.
They diid explain to him why they couldn't. But he didn't care.

This is what the filing is all about.

He seems to think he can do anything he wants, charge Apple any fee he wants he wants and discuss anything with anyone at Apple and with the judge, with no counsel available and no record of these discussions.
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person


No it's not.
His hourly rate is $1100 and his "legal team's" rate is is $1025. All this is per person per hour..
Quote:
, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.
But he is not acting as a private lawyer. He is acting as an independent auditor/monitor for the court (i.e. a public servant)

Edited by Chris_CA - 11/29/13 at 6:00pm
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

 

Oh, only $200.00 an hour!  That level of pay for that kind of work is so unreasonably undervalued!   How can they possibly manage to live on $200 an hour?!  Must be because of all the workplace insurance needed to coverage workplace injuries like paper cuts.  At those paltry rates and sweatshop-like working conditions, they should strike!

 

That makes it so much different considering people are working harder, for much much much less.  

 

This news is an absolute obscenity.  People who do real work in crap jobs with crap bosses get squat.  But those at the top like the judge?  Well, she just throws highly-overpaid work to friends that look just like her and run in the same elevated hoity-toity circles to save each other from ECONOMIC REALITY the rest of us live in.

 

Sickest part?  We, the consumers end up paying for these parasites, both in terms of taxes as well as Apple passing the costs of the "monitor" eventually to us when at the time of purchase.

 

FFS, the world is a sh*thole filled with idiots with degrees thinking they're actually intelligent when all they are is an explosion of parasites...

 

Only $200 an hour... ffs


Edited by patrickwalker - 11/29/13 at 5:41pm
post #21 of 67
Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

 

he's actually only billing for about 56-ish hours of time for each of the six persons in his 'team' - but the final kicker is (again, according to the court documents), because the court-appointed three month window for establishing a new "anti-trust compliance program" hasn't closed, there's nothing he's even supposed to be doing yet in support of the court order (despite his apparent witch-hunt aspirations). So really, he shouldn't be billing for anything at all yet, never mind for 336 man-hours of questionable "work".

 

(Correct me if I did any of the math wrong. :))

 

I guarantee you those "hours" are inflated by a factor of at least 2.

post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

If Apple cooperated with him as much as possible, their bill would be all the smaller. Reading the actual letters here involved here, it sounds like Apple have made it very hard for him to do his job - declining interviews at times without giving any reasons, failing to provide documents he asks for, and in several cases ignoring his queries entirely. Whether that's intentional or just due to Apple's corporate culture in some way, it's still a problem that's going to cost Apple a boatload of cash. If they can't manage an interview with a particular person on a particular date, they *need* to be explaining why to the court-appointed monitor. Ignoring him will only end in disaster and bigger charges.

 

I'd actually recommend reading the documents involved (http://allthingsd.com/20131129/apple-doesnt-want-to-pay-the-feds-e-book-lawyer-70000-a-week/ ) - they're very interesting on both sides.

If Apple had cooperated with the guy I believe the fees wold be more than $300k easily and after 2 years he could easily have made a few millions if not tens of millions.

 

Just imagine without interviewing any of Apple's employee his fees are already plus $130k and if he included in the many hours spend interviewing them I believe the fees wouldn't be lesser but much higher.

 

Judging from his mercenary attitude he is milking the opportunity for all its worth.

 

This guy is just a greedy opportunistic SOB low life.


Edited by AdamC - 11/29/13 at 6:09pm
post #23 of 67
Quite unbelievable. What a pair of arrogant twits.

Land of the free. Indeed. /s
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Quite unbelievable. What a pair of arrogant twits.
Which pair are you referring to?
post #25 of 67
Why is it even a full time job? Shouldn't it just be that, whenever Apple makes a new agreement with a book publisher, it has to be sent off for review?
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Why is it even a full time job? Shouldn't it just be that, whenever Apple makes a new agreement with a book publisher, it has to be sent off for review?

Bingo.
post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickwalker View Post

Oh, only $200.00 an hour!  That level of pay for that kind of work is so unreasonably undervalued!   How can they possibly manage to live on $200 an hour?!  Must be because of all the workplace insurance needed to coverage workplace injuries like paper cuts.  At those paltry rates and sweatshop-like working conditions, they should strike!

That makes it so much different considering people are working harder, for much much much less.  

This news is an absolute obscenity.  People who do real work in crap jobs with crap bosses get squat.  But those at the top like the judge?  Well, she just throws highly-overpaid work to friends that look just like her and run in the same elevated hoity-toity circles to save each other from ECONOMIC REALITY the rest of us live in.

Sickest part?  We, the consumers end up paying for these parasites, both in terms of taxes as well as Apple passing the costs of the "monitor" eventually to us when at the time of purchase.

