or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple request to remove e-books antitrust monitor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge denies Apple request to remove e-books antitrust monitor

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Apple on Monday was denied its motion to remove a court-appointed antitrust monitor tasked to ensure the company would not enter into further illegal agreements after being found culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme last year.

iBooks


In a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote blocked the motion to remove Michael Bromwich from his post, saying there was "nothing improper" about the monitor's recently filed declaration, reports Reuters. Apple cited the filing as grounds for dismissal, claiming it suggested personal bias against the company.

"I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple," Judge Cote said.

The jurist's full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.

Monday's determination is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Apple and Bromwich. The parties' relationship has been strained almost since the start of the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment.

As seen in multiple court filings, Apple takes issue with how Bromwich is handling his monitorship, including what the company feels is an overstepping of boundaries, exorbitant fees and conducting a "roving" investigation.

For his part, Bromwich claims Apple has been less than cooperative in furnishing employee interviews and deemed-necessary documentation in a timely manner. Both complaints were outlined in detail in the ECM's December declaration.

Bromwich was vetted and selected by Judge Cote to monitor Apple after she found the company to have conspired in falsely inflating the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.

After Judge Cote's decision is officially filed, Apple has 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from a federal appeal court.
post #2 of 48
"for Apple"? Let's try "against Apple". Or "succeed in putting Apple out of business so my Google stock goes up."
post #3 of 48
This is illegal. How can the judge that appointed Michael Bromwich make the decision the second time? The US Judicial system is fully corrupted.
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The jurist's full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.

They don't mock around, these Apple lawyers.

I thought Apples reasoning was fair. Apparently the jury thought otherwise...?
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #5 of 48
A judge other than Cote making that decision would have been a nice idea.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

They don't mock around, these Apple lawyers.

I thought Apples reasoning was fair. Apparently the jury thought otherwise...?

Jurist, not jury. 1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 48
What is DOJs beef w Apple? Seems personal and should not be allowed. Someone at DOJ needs to be removed. Who do they report to? How does this get overruled?

And all to support the poor defenseless Amazon book monopoly. Amazing.
post #8 of 48

Not unexpected given the judge's previous comments about Apple during the case. My guess is that the brief was written primarily for the appellate court.

post #9 of 48
The judge works for the US government. Do the math.
post #10 of 48
Cote is real piece of work. She's really pushing the envelope. Looks like she's going to go out either in a blaze of glory or in ignominy.

I think I know which one. 1cool.gif
post #11 of 48
I sure wish I was Cote's buddy. $1,100/hour? Seriously? Plus 15% in fees? This is just as contemptible as Chris Christie's behavior. Both belong in jail, end of story. Regardless of the validity of the case against Apple, this is someone using her position of power to generate huge profits for her and her friends. Despicable.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A judge other than Cote making that decision would have been a nice idea.

 

I presume they could file for an appeal or review with the next higher court?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #13 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple on Monday was denied its motion to remove a court-appointed antitrust monitor tasked to ensure the company would not enter into further illegal agreements after being found culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme last year.

iBooks


In a hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote blocked the motion to remove Michael Bromwich from his post, saying there was "nothing improper" about the monitor's recently filed declaration, reports Reuters. Apple cited the filing as grounds for dismissal, claiming it suggested personal bias against the company.

"I want the monitorship to succeed for Apple," Judge Cote said.

The jurist's full decision will be made available when she issues a decision later today. Apple counsel has already promised the ruling will be appealed.

Monday's determination is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Apple and Bromwich. The parties' relationship has been strained almost since the start of the former Justice Department Inspector General's assignment.

As seen in multiple court filings, Apple takes issue with how Bromwich is handling his monitorship, including what the company feels is an overstepping of boundaries, exorbitant fees and conducting a "roving" investigation.

For his part, Bromwich claims Apple has been less than cooperative in furnishing employee interviews and deemed-necessary documentation in a timely manner. Both complaints were outlined in detail in the ECM's December declaration.

