or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge explains denial of request to remove e-book antitrust monitor in lengthy court filing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge explains denial of request to remove e-book antitrust monitor in lengthy court filing

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
District Court Judge Denise Cote on Thursday filed an opinion and order detailing the reasoning behind her denial of Apple's request to remove an external antitrust compliance monitor, saying many of the arguments the company made are now moot.

Summation
Apple's closing slide in its e-book antitrust case. | Source: U.S. District Court


In the 64-page document, Judge Cote offers an exhaustive opinion on her order to deny Apple's motion to remove court-appointed antitrust compliance monitor Michael Bromwich. With the filing, the jurist fulfills a promise made on Monday to explain the reasoning behind her decision.

From Judge Cote's opinion and order:

In brief, many of the arguments which Apple once made (and is no longer pursuing) have been waived or are moot. In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction. Finally, there has been no showing that the Monitor should be disqualified or that Apple will suffer irreparable harm. For these and all of the other reasons stated herein, Apple's request for a stay is denied.


The lengthy filing begins with an in-depth background of the situation, which describes a continual locking of horns between Apple and Bromwich. Troubles began almost immediately after the ECM -- tasked with ensuring Apple does not engage in further illegal price fixing activities -- was appointed to the monitorship in October.

Bromwich's assigned task is a direct result of Judge Cote's ruling that found Apple culpable in an e-book price fixing scheme played out through the iBookstore.

Thursday's filing gives a run down of Apple's main complaints. The company takes issue with Bromwich's fee structure, which will cost millions of dollars over the ECM's tenure; his allegedly "unconstitutional" wide-roving inspection of current operations; and an overstepping of bounds in demanding interviews with top Apple executives and board members who play no role in day-to-day operations, especially those dealing with the iBookstore.

Apple formally aired its grievances to the court in a number of filings, to which Bromwich filed his own declaration rebutting the claims. Further, the monitor noted a distinct lack of willingness to participate on the part of Apple. This, Apple claimed, was grounds for dismissal as it brought Bromwich's impartiality into question.

Judge Cote's take on the situation:

The deterioration of the relationship between Apple and the Monitor is unfortunate and disappointing. Hopefully, that relationship can be "reset" and placed on a productive course. But it is strongly in the public's interest for the Monitor to remain in place. A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple.


Judge Cote thus denies Apple's request to remove Bromwich and, subsequently, the company's motion to suspend her initial injunction ruling.

To appeal today's order, Apple must file a motion to stay with the Second Circuit by Saturday.

post #2 of 35
Brilliant slide!
"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 #3 of 35
She forgot to mention that 'the monitor' is also a personal friend of hers that she has a history of looking after.


Edited by GTR - 1/16/14 at 3:33pm
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #4 of 35
Quote:
"A monitorship ... is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple."

Um, I am a member of the "American public" and I don't find this to be in my interest in any way whatsoever.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #5 of 35
Quote:
"A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple."

Meaning:
"A monitorship which succeeds in confirming the existence of a genuine and effective antitrust compliance program within Apple, is in the interest of not only my good friend Mr. Bromwich, but also Amazon."
post #6 of 35
"That's just...like...your opinion, man."

Cote needs to go. Time to start a letter-writing campaign against this abuse of power.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post
 

Um, I am a member of the "American public" and I don't find this to be in my interest in any way whatsoever.

Makes two of us (and probably a whole lot more!).

post #8 of 35
What i wonder is how is this:
So many people hate Apple. These people typically love Google. Google has tonnes of money and their hands in many pies. How are they not continually in trouble with the u.s. government?
post #9 of 35

What is a monitor supposed to accomplish other than slow down innovation and snoop?

 

The iBooks store thing was a one-time affair that was agreed to separately, with little negotiation or communication involved, between Apple and several desperate, ravaged publishers in less than a month's time over the biggest holiday period of the year (Xmas and New Year's).

 

So much for freedom.

post #10 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

What i wonder is how is this:
So many people hate Apple. These people typically love Google. Google has tonnes of money and their hands in many pies. How are they not continually in trouble with the u.s. government?

Government lobbying

post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

What i wonder is how is this:
So many people hate Apple. These people typically love Google. Google has tonnes of money and their hands in many pies. How are they not continually in trouble with the u.s. government?

 

I don't know if you've noticed it, but it isn't just the U. S. government.

 

Apple cops it from EVERYBODY.

 

Disrupt a lot of industries with your regularly successful, well-thought out, easy-to-use, consumer-orientated technology, which also takes the money away from multiple industries, and you make a LOT of enemies. Enemies who will not hesitate to smear you as much as possible in order to return the status quo of looking after profits instead of customers.

 

It also never helps to have the world know that your success has generated billions of dollars which are sitting in banks somewhere. That one really tends to bring out the parasites.