FFS, the world is a sh*thole filled with idiots with degrees thinking they're actually intelligent when all they are is an explosion of parasites...

Only $200 an hour... ffs

$200 an hour is about average for an attorney. The law firm appointed to monitor Detroit's spending while it goes through bankruptcy gets $600 an hour.

Keep in mind however that the hourly rate also has to cover paying for the Office expenses.

The issue here is not the hourly rate. It is the scope of the investigation. As another person pointed out, all that should be happening here is Apple sends the monitor publisher contracts for review. Why does the monitor have to interview anybody?

Moreover, it sounds like the monitor is unqualified to do his job if he has to hire a law firm to advise him.
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Quote:
Quite unbelievable. What a pair of arrogant twits.
Which pair are you referring to?

How about you play a guessing game.... with yourself.
post #30 of 67
The court appointed monitor is not versed in antitrust law. And is demanding Apple pay for lawyers to do the work for him

Then why is he there. Apple needs to not pay him, not go along with his games and file to shut him down. Supreme Court if needed.

This whole thing is nutty to begin with but this is just obscene

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

The court ordered Apple to allow A MONITOR, not a team. If he doesn't know the laws he should be monitoring then the court shouldn't have put him there.

And it seems he's harassing folks to be interviewed that have nothing to do with the issue to inflate hours and bill more. Bad form

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

The court appointed monitor is not versed in antitrust law. And is demanding Apple pay for lawyers to do the work for him

Then why is he there. Apple needs to not pay him, not go along with his games and file to shut him down. Supreme Court if needed.

This whole thing is nutty to begin with but this is just obscene

 

Why is Apple basically force to subsidize this guy?  If he has to hire outside people, why didn't Judge Cote assign *them* in the first place? 

 

Because the system is a scam.  Lawyers taking care of each other.


This is why people outside of the law industry (and that's what it is though some would actually call it a scam) just can't fathom this.  Logic is perverted.  Optics inside are so very different and they call come off as tone-deaf.  They live in a kind of Matrix or something...

post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Yes except the judge appointed one person not a team. Further it seems odd the judge would appoint a person who is not a lawyer and who lacks anti-trust experience.

 

Also the appointment is due to start 90 days from the date of the judgement after Apple has had time to put various court ordered recommendations in place, so this guy has jumped the gun somewhat.

 

He seems to be attempting to gather evidence for ongoing damages trials related to the case, to report anything he digs up secretly to the court who can release the information publicly, he is possibly acting at the behest of the judge contrary to the judgement she handed down which she apparently amended without telling Apple.

 

In other words the railroading continues, the kangaroo court is not done yet.

 

The United States has a constitution which is meant to prevent the judiciary acting in such a way and Apple is understandably pissed off and has every right to take this whole sham higher.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post

Before people jump all over the lawyer for his fee, bear in mind that's split between six people. That's an hourly rate of under $200 per person, which makes it 12.5% of what a judge makes in a year. Lawyers are a much more highly paid profession than judges - this sort of fee really isn't that bad compared to what it would cost Apple to hire six separate lawyers.

Under $200 per hour... Reasonable.... These things don't go together. This is just more top 5% of society crap again. There's zero justification for such high pay.
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


How about you play a guessing game.... with yourself.

Okay.

No idea why you think  Apple is being arrogant in this case.

 

Don't understand why people need to get so defensive & juvenile when posting here.

post #36 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
 

Okay.

No idea why you think  Apple is being arrogant in this case.

 

Don't understand why people need to get so defensive & juvenile when posting here.

I had no intention of being defensive.

 

To the contrary, I thought you were being needlessly sarcastic, since I felt it was rather obvious that I was referring to Bromwich and Cote.

 

But apparently, that was not so obvious....

post #37 of 67

Okay. I agree with your comment.

 

I was unsure of who you were referring to since the article is about Apple & Bromwich and others are mentioned as an aside.

post #38 of 67
Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to read the entire Compliance Monitor Brief from the court.

I"m looking for the passage that I read a couple of days ago, that allows the court appointed monitor (Bromwich) to not only be allowed to interview any and all employees, including executives, without an attorney present... BUT... here's the kicker, can also make those interviews public at any time of his or the court's choosing.

This comes down to this:

Bromwich to Sir Jony: "So what are you working on right now?"
Sir Jony: "None of your fuggin' business ya wanker!"
Bromwich: "Contempt of court charges on the way unless ya tell".
Sir Jony: "Bollocks... ok then... an iWatch".

Media headlines within a week: "Sir Jony Ives of Apple Admits to Apple iWatch in the Works" subhead "Says Court Appointed Bromwich"

AFAIK, that very scenario is allowed by the mandate... and is thoroughly F****ED UP!!!!

Please, someone tell me that I'm interpreting this wrong....1oyvey.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #39 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In a strongly-worded complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York earlier this week, Apple lawyer Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. outlines Bromwich's recent activities since he was assigned as a monitor in October.
 