Bromwich was vetted and selected by Judge Cote to monitor Apple after she found the company to have conspired in falsely inflating the price of e-books sold through the iBookstore.

After Judge Cote's decision is officially filed, Apple has 48 hours to seek an emergency stay from a federal appeal court.
post #14 of 48
Any appeal should be funneled to a neutral, superior panel of judges, not the one who appointed the Special Master.
post #15 of 48
Cote and Bromwich are cronies. Of course she would do this.

The best decision would have been to hire the lawyer that Bromwich hired in the first place to do his job.

Apple's best step is to videotape every meeting with Bromwich. This is to make sure Bromwich is aware that his every move is also being investigated.
post #16 of 48
Read between the lines: Cote probably gets a "finders" fee from Bromwich. Why would she stop her money train.
post #17 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post


Apple's best step is to videotape every meeting with Bromwich. This is to make sure Bromwich is aware that his every move is also being investigated.

Who still uses videotape? 1smile.gif
post #18 of 48
1smile.gif in all fairness, and I think the whole issue here is supposedly fairness, shouldn't every other publisher and reseller combo be required to meet the same conditions. Otherwise, this is plainly anticompetitive, discriminatory and not just a little bit bullying.

Pretty sure this wouldn't happen under Australian law, where we have an independent watchdog (with teeth).
post #19 of 48
Apple does not understand that the DOJ desires the company to support a multi $Billion lobby network in DC to employ lawyers "friendly" with the government.

Perhaps it is time for Apple to set up corporate offices in Taiwan or Singapore. Heck, that's where most of their product is manufactured.
post #20 of 48
Wow, I want to be a monitor. I could retire in a year with the dough Bromwich pulls in.
post #21 of 48
In the mean time, Amazon is back to 90% market share. Yay, govt enabled monopoly. 1frown.gif
post #22 of 48
Thanks, AI, for not reusing that overused photo of Ben Bernanke with this article. 1wink.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

In the mean time, Amazon is back to 90% market share. Yay, govt enabled monopoly. 1frown.gif

Apple got off easy.   The judge should have kicked them out of the eBook market for a few years.

post #24 of 48

This case is just bizarre. The judge is really pushing it. I wonder when the case will be presented before a different judge? The appeal?

 

Also came across this article last night.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/

 

It seriously is just bananas. The person from the DOJ that pushed the case forward now works at a law firm that considers Amazon one of their clients. The judge hires a friend of hers to monitor Apple months before new policies were to be in effect and wanted to have ex parte meetings with said friend. The monitor double dipping while not having the required experience. I just can't wrap my head around the stupidity involved with this case.

post #25 of 48
Recommended by Bryan Chaffin of Mac Observer

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/
post #26 of 48
The only surprise here is... No surprise at all. The money trails for the DOJ lawyers, Cote and Bromwich are already being seen. They and Amazon are striving to be the winners.
post #27 of 48
The lawyers knew this would be the result. Just like Cote has refused all appeals etc.

But it's the rules of the game. Now they can go up the ladder without higher authorities auto kicking it because they didn't properly appeal to the original court
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post

Apple got off easy.   The judge should have kicked them out of the eBook market for a few years.

Clearly, the solution to a lack of competition in ebooks is to ban competition.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


Clearly, the solution to a lack of competition in ebooks is to ban competition.

Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post
 

Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

 

I don't know if you're trolling but try reading this article.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/

 

Apple didn't care about the pricing as long as it was a level playing field. Amazon doesn't play on level playing field.

post #31 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post

Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

Of course you would. Only Apple deserves competition, but not Amazon and not Google. That's the tech troll meme.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #32 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

I don't know if you're trolling but try reading this article.

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/

Apple didn't care about the pricing as long as it was a level playing field. Amazon doesn't play on level playing field.
Simple, buy from Amazon and make them bk
post #33 of 48
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post
Apple got off easy.   The judge should have kicked them out of the eBook market for a few years.