Edited by GTR - 1/16/14 at 5:16pm
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #12 of 35
Her opinion! What kind of judgement is that!
iMac i7
Reply
iMac i7
Reply
post #13 of 35
Cote to Apple: it's my opinion my personal friend...errr...my choice of monitor should continue to operate freely at Apple for the benefit of Amazon...um...the American people. The fees he is charging Apple is just as I get a cut...uh....as it is consistent to the amount Amazon pays me...I mean...the amount other violators have paid us...um...him.
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

I don't know if you've noticed it, but it isn't just the U. S. government.

Apple cops it from EVERYBODY
.


Disrupt a lot of industries with your regularly successful well-thought, easy to use, consumer-orientated technology, which also takes the money away from multiple industries, and you make a LOT of enemies. Enemies who will not hesitates to smear you as much as possible in order to return the status quo of looking after profits instead of customers.

It also never helps to have the world know how your success has generated billions of dollars which are sitting in banks somewhere.

That one really tends to bring out the parasites.

Considering how slow certain groups of people are to change they were probably betting against Apple at every turn and have lost huge amounts by 1) investing in their dying or now dead rivals, and 2) directly betting against Apple to succeed.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #15 of 35
Those who'd like to see how lawyers regard Judge Denise Cole should turn to a rating site:

http://www.therobingroom.com/RatingListing.aspx?ID=1403

Her ratings from 2008 and earlier seem fairly good on a 10-point scale where 1 is "awful." There there's a spat of back scores in 2009, followed by a return to normal in 2010.

Now pay particularly attention to her ratings from 2011 to the present. Discarding a bizarre 10 outlier (perhaps by friend Bromwich), her scores are terrible.

Thirty 1s (remember 1 means "awful")
Five 2s
One 3
One 5
Nothing higher except for that bizarre, almost all 10 rating.

And her bad ratings over the entire time are in areas that are obvious in this dispute with Apple. They are in:

Temperament
Evenhandedness in civil litigation
Flexibility
Involvement in discussions

Read the comments from lawyers and you'll see she regarded as a judge who makes up her mind before trials, typically favors the plaintiff (here the DOJ) and refuses to listen to contrary evidence during the trial.

In short Apple's lawyers don't like her for the same reason most of the lawyers who appear before her don't like her. (Even the winning side may fear being on the losing side in a different case.) It's just that this case, being Apple v. DOJ, gets more press than the host of smaller cases she's decided badly.

She is in her late, sixties, so the good news is that she'll probably be off the bench soon, perhaps eased into retirement. You can almost pity her. Her last big case, her swan song, isn't going well. On the other hand, if you want to be well-regarded, don't create a conflict of interest by appointing a friend who is billing huge fees but has no expertise in this area of law.
post #16 of 35
This is all needed at this point, right? This is the final step needed so that Apple can appeal, right? So a higher court can then (hopefully) say Cote overstepped and either correct that or throw it out, right?
post #17 of 35
She's on the take period. What do you all think 60/40.
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post
 
Quote:
"A monitorship ... is in the interest of not only the American public, but also Apple."

Um, I am a member of the "American public" and I don't find this to be in my interest in any way whatsoever.


Yeah, but Bromwich is, and what's good for Bromwich is good for America.

post #19 of 35
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
post #20 of 35
Dennis Cote, the DoJ and others who believe Apple is guilty are just plain wrong. It is simply a case of two separate business models, which aren't compatible.

In Amazon's case, Amazon has a model where they buy books at a wholesale rate and then run a risk with how much money they make from selling the book. So authors typically make a lot upfront, and very little to nothing on incremental sales of each additional copy. This is a model that works for Amazon, because Amazon is even ready to print books on demand, they can do this for physical as well as eBooks.

Apple however has a much cleaner much fairer structure, where Apple pays 70% of all proceeds to author/rights holder, and keeps 30% for itself. They do not buy books on wholesale basis, they do not engage in printing books on demand etc.

The issue here is that Apple told publishers that Apple could not sell their books on iTunes Bookstore, unless Apple is in a position to offer the same prices as Amazon. If there are two stores, and one store had prices much higher than others, it makes no sense, because no consumers would buy from higher priced store!

At that point, publishers had a choice - they either stuck with Amazon's model, and stay out of Apple totally. Or give Apple same price as Amazon, despite not getting the upfront payment from Apple, hoping that the 70% of proceeds makes up for difference. The risk was that the 70% would easily cover the difference for successful books, but might not even come close for lemons.

The problem was that giving Apple the low price as Amazon, without getting the upfront payment that Amazon was making was not making any sense whatsoever for dud books.

Amazon was ok with this approach because Amazon was making up for losses in one book by gains on another. In effect it was almost a socialist leveling of the field.

This is a genuine clash of two separate business models, one of which was not compatible with the other. And the publishers clearly liked the Apple model, because it restored the balance in their favor. They now got a lot more of the price per copy, but no upfront payment.

This is what DoJ and Dennis Cote failed to understand. This clash of business models obviously could not be managed. One business model had to go. Apple was a digital only player, and would never agree to pay upfront for books, irrespective of whether they sold or not.

The publishers any way were looking for ways to reduce Amazon's clout, so they picked Apple. But when DoJ came knocking, they realized the risk and capitulated instantly. Apple had not done anything wrong, so it didn't capitulate.