Michael Bromwich is already operating in an unfettered and inappropriate manner, outside the scope of the Final Judgment, admittedly based on secret communications with the Court, and trampling Apple's rights; the Court's proposal out of the blue to grant him even greater powers as monitor would only make things worse. Since his appointment, Mr. Bromwich has run far afield from his mandate and informed Apple that his fee structure is designed to "generate profits" for himself and the law firm he has retained to make up for the antitrust experience he lacks.


Boutrous is referring to an order from presiding Judge Denise Cote that extends further power to Bromwich by allowing him to interview Apple executives and personnel without the presence of a lawyer. While the nature of the monitor's proposed meetings is unknown, he demanded time with "the very top executives" of the company, including those who do not in any way deal with the daily operations of the iBookstore. One such ask was SVP of Design Jony Ive.
 

 

Make no mistakes : Given his resume (FBI, DOJ, CIA) Bromwich is not there to ensure antitrust compliance when Apple resells PDF files. He is here to strong-arm Apple to provide US intelligence an unfettered backdoor in Apple's too-secure ecosystem.

 

Because Apple's sin is to have built, for its customers, the most secure ecosystem in history of computing.

 

Just think for 5 min. about their ecosystem, that is Apple ID, iCloud, content Stores, device activation, etc.:

 

 1. It was designed from the ground up and largely post 9/11.  That is at at time where any computer scientist could see the surveillance state coming.  And Apple's infrastructure architects, those that designed iCloud, Apple ID, App Stores, iOS locking & activation, etc. certainly did.  And they took this threat into account while designing the ecosystem's architecture.

 

 2. It is based on strong and proven secure technologies: E.g. Kerberos on the SW side and A7's secure enclaves on the HW side.

 

 3. It really has customer's privacy and security at its first and top design goal.  Just think about this summer's story on the FBI complaining about not being able to break into iMessage.  iMessage was designed this way, with public-keys encryption at it core, at a time everybody knew that RIM/BlackBerry was in bed with the US gov.

 

 4. It has not been broken to date.  An no, jailbreaking does not count as a breach in the ecosystem: It is just about getting back some control on devices, not about breaking into Apple's iCloud, IDs, and Stores.

 

My guess is that Apple designed all their infrastructure from the ground up such that they were (1) complying with the law, including NSLs. But at the same time (2) make it sure that they would not be in a position to be forced, even by NSLs, to be able to snoop on users's data.

 

Now, all this antitrust thing is designed from the ground up to make it clear to Apple's management that they have no choice but to bent. This is plain bullying, as in The Godfather of fame:

 

 a. Ask your target politely first, just to confirm that they will turn you down. I assume that the NSA and Apple had had the following conversations several times:

 

     NSA: "Could you please provides us access to Mr X's data/device [or private key, or remote access, or whatever] ?"

 

     Apple: "Sorry sir, we would like to help but, due to the way our system is built, what you are asking for is out of our reach because of [Insert perfectly good technical reason that is not violating the letter of Patriot Act]"

 

 b. Meet with one of your enemy and offer him protection if he teams against you.  Let this meetings leaks enough for the target to be ware of it.  Now some of you may remember that it has been documented that the DOJ met with Amazon, the real monopolist at the time and now, prior to filling for anti-trust on ebooks.

 

 c. Set up a trap.  The trap was the constructed anti-trust trial on ebooks.  The whole case was so ludicrous that the DOJ knew for sure that Apple would not settle on such a joke.

 

 d. Once trapped, get your hands around your target's neck and make him slowly suffocate until he whisper and recon who's the boss. That last step started a couple of weeks ago, when the so-called monitor showed up at Apple HQ.  I guess it went like this:

 

    Antirust Monitor: "Could I see Sir Jonathan Ive please? I kind of recall he is with the industrial design department."

​    Receptionist: "Do you have an appointment?"

    Antirust Monitor: "No, but I do not need one. Just show him my business card."

    Receptionist: [Trying to figure out how to reach Apple's head of security without visitor noticing].

    Antirust Monitor: "By the way, is Mr Cook at the office today?"

    Receptionist: [thinking "What the hell is this all about?!?"].

 

So it might turns out that the surveillance state put in place by the US after 9/11 might be fought by a corporation and not the civil liberty organization as one would expect.

 

The outcome of all this antitrust joke is far more reaching than it looks...

post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

No, attorney "billable hours" are not split among a team. Each person who makes up an hour of work (heavily padded), bills for an hour. In this case, $1,100 per hour plus "handing." This is pure horseshit. 

The guy doesn't realize that he's outside of Washington DC and he's not billing the government, but a profit-conscious corporation.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple at odds with e-book antitrust monitor over $70K per week fee, 'unreasonable' demands