 

Well, you don’t understand what’s going on. 

 

Originally Posted by K2kW View Post
Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

 

Maybe don’t spew lies if you want to be listened to?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #34 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post
 

Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

 

You object to the claimed "colluding" that would ensure that the pricing from Apple was less than or equal to the pricing from Amazon while still allowing Apple (and Amazon) to make a comfortable profit margin?

 

Let's see, as of today (January 14, 2014), a selection of eBook prices from the Apple iBooks store and Amazon Kindle store. There some current NYT best sellers, some random books that just showed up on one place or another (and I could find on both), and some old (and some very old) titles I'm personally familiar with.

 

So ... Really? Going with Amazon on the basis of price?

 

Yes, I'm so relieved that poor little Amazon's [effective] monopoly was subsidized by the US taxpayer (thank you DoJ). That Amazon pricing looks so much better than iBooks pricing. :no:

/s

 

NY Times Best Sellers

The Goldfinch 10.99 14.04
Sycamore Row 9.99 13.75
Hazardous Duty 12.99 17.22
The First Phone Call From Heaven 8.99 16.77
Command Authority 5.99 17.22
Doctor Sleep 14.99 19.38
Cross My Heart 7.99 14.04

 

On average, these iBooks are 36% less expensive than the Kindle counterparts.

 

Random Selection (no criteria)

Fear Nothing 12.99 17.22
Switchblade 0.99 0.93
First Love 12.99 12.16
Lone Survivor 5.99 7.48
King and Maxwell 8.99 14.04

 

iBooks is again cheaper by an average of 19% here.

 

Older Books (years to decades since first publication)

Krondor the Betrayal 6.99 8.38
The Sword of Shannara 7.99 9.52
Star Soldiers 0.00 0.00
Wizard’s Worlds 3.99 0.96
Moonsinger 6.99 5.65
Fire Sea 7.99 9.51
Serpent Mage 7.99 9.51

 

Go figure, even with a fire sale from Amazon on a collection of short stories first published about 25 years ago, iBooks still comes out less expensive on average.

post #35 of 48
Wow, shocker, the judge that put the guy in place to begin with upheld her own decision. Who didn't see that one coming?

Our justice system is a sad joke.
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post
 

Then Apple shouldn't have colluded with publishers.   I'll take Amazon with their cheaper books.

 

Really?

 

eBooks cost less once Apple entered the market and made it more competitive, don't you mean Amazon's more expensive books?

 

Quote:
Every year, the “Library & Book Trade Almanac,” an authority in the field, reports annual sales by book category. It 2008, when Amazon had a lock on the market, it reported that the average price of an adult fiction e-book in the U.S. in was $8.71. In 2009, as more people self-published books, the average dropped to $8.21. In 2010, when Apple introduced its agency model for e-books, the price dropped 14 percent to $7.06. And when publishers were up and running against Amazon in 2011, the average price of an e-book sank by an astonishing 32 percent — to $4.83. “That’s a steal,” said Al Greco, a professor of marketing at Fordham University. 

 

Source.

 

This kangaroo court is as bogus as your posts.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #37 of 48

What will probably happen is apple will need to assign their own lawyer to follow this guy around and when he talks to people they will have to advise them on how to answer the questions. From the sounds of it this guys is out fishing and looking for other things and he is probably very good at asking questions which do not have a good answer no matter how you answers, they are design to incriminate you and the company.


Edited by Maestro64 - 1/14/14 at 9:25am
post #38 of 48

Jury ≠ jurist

post #39 of 48
So, if any business model where the seller earns a % of the retail price is considered price fixing, there are a lot of guilty parties out there. Pretty much anyone who earns commission.
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque View Post

So, if any business model where the seller earns a % of the retail price is considered price fixing, there are a lot of guilty parties out there. Pretty much anyone who earns commission.

You're not even close to what this was about. Earning a percentage of sales is perfectly acceptable and has been.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge denies Apple request to remove e-books antitrust monitor