If there was collusion, it was between publishers - not between them and Apple.

It is not like as if Apple's lawyers did not try to explain this - but the judge was largely unmoved because she probably had made up her mind on Apple's guilt. She probably wanted to appoint her friend as monitor.
post #21 of 35
This is the interesting/relevant part of the opinion: "In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction."

I wonder what that mechanism is and why Apple hasn't used it.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

This is the interesting/relevant part of the opinion: "In addition, Apple has access to a dispute resolution mechanism which has and will be in place to ensure that the Monitor does not exceed the bounds of the Injunction."

I wonder what that mechanism is and why Apple hasn't used it.
The Mechanism is bribery. 1smile.gif.
post #23 of 35
64-page document. My first reaction was that a lie takes considerable time to explain, the truth is usually much more succinct.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #24 of 35
Did Microsoft ever have a monitor they paid an exorbitant amount to during their Internet Explorer debacle? I doubt it.
post #25 of 35
... 'Judge Cote, everything you say can and will be used against you.'
post #26 of 35
Has anyone looked to see if they can buy Judge Cote through Amazon?
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post
 

Um, I am a member of the "American public" and I don't find this to be in my interest in any way whatsoever.

 

I am right there with you on this one. It is disgusting that our government acted in a way that strengthened a monopoly by Amazon.

 

The Salon recently did a very good article on this at http://www.salon.com/2014/01/12/amazons_bogus_anti_apple_crusade/

 

The most interesting thing in the article was the data presented by the "Library & Book Trade Almanac".

 

Quote:
It[sic] 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.

 

So, despite all of the anecdotal accounts of book prices increasing, which I don't doubt that some book prices did increase, the average price of e-books dropped when Apple opened the iBookStore. This is also in stark contrast to the, apparently, cherry picked data presented by the DOJ.

 

This isn't just against the best interest of the American people, but a travesty of justice. If the DOJ and courts were really interested in helping the American people they would have been looking at Amazon's predatory practices and monopoly of the e-book market.

post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

What i wonder is how is this:
So many people hate Apple. These people typically love Google. Google has tonnes of money and their hands in many pies. How are they not continually in trouble with the u.s. government?

Google did want to scan every book and make it free, but the US government is such a buzzkill. Something about copyrights and IP and such. Personally, I can't wait to read Pride and Prejudice with ads for dating sites in the margin.

"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 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Google did want to scan every book and make it free, but the US government is such a buzzkill. Something about copyrights and IP and such. Personally, I can't wait to read Pride and Prejudice with ads for dating sites in the margin.

No, the scanning project was not about Google making every book free. 1rolleyes.gif There's probably a reason others repeating the same story never attach any citations to it. If you're really interested "Google limits how much book text you can view online ... it doesn’t display ads on pages describing books it does not have rights to"
http://www.wired.com/business/2013/11/google-2/
http://www.ala.org/news/node/9704
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/18/google-books-lawsuit-dismissed-all-society-benefits-says-judge-chin/
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/17/14 at 8:07am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 35

The events that have transpired (and continue to transpire) over the course of this "e-book scandal" are just mind boggling. I've followed the whole thing fairly closely and the thing that continues to be painfully obvious is that the judge and the handling of the case by the Feds has been anything but fair and impartial. Unbelievable. :no:

post #31 of 35
This judge is a puppet for the DOJ and her buddy is her slave who doesn't even know what he's doing. I don't know how she can be a judge when she does not adhere to what a judge is supposed to be which is impartial or neutral. She convicted Apple way before the trial began and tosses anything Apple puts in front of her including live witnesses with her dribble. Apple easily proved Amazon got in the book business exactly the way Apple was doing. And when Apple entered the book market book prices fell to as low as $4.35 for a book. The only monopoly is this judge, the DOJ and Amazon who must have paid a pretty penny for this charade to keep its monopoly itself which is also interesting. Accusing Apple of a monopoly when Amazon is actually the monopoly holder in this case. Go figure.
Can't wait for the Appeals court for which I hope they actually have an impartial judge that will look at both sides not just Amazon's and the DOJ.
post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Idiot View Post
 

I got to say, the frothing at the mouth fanboism on this site never gets old...

Even more funny, if one realizes that most of the fan"bois" here are middle aged men...

LOL

Keep it going Apple-tards!

Who needs The Onion when one has Apple Insider?


Apple may be guilty of raising eBook prices.  But installing such a monitor is witch hunt.  You know witch hunt is wrong with modern day standards. 

post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Idiot View Post
 

<whine><wanting mommy>

 

Someone forget to change your diapers?

post #34 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Idiot View Post

I got to say, the frothing at the mouth fanboism on this site never gets old...

You haven't seen fanboism until you've seen someone go to the trouble of actually completing the process of registering an account on a forum with a name that's a pretty silly attempt to ridicule somebody who's obviously on their mind quite a lot.

Now THAT'S fanboism!

1wink.gif
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #35 of 35
Where is Microsoft's monitor?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge explains denial of request to remove e-book antitrust monitor in lengthy court filing